Brian1664876441 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I have posted two folders with pictures from "inexpensive" (under $200) Long Telephoto lenses that I have used for nature photography. The Meade 1000mm F11 "97C" http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368581 And the original Reflex-Nikkor 500mm F8, circa 1970. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=368583 The images are scanned from negatives, and most are 1024 width. I also posted some center blow-ups scanned at 3200DPI. Good or bad, I wanted to answer the prior post concerning these type of lenses. You can certainly spend a lot more money and get sharper lenses, but if you are on a budget these are good, usable lenses. You will need a heavy tripod (or even two) and a camera that has low vibration, or even a mirror lock-up. If your camera has a mechanical self-timer that flips the mirror-up before taking the picture, you might give it a try. You will also need to make sure that the focus is right-on; that the camera mirror is not slightly "out-of-whack". I found the FE2 to be the best of my Nikon bodies on the Meade. I also used an 81a filter with the Meade which helped, especially cutting through the haze at the wetlands. Remember, that you have a 20x magnification but all that air has haze in it... especially in wetlands. Anyone Else have good or bad experience with Telephoto lenses that do not require a second mortgage?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 Another from the Nikkor 500mm F8<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 Meade 1000mm F11, Model 97c<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Brian,<p>These are beautiful pictures that powerfully illustrate your point that one doesn't have to spend huge quantities of money in order to take nature photographs. I do remember your last post, and how many people thought you were crazy to suggest such a thing.<p>I am impressed as to how you've managed to avoid the bright highlights that scream "reflex lens used" with the 500mm reflex Nikkor. The Nikkor also seems a bit sharper to me than the Meade.<p>This past summer, the most fun I had was at the racetrack with a Vivtar 200mm f/3.5 lens that was sold to me by Bob Thommes for $25. It was a very decent lens at any price. So decent in fact, that Bob later asked if he could have it back, and I did return it to him. So yes, there are some real values out there away from NAS (well, the reflex lens is a Nikkor too) in the third party lenses.<p>But, in fairness to the other posters, they do have a point. If you're going to do this sort of photography a lot, why not invest in getting the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armando_roldan Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Believe it or not, some of my better photos of animals ( at a zoo or park) was with a $30 Spiratone 400mm f6.3 preset MF lens. I used it on my Pentax Spotmatic and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between that and images taken with a much newer Sigma 400mm AF F5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I have had some luck with a $100 CDN non AI Soligor 400mm f6.3 (if my memory serves on the f stop). And since this is not my normal kind of telephoto range, I havent considered spending an arm and a leg on a more current piece of glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris haake Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 You people are idiots! Morons! Those pictures are crap! Are you crazy? Oh, wait, was that rude? I just thought I was being honest. **** Okay, no more Mr. Hyde. Actually, those pictures are quite beautiful -- Bravo to you, Brian! You know, it's nice to see such examples. I don't do bird photography, but if I ever wanted to snap off some frames over a weekend now and then, one of these lenses might be just the trick. Sure, if I were to get into this seriously, I'd purchase something better built and with better optics. But who can argue with these examples? Keep them coming!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Inspecting Brian's images shot with the 1000mm/f11 mirror lens in <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368581">the first portfolio</A> mentioned above, I see pretty serious light fall off. The center is at least 1 stop or perhaps 2 brighter than the edges. It is particularly obvious in the 1st cardinal image and the 6th image with a duck in a pond. <P> I have mentioned a few times that I had the 500mm/f8 mirror Nikkor for several years and found it to be very frustrating to use, but I wasn't aware of any light fall off problems with that lens. Again, since these are very slow lenses, it is difficult to focus with such a dark image in the viewfinder. IMO, focusing is clearly a problem in Brian's images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 17, 2004 Author Share Posted January 17, 2004 > But, in fairness to the other posters, they do have a point. If you're going to do this sort of photography a lot, why not invest in getting the best? Response: I would not advise a professional photographer to buy and use these lenses. I would advise the amateur on a budget that enjoys nature and wants to build up an album for the enjoyment of family and friends that these lenses offer value and are much better than using a 50mm lens that I often found myself shooting alongside. I also used to shoot alongside a number of National Geographic photographers that used to modify pick-up trucks with lens-racks loaded with ED. None of them ever "snubbed" these lenses. I will be getting back to some nature photography with the recovery of my 5-year old daughter over the next year. When I do, I will be using a Nikkor 500mm F4 AF-S with TC-20 and TC-14 convertors. But those cost me less than the Meade... And I do expect the results to be sharper and the lens easier to focus. But I am glad that I did not miss the pictures that I have while waiting to fall into that one! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_greenberg Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Ah, the debate continues. I have argued previously and will argue again that you can indeed get some excellent results with cheap lenses, although you have to recognize their limitations. I have gotten some very nice shots with my Sigma 600mm. mirror lens and also with a Tokina 400mm. f5.6 tele. This is especially the case since I moved to digital, as with the D100 you can go to higher ISO without losing too much quality to "noise." You also have to realize that in dim light and on cloudy days you will not be able to match what a 500 f4 can do. I don't think anyone will argue that there is no advantage to a top-notch, expensive lens, but the point is that there are people who simply can't afford these or who have other monetary priorities, and these people CAN potentially get excellent photos from supposedly "crap" lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_greenberg Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Ok, here is an example of what I think is a pretty good photo taken with a "bad" lens. This is a Long-billed curlew that I shot hand-held at Goleta Beach Park in California last November. This was taken with a D100 equipped with a Sigma 600mm. mirror lens. The ISO was ramped up to 1000, but I think that at this level of resolution the noise is acceptable. To tell the truth, the lens cost more than $200 new, but I'm guessing that one could get one used for that price, no problem.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_greenberg Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Sorry, I can't help it: here's one more. This is a closeup photo of two young California condors that I encountered "up close and personal" at Grand Canyon National Park last August. The lens used was a Tokina 400mm. f5.6 AT-X SD AF (etc.) This is another lens that one could easily buy used on ebay for under $200 today.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_fromm1 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Um, in 1978 I bought a Celetron C-90 1000/11 (I think it was f/11, its been a long time) mirror lens for about $200. It was, even after making allowances for the difficulty of using such a long lens, totally unusable. About a year after I got it, I saw another in a shop and realized that mine had been shipped without the full complement of extension tubes. So I griped to Celestron and they replaced it. The replacement was also unusable. In 1986 I lucked into a Questar 700/8 at a camera flea market for $325. Incomparably better. Still hard to use, but usable. Cheers, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 In the few years I had my 500mm/f8, I got some decent shots with it too. But the point is these slow lenses have a lot of problems with vibration and are difficult to focus, especially when the light is dim. IMO you are much better off with a 400mm/f5.6, which can be fairly inexpensive too; you lose 100mm but effectively gain two stops since those mirror lenses are more like a 500mm/f11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Just a reminder that with the bird shots (like the cardinal), close focusing distance is as important as focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 17, 2004 Author Share Posted January 17, 2004 This shot is selected to give you an idea of the "Hot-Spots" of the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm F8. This shot required slight corrections in the focus as the plane made its pass. I will add a folder on the Bealeton Airshow, same format as before.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_fromm1 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Shun advised: "But the point is these slow lenses have a lot of problems with vibration and are difficult to focus, especially when the light is dim. IMO you are much better off with a 400mm/f5.6, which can be fairly inexpensive too; you lose 100mm but effectively gain two stops since those mirror lenses are more like a 500mm/f11." Um, Shun, in addition to the Q700, which really is around T/11, I have a 500/5.6 Century TeleAthenar II. It was in poor condition when I got it -- military surplus, apparently used in an aircraft, and the vibration had done it no good -- so I sent it to Century for an overhaul. They returned it in as new condition. It isn't easier to use than the Questar and it is palpably worse. I use both with a T-mount Vivitar teleconverter (matched multiplier for their 450 mirror lens), and even at 1000 mm f/11 and 1400 mm t/22 respectively they're not that hard to focus. Steadiness problems are, of course, twice as bad. The 500/5.6's speed doesn't help much for focusing. In my experience, including using a variety of lenses from a 38/4.5 Biogon, a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII, and a 12"/4 Taylor Hobson Telephoto on 2x3 Graphics, as well as the 500/5.6, Q700, and 210 GRII on my Nikons, long slow lenses are easy to focus. The GRII focuses as easily at f/9 as the TTH at f/4. Short lenses, even fast ones, are much harder. Long lenses are inherently hard to use because of the difficulty of target acquisition -- same problem in photomacrography, try working at 30:1, it isn't easy -- and because of the extent to which they punish unsteadiness. But these consequences of focal length, not of lens type; refractor, reflector, it doesn't matter, long = hard to use. Cheers, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 18, 2004 Author Share Posted January 18, 2004 I find that the 500mm Reflex-Nikkor can be used Hand-Held, and I typically use it that way especially at airshows. This shot is from the same sequence as the above BiPlane shot, at about the same distance.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now