Reasonable priced 500 mm lens

[Miha]

Hi, everyone.

 

I'm considering to buy a longer lens than my 200 mm + 1.4x TC. Since

the quality of 2x TC is questionable I'm thinking of a 500 mm lens. A

500 f4 or 500 f4.5 are too expensive and a cheap 500 f/8 mirror lens

is not good enough. Is there any 500 f/5.6 to buy as a compromise

between price and quality? I know about Sigma's 170-500 mm and 50-500

mm but they don't seem to be recommended by photo.net users. I'm a

Nikon AF user.

 

Any suggestions ?

 

Thanks, Miha.

[stemked]

Hi Miha.

 

Yup. I know I heard 'Nikon'(I'm not deaf) but the deal of the century is to pick up a Super cheap, but fantastic Takumar 500mm f4.5, and a cheap screw mount or K-mount body for under $100. I'd opt for the K-mount body myself and then a $20 adaptor for the lens; you can then get aperture priority. The lens and the adaptor for under $450 with a tack shop optic. I've been shooting with this combo for about a year know and it really has opened up a whole new world of photography for me. If you have another $250 pick up the 1.4X-L teleconvertor (K mount) and you have a super telephoto lens (although a tad slow)that will work well with ASA 400 speed film. It *may* be possible to get a 42 universal(screw mount)for this lens to Nikon manual adaptor-I think they exist, but again I can't say if that would work with your system.

 

Plan B might be to pick up a Tamron 400 f4 and then a TC for it. Not being a Nikon user, I can't say if that will work either, but I don't see why not. Expect it to cost in the $1000+ range. A Tamron 300 f2.8 +2X TC probably is in that range too. Sorry, there are no free lunches.

[ShunCheung]

Hi Miha, exactly what is your budget constraint?

[mike_smith2]

Tokina 400 F5.6 ATX pro - see Moose Petersons website for a review of it tested on Nikon equipment - www.moose395.net/ Much better than the Sigma zooms you are thinking about - quite cheap and well built so a secondhand version should be OK.

 

The Pentax is an excellent low cost option as an introduction to "big lens" photography, but has some drawbacks, mainly that it is manual focus with minimum focus distance of 30 feet so you need a set of extension tubes as well for any kind of small bird photography , the 1.4x-L teleconverter works well, but the 2x-L extender gives obvious colour fringing (at least it did on my K mount version!). The lens works well with the Pentax Z1 or Z1P which are now relatively cheap secondhand for a professional grade camera. I used this combination for several years before moving on to Canon - as a system the Pentax autofucus system of driven peg lets it down compared to Nikon and Canon Silent Motor systems, and of course no Image Stabilisation as of yet

[kobbi]

Ive seen brilliant pictures taken with the Sigma 50-500.<br>

I have however never used one. A member of my photo club<br>

here in Iceland has one and has never complained about it.<br>

<br>

Cheers,<br>

&nbsp&nbsp Jakob S.<br>

[greg s]

If it was me and I didn't have the money for a prime, I'd take a serious look at the Sigma 50-500mm. Haven't owned one either, but have seen some nice photos taken with it. For budget long lens photography, it's not bad.

[ShunCheung]

The Sigma 50-500 zoom is an f4-f6.3. Just the fact that it is a slow f6.3 lens at 500mm will be a pretty serious problem, as AF won't work very well and your viewfinder image will be dark and somewhat difficult to focus manually, especially if you are not shooting under bright sunlight conditions. On top of that, I have serious doubts about a 10x zoom to 500mm. To judge the quality of such as lens, we need to see some slides or perhaps large prints. You cannot determine the quality of a lens from small JPEGs that are typically available over the web.

 

Again, you need to specify what type of budget we are talking about here. If $2000+ is possible, a used Nikkor 500mm/f4 P is a possibility. If we are talking about within $1000, a 3rd-party 400mm/f5.6, maybe used, is probably the best option.

[joseph_smith3]

I recommend a used 500mm f 4.0 P lens made by Nikon if you have $2200 and are willing to use a MF lens. Also consider a used 300mm f 4.0 AF Nikon lens (not the latest version). Use it AF w/o your TC, or use it with a Nikon TC, 1.4x or 2.0 x. I use my 2.0 x TC all the time with my tele lenses and do not notice any degradation in the quality of images taken with the 2.0x. If you are willing to go MF consider a used Nikon 400mm f 5.6 lens. Joe Smith

[greg s]

Actually, while we're on the subject, the first 500mm lens I owned was a 170-500mm and had a lot of fun with it. I put some ISO 400 film in it and was very pleasantly surprised at the results after my first roll taken at the zoo. Jumped from that to a 600mm prime about a year or so later, and recouped all my $$$ on the zoom.

 

There are lots of ways to go, and some reasonable equipment is available at relatively low cost. As mentioned, a 300mm prime and the 1.4 TC is an option as well. Good luck!

[douglas_greenberg]

I think that Miha has to define what is meant by "reasonable priced." A Nikon 500mm. f4P is a wonderful tele that can be purchased used for under $2000 if you have some patience; but that's still $2000. The Sigma 50-500mm. seems like a good lens for the money, but it's large and as someone else mentioned, fairly slow. The most bang for the buck would likely be a used 400mm. f5.6, perhaps the Tokina, then a Kenko Teleplus Pro 1.4x teleconverter. But the truth is that wide open the sharpness is going to be disappointing, and "wide open" with this combo is f8.

 

The other alternative is a mirror lens, at least as a temporary measure until something better can be obtained. I have a bunch of teles, including Nikon 400 f3.5 and 500 f4P, but I still use my 500mm. and 600mm. mirror lenses regularly when I want to carry something small and light into the field, and there is sufficient direct lighting available. This morning out my attic window I used my old Tamron 500mm. mirror lens to snap the goldfinch photo below: I include it because I think it shows both the advantages and disadvantages of a mirror lens. The sharpness and color are pretty good (or were, until I reduced the file to virtual nothingness), but look at those out-of-focus highlights, ugh.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Douglas Greenberg and I have discussed this before. Clearly there are different opinions on this, but based on my experience with Nikon's 500mm/f8 mirror, I wouldn't even consider any mirror lens at all. If a 500mm/f6.3 zoom is slow, any mirror lens at f8 or a more realistic f11 will be very difficult to use. You'll have all sorts of focusing and vibration problems when the light is dim.

[douglas_greenberg]

Backatcha, Shun. The problem with the 50-500mm. is not just that it's huge, heavy, and really not that inexpensive, but I guarantee that wide open at f6.3 the sharpness will be inferior to that of a good quality mirror lens. Only when you stop down to (I'm guessing here) f9 or even f11 will sharpness really become satisfactory. Mirror lenses also have a major advantage in terms of portability. I agree (and have in the past) that if slow ISO speeds must used and/or ambient lighting is poor, mirror lenses are frustrating. But with a digital slr, the ISO can be ramped up to 640, 800, even 1000 without objectionable image noise, hence satisfactory results can be obtained (my goldfinch was taken at ISO 500).

 

The solution here for Miha is to save up and buy that dream 500mm. f4 lens. But even used and beat up a bit, that lens is going to cost a LOT of money compared with a mirror lens.

[alex_lofquist]

If you can get the wonderful Nikkor EDIF 500mm f/4P for about $2K in good condition, that is a great price. (I payed over $3K for mine, used-mint.) A lower cost and lighter weight alternative could be the AF Nikkor 300 f/4 EDIF with a good 1.4X TC, though that doesn't meet your 500mm requirement. Best of luck with your search.

[Miha]

Thanks, guys,

 

I allready own a cheap (probably russian Maksutov Type) mirror lens 500 f/8 and I get acceptable results only when I set the 1+ correction on the camera so probably it is about f/10 (my guess, not really measured). Since this lens and also other mirror lenses don't have a diaphragm (you can't set the aperture) it is no option for me. But I got it cheap, really cheap (a lot less than a teleconverter so I just give it a try).

 

According to your advices I will probably try to get an used 400 f/5,6 or something similar, since new lenses in this range are not produced any more by any major company (or may be I'm wrong ?).

 

My limit is about 1000 US$ so the magnificent 500 f/4 or f/4,5 are out of reach. I shoot a lot of landscapes (i'm mainly interested in panoramic photography, but i seek for new horisonts) so the world of tele-lenses is a new world for me. I don't need the lens urgently so I have enough time to think it over (and maybe save some more money).

 

Your advices (in whatever direction they are pointing) are very valuable to me so I hope with this answer you can give some more advices. They give me a lot of stuff for thinking.

 

Thanks, Miha.

[jbq]

I'd look for a 400/5.6. I have one on my EOS system, and it's great, and takes "small" 77mm filters (some even take the less-usual 72mm size).

[doug herr]

A used Leica 400mm f/6.8 in Visoflex mount can be adapted to nearly any other camera and will give you outstanding image quality and very quick manual focus. Depending on the quality of your camera's viewfinder, the focus might be quick enough that you won't see a need for AF. Many examples on <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/400.html" target="_blank">my website</A>.

<P>

With adapter you'll probably spend less than US$800. f/6.8 seems slow but since it's a very simple optical design the light transmission is very high so it's more like most f/5.6 lenses.

[ShunCheung]

Miha, if the longest lens you currently have is the 200mm (other than the 500mm mirror), you might want to go with the option of a 300mm plus a 1.4x TC. That will give you more flexability than getting a 400mm/f5.6 alone, especially if you can use the same 1.4x TC for all your long teles.

[Two23]

It would help if we knew WHAT you want to photo. If using it to photo distant landscape details you could get away with a 300mm + 1.4x. If using it to photo small birds you would need something more like a 400mm + 1.4x. You might also go the other route and consider the crop factor of something like a Rebel Digital or Nikon D70 body.

 

 

Kent in SD

[jim_mueller2]

I like to photograph all kinds of birds with my Canon 300D, small, big, whatever. Recently I bought a Canon 300/4 IS and an EF 1.4X TC II. I already had an EF 2X TC II so I use this lens with both teleconverters. The results are very satisfying. Since the 300D has a cropping factor of 1.6X the FOV with the 300/4 IS is the same as a 480mm, with he the 1.4X it's a 672mm/f:5.6 and with the 2X it's a 960mm/f:8! With the 1.4X the AF still works fine but with the 2X the AF shuts down completely.

 

 

The results with this combination have been surprisingly pleasing. But I have found that Image Stabilization is essential unless you want to lug a tripod around with you (which I don't)!! Below is an example of the 300/4 IS with 2X TC II at F/8, 1/1000 hand held with IS turned on.<div></div>

[jason_elsworth3]

The 500 F4 P is a great lens and combined with a Tamron SPAF or Kenko Pro teleconverter gives excellent results (some slight corner darkness at times) and maintains matrix metering on nikon bodies. All the photos on my site were taken using this combo. I would also agreee that digital bodies are really opening up the options for bird photography with a 300 or 400mm lens. If I didn't sell my work then I would be very tempted by this route. Finally a used Canon 500 F4.5 offers great autofocus performance at "good value" and this is most likley what I will switch to next.

 

Jason

www.jasonelsworth.co.nz

[david_chananie]

Bob Atkins in his nature primer suggests that a Sigma 400 f5.6 apo merits consideration as a useful lens. I bought a Carl Zeiss Jena 500mm lens on auction for $500 but I've only seen such a listing once. I can use it on a Nikon with an adapter.

[jeremy_inglis]

Don`t overlook the Sigma 500mm f/4.5. A secondhand example, particularly of the non-HSM model, should be fairly cheap, and more than sharp enough for most applications. Hell, I have even had photos published taken with a Sigma 500 f/7.2 - not made any more, but worth checking out if your budget is very tight.

[nikon4u]

Go with the 50-500 Sigma if you like it. Do not be afraid of it. You can have the best glass made and still not get the results you want. It's the person behind the camera that makes the photo. The gear is only a tool. Here are some shots taken with the Sigma 50-500.