Opteka lens on Canon body

[victor_ng2]

<p>Hello,<br>

<br /> I need your opinion about the Opteka 650-1300mm lens. Have you ever used and/or heard anything about it, I mean about this brand and the quality of the picture that you get from using this lens in comparing with Canon’s lenses? From comments that I read on amazon, looks like this lens is quite decent:<br>

<br /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B000IMRTFO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353968970&sr=8-2&keywords=optica+lens">http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B000IMRTFO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353968970&sr=8-2&keywords=optica+lens</a><br>

<br /> The reason I ask you about this is because I want to take a picture of the whooping crane and they usually stay at least about 3/4 to 1 mile away from you. I have a 400mm prime lens and this is nothing! The whopping crane is just a small object on the picture, even with extender attached, it’s just ok. And if the bird is at 1 mile or farther, I will not be able to see/find the bird with the 400mm lens.<br>

<br /> Of course there’re longer Canon’s lenses out there but the price is way above the roof, and even if I were able to afford the longest Canon lens (800mm, I believe), still, I believe it won’t be enough to reach to this bird.<br /> So, I have 3 questions to ask for your advice if you’ve used or known about this Opteka 650-1300mm lens:<br>

<br /> a) What’s the quality of the picture that you get from this lens in comparing with Canon’s lenses?<br>

b) In technology, most of the time, you get for what you pay, I agree. This lens costs $245 vs. thousands on Canon’s lenses. It’s even cheaper than a Canon’s lens extender. However, after reading comments on amazon & seeing some sample pictures, what do you think? And is it correct that I have to buy its T-mount adaptor in order to attach this lens to Canon’s body camera?<br>

c) What is the alternate solution that you’d do for taking a picture at that far distance and you only have a 400mm lens?<br /> Thanks a lot for your time and advices. Happy holidays!</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>Where do you want to photograph whooping cranes? Texas? In recent years a family of whooping cranes has sometimes been present near Goose Island State Park. [Fulton, Texas.] A 400mm lens has been more than sufficient.</p>

[newmanuk]

Hi Victor That lens has an aperture of F8 >f16 only. Compare to the big canons apertures Hope that helps Miken

[dave_redmann]

<p>I've been pondering similar issues, mostly for my parents, who are bird watches. My dad has taken some bird shots with his Rebel XT and Canon EF-S 55-250mm (and also a 500mm f/8 mirror lens), but has found good results hard to get. I'm trying to work up something short of the $14,000 Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM, which is what they really need (!).</p>

<p>Can't comment directly on the Opteka lens, but I have a 500mm lens that has I suspect a very similar design. Basically, with lens design, there's an element (pun intended?) of good-compact-cheap, pick any two. <em>Most</em> of the mirror lenses currently on sale are compact and cheap, but mediocre to poor optically. At the other end of the size spectrum, I have a cheap eBay find 500mm f/8 that appears to be the same basic design that's sold under the Bower, Rokinon, Vivitar, Phoenix, and probably other brands. It is large. If it's at all a telephoto design--i.e., effective focal length longer than physical focal length--then it's just barely one; it's well over a foot long. It's manual focus. Unlike the mirror lenses, it does have an iris that you can stop down from f/8 to f/32. Unlike a mirror (reflective) lens, this is a purely refractive (conventional) lens, using I think four or maybe five elements. It is a T-mount lens and will work on a huge range of cameras with an appropriate adapter. Of course, one downside is there's no auto-iris: you either try to focus already stopped down, which makes it harder to focus accurately, which is an issue given the thin depth of field; or you focus wide open, which means that you then have to manually stop down before taking your shot (unless you're shooting wide open--which is only f/8). The minimum focus distance is around 25 ft, so don't expect it to fill the frame with a hummingbird.</p>

<p>But you know what? It's capable of relatively decent image quality, at least on my Sony A580, where I have camera-body image stabilization for all lenses and can dial up the sensitivity to ISO 6400 without things looking too terrible. (Also, in some situation I can use a highly-magnified live view image to focus very accurately.)</p>

<p>Is it suitable for bids? Yes and no. If the birds are fairly static, like in a nest or on a feeder, then you could focus, stop down, and get a shot. But it isn't easy. Unless you have magnified live view focusing, I suspect you'd mis-focus on a lot of shots. Lens shake can be a major issue; either you sit yourself on a very steady perch (doh!) and cradle it camera and lens carefully, or you mount it on a sturdy tripod and deal with even slower operation. And you're contending with a huge lens.</p>

<p>The Opteka 650-1300mm you're looking at is probably pretty similar, overall. Oh, and just to make sure you understand, it's probably a 650mm plus a 2x teleconverter, not a zoom lens.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Some of the cheap long lenses, mirror or refractor, can be surprisingly good. For example, the old 400mm Spiratone refractors and reflector are actually useable. On the other hand, most of the cheap mirror lenses in the market today (i.e., you can buy them new), are really "soft" (see my discussion at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00RaKy ).<br /> In the end, if you want a quality and usable catadioptric (mirror) lens, you will do far better to buy a used Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 - these sell for $200-300 on eBay, or a Sigma 600mm f/8 in a Nikon mount (about the same price) + adapter +decent quality 2X Nikon mount telextender than to buy most of these Korean-made lenses on the market today. I think that they all come from the same factory regardless of the importer's brand.</p>

<p>But even the best of these mirror lenses are manual focus lenses with only one f/stop (usually exaggerated by the maker) and can be very difficult to focus accurately (razor-thin DOF) and quickly.</p>

<p>Much the same can be said for the refractor lenses. Unfortunately, the "two out of three" rule most definitely applies in this case.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>I don't own nor have I ever used one of the lenses you are interested in but I believe they are available with different brand names so I believe they have one generic lens maker producing them. Not necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, if you need a t-mount then you have to be prepared for manual aperture or pre-set aperture operation.</p>

<p>Anyway, if you are going higher than 600mm why don't you ignore lenses altogether and get a telescope? Alternatively, you could attach a binocular to your lens. Spotting scopes are good and have a t-mount and there are the Questar or Meade mirror scopes.</p>

<p>If you ever decide to switch to photographing Sandhill cranes instead, come to Florida. They walk around on the UPS grounds often. At FedEx you sometimes have to ask the crane to move over so you can get in the door.</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>If the 400mm lens you currently use is the Canon 400 5.6 'L' then I suggest your money would be better spent on the Canon 1.4x converter - I have used this combination. I have tried one of the inexpensive [uS $ 100] mirror lenses sold under a variety of names - my advice is to forget about it. I have one of the all glass 500mm pre-set telephotos - not bad if you don't mind the near distance of about 30'. I have used the Nikon mirror. Given that all of the affordable alternatives are manual focus, I'd say go with the Canon converter if you have the canon L series lens.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>One mile distant? That is a v-e-r-y long distance to shoot. Even if you can hold that combo stable enough there are often atmospheric effects to consider. A very well made and very stable tripod is necessary also. Even with a cheap 500mm f8 refractor on my Olympus E-410 mounted to an ancient Gitzo I have to hang two cloth bags with 15 pounds of weight in each over the center of the lens to hold the combo steady. It is an unwieldy set up to say the least.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>At a distance of 3/4 to 1 mile you are going to have problems with the atmospheric conditions. You will also need a very steady tripod.</p>

<p>Even those that can afford the Canon 800mm f/5.6 L try to get as close as possible.</p>

<p>Since you already have a 400mm lens I would work on getting closer. Learn more about the birds in question. Learn more about their habitats in your area. Where and when do they feed? How do other birders approach them?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The difference between 400 and 1300 is hardly worth bothering about ... the numbers suggest otherwise until you compare angles of view which are more revealing. For computer use I have 2300 reach with my bridge camera and telephoto adaptor and currently there are cameras with lenses doing similar without an adaptor/converter for less than you will probably pay for the Opteka ... so if you have budgetry concerns you will forget about trying to do it with the DSLR and go for a bridge camera ... we have had it for years now ... which is why I retain my bridge camera though changing to M4/3.<br>

You could be better getting a hide and patience? :-) One tip from way back .... birds cannot count ... so have two of you go to the hide and then your partner leaves you alone in the hide.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>FYI, out of curiosity I looked at the Opteka lens. Apparently it <em>is</em> a zoom lens. But (unlike my 500mm) it does not have an iris, so you can't stop it down and must always shoot wide open; the f/8-f/16 evidently means always f/8 at 650mm, always f/16 at 1300mm, and presumably, e.g., always f/12 at 1000mm. That limits your ability to improve focus accuracy by focusing wide open and then stopping down, which also limits your depth of field.</p>

<p>Oh, and if the birds are <em>really</em> anything like 3/4 of mile to a mile away--forget it! Over and above atmospheric haze, camera movement, etc., at 3/4 of a mile, a 1300mm lens on a Canon cropped-sensor (1.61x) DSLR would give you a field of view of ... wait, get this ... about 45 feet by 68 feet. So unless you're photographing elephants, the animal(s) would be tiny.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>As Dave points out, the Opteka is likely not a true zoom lens -- it seems to to have just settings for two focal lengths. Regardless, here is the result with a Sigma 600mm f/8 lens with a vintage Vivitar 2X extender on a 1.6X APS-C Canon digital camera => so-called "equivalent" of 1920mm f/16 lens.*</p>

<p>The inset was taken with a Argus C3 camera with a 50mm lens from the same location. I had to buy a new and very heavy tripod to try this out. The distance in this case is about a quarter-mile or so.</p>

<p>"Stalking" is a good skill to acquire if you want animal photographs. My "polyspheroid" water tower wasn't too mobile.</p>

<p>_______<br>

* many of you have seen this. Sorry about that.</p><div></div>