Karim Ghantous Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 Cheap lenses have their limitations but a lot of the time they're worth it. And, hey, who could ever tire of looking at the moon? (1:04) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 I have a 400mm "Tele-Astronar" that I got for next to nothing. There's about 1/2 dozen variations of the same lens sold under different names. F/6.3 so not exactly speedy but good enough for some fun. I can't say I use it a lot, but I would never get rid of it, - and it's pretty well thought out for what it is. The tripod mount is a nice touch and it's got a handy way to focus with the aperture wide open and then flick it back to where you want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 A couple of pictures my daughter took with the 400: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_gallimore1 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 Tom, I think I have the same lens, but mine is a 'Prinz-Galaxy'. Around 400mm long with a built in tripod mount, preset aperture and a T2 mount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 Tom, I think I have the same lens, but mine is a 'Prinz-Galaxy'. Around 400mm long with a built in tripod mount, preset aperture and a T2 mount? Sounds like the same thing. Tripod mount clamps on so you can rotate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_gallimore1 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 Sounds like the same thing. Tripod mount clamps on so you can rotate it? Think so, it's in not here, so I can't check, but I'll dig it out next time I get the chance, along with my Tair 300mm. On m4/3, both of those are going to be silly long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 In my long fascination with 400mm and up lenses, I have found that some of the cheap ones (like the old refractor Spiratone 500mm, preset) were much better that one would think. I guess with only a few components they were not so complex to design. Long catadioptric (mirror) lenses were also good, but many of the cheapest still available new under 're-purposed' names from long ago, are not worth anything to speak of. For the same money there are myriad mirror lenses of quality available on eBay and elsewhere. I'd especially mention the Nikkor and Sigma mirror lenses for a start. They're easier to find than some others, and very good if you don't mind doughnut OOF highlights.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 I have a Vivitar 500mm catadioptric (T2 mount) which I bought for a low price a few years ago. I then bought a cheap Nikon T2 mount. There is no aperture to couple, so nothing lost there. I have done some moon pictures, maybe also with a 2x extender, also bought used. Together, that all qualifies as a cheap lens. I might have even tried both 2x and 1.4x together! -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 I... if you don't mind doughnut OOF highlights.;) Like these? The effect is uh... odd, with the pine tree in the background. Fuzzy donuts? : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Hey that's almost 'normal' - good for a catadioptric! Here's "brokeh" (as it was once felicitously called here) in its full glory - Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I guess "cheap" depends on your definition and the size of your wallet. But here's one I shot in 2011 with a Canon ES 5D2 and a Canon EF 70-200mm ($499 at B&H). Shot at 300mm, f/11 @ 1/20sec, ISO 000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Hey that's almost 'normal' - good for a catadioptric! Here's "brokeh" (as it was once felicitously called here) in its full glory - Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 [ATTACH=full]1305116[/ATTACH] Wow. Now that is something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchsteammachine Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Canon FD 400mm f4.5 w/ Fuji X-A1 100% crop Lots of CA and not sharp at f4.5 so mostly stay above f6.5. usually shoot the moon at f8 to get sharp photo without CA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjferron Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 This was with a Sony RX10iii. Bought it used so if the camera/lens was worth $750 then the lens might be worth half that. Not cheap cheap but not exotic either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted August 21, 2019 Author Share Posted August 21, 2019 Canon FD 400mm f4.5 w/ Fuji X-A1 100% crop Lots of CA and not sharp at f4.5 so mostly stay above f6.5. usually shoot the moon at f8 to get sharp photo without CA Proof that the Moon is not flat. :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjferron Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Proof that the Moon is not flat. :p Careful on that. I happen to belong to the flat moon society! :cool: 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