Re: Rubinar... ?? Re: Best cheap telephoto?
arathi-sridhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/pentax_cameras_lenses.htm Wow, I knew about the Rubinars, and of course the Zenitars, but I had no idea that the Rubinar mirror lenses are available in K mount. Not that it makes a big difference, I suppose: You can't "stop down" a mirror lens, so you're not losing anything when you buy an M42 version and use a screwmount-to-K adapter. These are the best Rubinar prices I have ever seen. You can do a little better on the Zenitars on Ebay and other dealers. Rubinar mirror lenses do claim bragging rights in the brightness department. Be aware, however, that f/5.6 in a mirror lens may not yield as fast a shutter speed as f/5.6 in an all-optical design. Or so I have read. I don't know anything about the Rubinar 300/4.5, but I think you'd be happier if you could afford a used Sigma APO Macro 300/4. They sell used for about $300 on U.S. Ebay. I have a Ricoh XR Rikenon 300/4.5K that I like very much, but I've seen only three for sale in five years. It sells for about $250. The Rubinar 500/5.6 weighs either 1200 or 1600 grams; I've seen both figures. Here are my collected comments on the Rubinar 500/5.6, unedited: "The Rubinar 500mm/5.6 is huge with a diameter of 105mm or something like that all the way to the lens mount." " On Contax site: http://www.cdegroot.com/archives/yashicacontax-slr/199805/msg00030.html: "Hello Michael, If you wouldn't fix on Zeiss optics, there is a good *new* inexpensive 500/5.6 mirror lens. It's a M42 mount "MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro", a Russian lens, with an excellent optic quality. As an M42-Contax /Yashica mount adaptor will be easily available, you can use it mounted on your RTS without any inconveniences. I don't know the prices of it in other countries, we can buy it for 250-300 USD in Japan.very heavy (1.6kg), bulky and roughly made lens. But seems to produce photographs of acceptable quality. --Yoshihiko Takinami, Osaka, Japan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Dirty cheap for an apochromatic ;-) supertele. Mathias was very pleased with the quality of the 500mm/5.6, he rated his sample higher than an Sigma 400mm/5.6 APO. What is very interesting to me is mirror 500mm/5,6. They sell it with adaptall T2 for various camera brands. Thomas Jakubowski, October 22, 1999; 05:09 P.M. Eastern: "Peter, I have an optics background, so making my most recent selection of a lens was based on cold physics. I purchased a mirror lens (Schmidt_Cassegrain). 500 mm. $250. Here's what I didn't get: 1. chromatic and spherical aberration - reflective optics by definition do not carry the same baggage as refractive optics. 2. bulk and length: the lens weighs in at about 10 ounces, and is about 6 inches long. there's no need to counterbalance a camera with 20 inches of lens while sitting on a tripod. Believe me, this lens was easy to carry and to change. 3. Poor Photographs: By definition, these lenses have only a small depth of field. For example, the Promaster I purchased has only about = inch at 12 feet. This could be considered a (fatal) flaw, but I used it to my advantage. I do flower photography, and was able to come up with shots as never before. Flower is in focus, foreground and background completely out of focus, and now I have prize-winning photos that started out as mere photographic studies. 4. Poorly lit/exposed photos: This particular model has a diameter of 3.5 in for the primary mirror. That alone pulls in plenty of light. Caveats: This lens has a fixed focal length, which means that you cannot use a camera body that offers autofocus. It also means that you control your exposure by modifying exposure time. My experience has been with an Olympus OM-1 camera. Once I mastered the focusing of this camera/lens combination, I produced photos so impressive that my wife actually wants them hanging on the living room walls!" - Bob Atkins , October 22, 1999; 06:07 P.M. Eastern: "Here's also what you got. You got a slow lens. You got a manual focus lens. You got a lens with a fixed single aperture. You got a lens with greatly reduced MTF in the critical 10-70 lp/mm range due to the central obstruction inherent in the design. You got a lens that renders out of focus highlights as "donuts" and generally has poor "bokeh" (search the Q&A forum if you're not familar with that term). You probably got a lens with a curved field and off axis coma too. While mirror lenses don't suffer from chromatic aberrations, they do suffer from all the other aberrations common to refractive lenses to a greater or lesser extent. For $250, you don't have too much to lose, and if you are happy with the images, that's great, but mirror lenses aren't really an alternative for serious photographers needing high technical quality images, images of moving subjects (MF tracking can be tricky), or images on slow film (too slow in evening/morning light). They have their place (I actually own one myself), such as when hiking long distances when weight REALLY ma
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
John I wonder if you ever tried your 1000mm K with the 1.7AF? Sure, the AF doesn't, but how about the results? I could put together a package of 1000mm plus 1.7 for say £600/$1000. 1700mm Fnot very much at all anybody? Kind regards from sunny Brighton Peter CAMERA DIRECT 8 DORSET STREET BRIGHTON EAST SUSSEX BN2 1WA UK http://www.camera-direct.com TEL 44 1273 681129 FAX 44 1273 681135
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
John Mustarde wrote: > > There aren't any great lenses beyond 200mm unless one is willing to > pay the price. >\ The K, M, and A 400/5.6 are all excellent lenses. The big advantage of the A is closer focusing. However, I use the K with an A2X-S converter and get very nice results. Sharpness and contrast are quite good. Paul Stenquist
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
> I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are > turkeys? Pentax has a combo (PF-80ED spotting scope + PF-CA35 adapter) that makes a light 1000mm lens. The Pentax PF-80ED is seen as the reference spotting scope from what I've read. APO glass. With the PF-CA35 adapter (highly corrected, 6 elements in 4 groups), it makes a 1000mm f12.5 lens that weights 1850g with a min. focus dist of 5.8m. The 1000mm f/11 mirror weights 2300g and has a min. f. d. of 8m (and exhibits "donuts" highlights) ; the 1200mm f/8 ED weights 8500g and has the same min. f. d. (and costs an arm and a leg). The combo can be had new for 925 US $ around here (625 for the scope and 300 for the adapter), which is lower than in USA. I am tempted to replace my SMCT 1000mm with this. It is one and a third stop slower but also three times lighter and must have little chromatic aberrations. Andre --
RE: Best cheap telephoto?
You could do that with film - but I thought you didn't like cropping? "But if someone has to crop to 50% of the frame, they really need some serious remedial work on their shooting skills. Or to invest in a longer telephoto, one or the other!" MJ This wouldn't be a contradiction would it? > -Original Message- > From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 13 February 2003 03:00 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Best cheap telephoto? > > > > I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm > or longer. > > With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I > was hoping > > to at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses > pretty cheap. > > Will I find that all the truly long telephotos either cost > $5000, are > > mirror lenses, or are turkeys? > > > This is one of the huge advantages of digital IMHO. For > instance, a 300mm f/2.8 on a Canon D60 is the equivalent of a > 480mm f/2.8 on 35mm. You get the "teleconverter" factor > without the f-stop penalty. > > A 400mm lens becomes a 640mm. Even a lowly, inexpensive 200mm > becomes a 320mm. Not too shabby. > > --Mike > >
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Mike Johnston said: > > I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With > > some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least > > find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that > > all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are > > turkeys? > > > This is one of the huge advantages of digital IMHO. For instance, a 300mm > f/2.8 on a Canon D60 is the equivalent of a 480mm f/2.8 on 35mm. You get the > "teleconverter" factor without the f-stop penalty. > > A 400mm lens becomes a 640mm. Even a lowly, inexpensive 200mm becomes a > 320mm. Not too shabby. Actually, I've been doing that with cropping! A little fox starts to look grainy on 1600 film when enlarged to 8x10 equivalent, but it still looks nicer. I've even been wondering at what point I'd come out ahead if I use a shorter lens with wider aperture and slower film. For instance, 500mm f/8 800ASA versus 200mm f/4 200ASA, or 135mm f/2.8 100ASA?
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are turkeys? Gregory, By "small aperture," I assume you mean "large aperture number (f/5.6, f/8), since you're savvy enough to know that you won't find any f/4 or f/4.5 in your price range. The short answer is Yes. None of the 500/8s that litter Ebay is distinguished. The better third-party lens makers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) have not put much effort into developing 500mm+ prime lenses that are any good, unless they are reasonably fast and cost an arm and a leg. Sigma makes a fine 500/4.5, but it costs upward of $2,000. Vivitar made a great 450/4.5 mirror lens, but it shows up on the market just a few times a year and will cost upward of $500 (more like $800 to $1000) when you find it. A Tamron SP 400/4 in Adaptall K mount with a 1.4X TC would deliver great results as a 560/5.6. will set you back $1000 to $1400 used. I simply don't know of any The story changes if you are willing to buy a screwmount lens. A Pentax Takumar or Super Takumar 500/4.5 meets your specs for about $400 to $500. Add a K-mount 1.4X TC, and you have a K mount 700/6.3 for about $700. It won't allow open-aperture metering, but neither did the K-mount version of this lens. The German firm of Meyer Optik made a 500/5.6 with interchangeable mounts for Praktina, Praktica, Exakta bayonet, Pentacon Six, and M42 screwmount. Weighing 3500 g, it was sold originally as Pentacon, then Meyer Orestegor. The history is a bit more complicated than this, but basically, look for Meyer or Pentacon. German Ebay is a good place to find old big glass like this. Zoomar and Fuji made some 600/5.6s in M42, but they're hard to find and not cheap. Believe it or not, your best deal would be to get a Tamron, Vivitar, or Soligor telezoom in the range of 120-600 or 130-650. You might also consider the two-touch Tokina 150-500/5.6 zoom, and a Sigma 170-500 f/5.6-6.3, an autofocus lens that sells (sold?) new for about $600. I listed specs for many of these back in December, I think. Search the archives for 120-600. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Your best cheap telephoto that's actually worth owning is likely whatever used Pentax 300 f/4 lens you can turn up for the least money, matched to a Pentax 2x converter. I owned a cheap 500mm mirror lens once. You'd get sharper photos by shooting with a 50 on fine grain film and enlarging. Don't forget, whichever way you go, to allocate a substantial amount of money for a rock-solid tripod. Shooting at 500mm and up is a real adventure in camera shake. -- Bob Keefer Keefer Photography www.bkpix.com
