Opteka 650- 1300mm

Hi people, I am new on the photography thing, and I got a question. I would

like to get a new lens for my camera...It is a Canon EOS Rebel T2, and I saw

in internet a lens of a brand I never heard of, it is the Opteka 650- 1300mm

for canon cameras. I heard it is not a good lens, but I saw some pics taken

with that, and I don't see too much lack of quality. But I am an

amateur...maybe there is something I didn't see. Is there a way you an tell me

how the quality of this lens really is? Also I am about to buy a Canon EF 70-

300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but since the Opteka is extremly cheap, I would like to

have that one too; so I can have multiple choices of range... But if it has no

quality, it would be better to wait, and get a better one. Please help me on

this. If you can show me any sample pictures of the Opteka 650-1300mm, it

would be great.

 

Thanks!!!

Ask yourself why it is so cheap - you get what you pays for. Can you get a Rolls Royce for a Ford Mondeo price ? The images you have seen were probably taken in ideal, non-taxing conditions with considerable expert post-processing.

 

 

Go with quality, you will end up happier.

OK Bill, thank you for the advice, it really helped, so, what I am going to do is to buy the Canon EF 70- 300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, and later on I will save money to buy something stronger...

Thanks again!

Can't say much about that particular lens, but I have bought $100 500mm mirrors and refractors that were probably akin to these. While they are not high quality items, they do serve a purpose for anyone thinking about going into tele shooting -- basically, they can tell you whether its worth investing 50X as much in top gear for your interests, and they can inculcate correct telescopic techniques, i.e., use of a tripod, monopod, or other form of lens support.

 

If you can adapt to the use of lens supports and other techniques, if the length of the refractor/zoom doesn't drive you nuts, and if you use it enough to justify purchasing a real one, then you're a candidate for a legitimate tele.

 

The 500mm mirror I had, possibly made with the same equipment as the current Opteka brand, had severe chromatic aberration problems not unlike what you experience when your eyes are dilated.

 

The 500mm refractor, which I still use now and then, has low contrast but otherwise I think it produces a salvageable image for the price that can be touched up in post-processing (Oh gosh! I shoot digitally -- film is different, maybe not worth the bother, frankly.)

 

Also, these guys are purely manual -- manual focus and manual aperture setting (if any!). The latter is also small -- f/8 is as good as it gets. I can focus at f/8 (I practiced), but smaller apertures raise the non-focus rate considerably. So that's something else to practice -- get the 70-300, set it to manual mode, screw it onto a tripod, set your camera to Av mode and stop down to f/8, hold (or engage) the manual stop down button, and see it you can focus -- all of this "costs" a lot less on a digital camera because you can shoot for "free" once you've bought all the gear.

 

I also have the 70-300 IS and its a super lens for my purposes. I would think you should try the Kenko 300 Pro (?not sure about the name) 1.4X teleconverter for about what you would pay for the Opteka as the most cost-effective way to extend your range. Again, you'll probably need to support the lens with the converter, but just consider it practice. Later on you can consider the 2X converter, but I don't think its a practical expense -- too big a quality hit. Beside, by then you'll probably have enough money for a real super tele.

<p>There are some excellent $100 lenses available ( long refractor type, not mirror) provided you have the patience to manually compose and focus and use a good tripod. Of course those who can afford a Sigma 500 or a Cannon will deride "cheap" lenses and compare them to Ford Mondeos. Some of these ace photographers have never even used these cheaper lenses but still condemn them out of hand.</p>