PDA

View Full Version : 650-1300mm Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Mount / EF


Pages : 1 2 [3]

Belmondo
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 08:40
All gone quiet now?

Maybe philip is visiting the store's complaints department with the weapon...er,lens ?:lol: :lol:

Nope. That's not the case. He's actually out trying to buy three more of them so he can make a coffee table.

pcasciola
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 08:48
It's pretty rainy here for the past couple of days, so I haven't been able to get out and shoot any wildlife, but I'm going to take the Opteka to the Assunpink WMA (wildlife management area) next week to see what it can do.

I'm done with 47st photo, and I'm dealing directly with Opteka now. They are sending me a few more goodies next week. ;)

Juan Zas
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 10:36
Hi, Phil
As I see you are in business with Opteka, what itīs about the 500mm f/8 mirror lens?. Price itīs around $150. Here I see also Opteka as Walimex brand name and also as Phoenix lastly in E-Bay. May be itīs interesting.

pcasciola
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 11:22
Hi, Phil
As I see you are in business with Opteka, what it´s about the 500mm f/8 mirror lens?. Price it´s around $150. Here I see also Opteka as Walimex brand name and also as Phoenix lastly in E-Bay. May be it´s interesting.Well, I wouldn't say "in business" just yet, but let's just say I was so impressed with the quality of the shots from this 650-1300mm for the price, that I decided to give them a call, and they are sending me a couple of other items next week for me to review. We didn't talk about the mirror lens, but that is definitely another possibility. I'll ask them about it on Monday.

But, in researching the 650-1300mm, I see it is actually manufactured by Samyang, and marketed under several different brand names, including Opteka, Phoenix and Exakta, to name a few.

Mike Smith
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 11:25
Hey Phil, I think it's time to change your avatar to a picture of you shooting with this lens. Of course, you'll have to stand a long way back from the mirror.

Mycroft
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 12:16
I've owned the Opteka 500mm f/8 mirror lens, and it's got problems. It suffers from extremely poor contrast, and on my XT it messed up the metering and WAY over-exposed. It was also extremely difficult to focus, but that could just be a function of the XT's focus screen.

pcasciola
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 12:25
Hey Phil, I think it's time to change your avatar to a picture of you shooting with this lens. Of course, you'll have to stand a long way back from the mirror.I think I'll pass on that one. I don't think I want everyone thinking of me as Mr. Opteka. :D

I've owned the Opteka 500mm f/8 mirror lens, and it's got problems. It suffers from extremely poor contrast, and on my XT it messed up the metering and WAY over-exposed. It was also extremely difficult to focus, but that could just be a function of the XT's focus screen. Can you share some examples?

I've always been curious about those mirror lenses too. They seem to be exactly the same design as SCT telescopes, which require collimation for proper focusing. I've had some astrophotography shots come out really soft because the scope was out of whack. I wonder if the mirror lenses require the same type of mirror adjustments to work properly.

lakiluno
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 14:07
What other lenses are you recieving?

I saw an interesting lens with slightly lower numbers: http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Mount-420-1600mm-Lens-Digital-D60-10D-Camera_W0QQitemZ7554533016QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem
is a Kenko lens. Does opteka do anything similar to that? mirror lenses seem to me to be a waste of time, but they may have some other lenses in similar focal lengths.

Leo

the.digital.guy
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 15:34
Here's some test shots I found:

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/porton/464/id37.htm

And here is his review of the lens:

http://www.epinions.com/content_105195015812

pcasciola
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 16:09
He calls this lens heavy?!?!?! It's only about 4 pounds, which is about 3 pounds lighter than my Sigma 500/4.5, and less than a pound heavier than my 70-200/2.8L IS. I think it's incredibly light for a lens with this much reach.

His examples look unusually poor, too. With a little bit of USM and resizing for the web, I think this lens produces excellent results for the price. Even without the USM my examples looked far better than that, except for the 100% crops which were very soft.

This thread got a little long so it's hard to find any of my sample shots, but they can be found back on page 12 & 13.

lakiluno
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 16:48
Some of those images he took (I think) are quite nice. If I buy this lense, I would only use it in extreme cases anyway, and to be honest, a cropped version of an image taken with a 300mm lens will be much worse than an image taken with the 650-1300 any day. I doubt a "good" lens costing less than $5000 would get into that range, and when your dealing with a 300mm with a good quality lens or 1300mm with a low quality lens, I'd pick the 1300 rather than a crop any day.

(sorry to repeat my point)

Leo

rdenney
22nd of October 2005 (Sat), 23:13
I've always been curious about those mirror lenses too. They seem to be exactly the same design as SCT telescopes, which require collimation for proper focusing. I've had some astrophotography shots come out really soft because the scope was out of whack. I wonder if the mirror lenses require the same type of mirror adjustments to work properly.

All lenses have to be properly collimated, not just mirror telescopes.

There are several designs for mirror lenses that use a secondary mirror in the middle of a corrector plate that points the image through a hole in the primary mirror. That basic category is the Cassegrain design, but a couple of variations include the Schmidt and Maksutov designs. The Schmidt uses a nearly flat corrector plate on which is mounted the secondary mirror. The Maksutov design uses a deep miniscus with a mirrored center section that serves as the secondary. They can range from very good to very poor, depending on the design, the quality of the mirros and corrector, the collimation, the conditions, and the skill of the photographer.

The Maksutov design seems to be consistently the best and it is also usually the most expensive. But once again the Russians come through with a couple of cheapies. I just can't remember which of the Russian lenses are Maks and which are Schmidts. But there are the Rubinar, the MKT, and the Hartblei (which is an upgrade of the Rubinar). There may be others that I just don't recall. The Rubinar comes in f/8 and f/5.6 versions in 500mm, but the f/8 is the sharper one. Both have enough field to support medium format, so I would not expect much vignetting from them.

But the main thing that limits mirror lenses is that they encompass a large volume of air and are very sensitive to dimensional changes even in that air. They should be allowed to assume ambient temperature fully, for example, and they should be shaded from direct sun on hot days. Big thermal variations can warp these lenses and mess them up. Mirror telescopes are extremely picky about this stuff, and can even be degraded by air currents in the tube.

Another problem is that they cannot be stopped down to improve their performance. And the problem with donut-shaped out-of-focus highlights is well-known.

Generally, mirror designs are used when refractive designs are impractical, either because of weight or size. Say what you want about a 500mm/5.6 mirror lens, it will be very much lighter than the refractive equivalent. You could melt down my refractive Prakticar 500/5.6 and make two dozen Rubinar 500/5.6's. And my 8" Newtonian mirror telescope would require a dedicated trailer if it was a refractor.

Rick "getting ready to start a new thread on cheapie long telephotos that cost under $500" Denney

lakiluno
23rd of October 2005 (Sun), 07:35
Where can you buy these 500mm lenses?

I'm trying to get an idea of the cheapest vs best long reach (500mm+) EF lenses. Has anyone any experience of the kenko linked previously?

Leo

rdenney
23rd of October 2005 (Sun), 09:57
Where can you buy these 500mm lenses?


See my thread "Really Cheap, Really Long Lenses" for my pick the best 500 and 1000mm choice in the several-hundred-dollar range. I think it will outperform any mirror, and it will bulk up those biceps, too.

Rick "who uses really long lenses too rarely to justify the cost of a good one" Denney

Mycroft
23rd of October 2005 (Sun), 14:49
Can you share some examples?

I've always been curious about those mirror lenses too. They seem to be exactly the same design as SCT telescopes, which require collimation for proper focusing. I've had some astrophotography shots come out really soft because the scope was out of whack. I wonder if the mirror lenses require the same type of mirror adjustments to work properly.

Unfortunately because of my extreme dislike for the output of the lens, I don't have a single image that I kept from it. However, I may be able to get in contact with a friend who has one and ask him for some sample photos. I'll see what I can do. :)

ron chappel
23rd of October 2005 (Sun), 19:00
Hi, Phil
As I see you are in business with Opteka, what itīs about the 500mm f/8 mirror lens?. Price itīs around $150. Here I see also Opteka as Walimex brand name and also as Phoenix lastly in E-Bay. May be itīs interesting.

I've had alot of experience with cheap brand mirror lenses (unfortunately;) )

So far i've found none that are usable,and that's not being fussy.They really are a waste of time (allthough kinda cool to play with,being so tiny and all)

On the other hand there ARE some cheap 500mm lenses that can get very usable reults- these are the 500mm f8 preset lenses.
Currently there are two types that i know of.
The first is this one.It's been made for several decades and is sold under many different brand names-
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Mt-500mm-Tele-Lens-Elan-7-7e-7n-7ne-Camera_W0QQitemZ7554736296QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem

Here is an example shot from a not-particularly good example of one of these lenses-

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3650531&size=lg



The other seems to be a different optical design which i've never used.I'm not sure how this one performs.The wording of the add sounds incredibly dodgey:lol: but it may be good in spite of that....

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-T2-Ti-K2-GII-Elan-7n-500mm-Hi-Def-Preset-Lens_W0QQitemZ7555328612QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem

pcasciola
23rd of October 2005 (Sun), 19:24
The Phoenix and Opteka in those 500mm f/8 auctions look to be identical, just like the 650-1300mm, which is manufactured by Samyang and sold under several brand names including Phoenix and Opteka. I'll ask the Opteka people about it tomorrow.

ron chappel
24th of October 2005 (Mon), 03:27
The Phoenix and Opteka in those 500mm f/8 auctions look to be identical, just like the 650-1300mm, which is manufactured by Samyang and sold under several brand names including Phoenix and Opteka.
In the auction text it says the Opteka is 7 elements in 5 groups while the other design is 4 elements in 4 groups.In theory the opteka should be the better lens but that may not nessesarily be so.I'd be really interested in finding out for sure

Inspired Photography
24th of October 2005 (Mon), 04:27
I would be keen in getting one of these to play with. If you aren't taking the thing too seriously like you would with an L, i think it could be great! I spent more than that on filters over the last 12months, so i am sure getting a massive lens like that for a few bucks if only half decent is justifyable. They won't be putting Canon out of business, but why not give it a go.

I have a split-image focus screen too which would go dark at that sort of aperture, but hey... i'll try anything once!

Pcasciola: Are you looking at selling these?

Hmmm. I wonder if there is a record for the biggest thread on a forum...

Rob

Juan Zas
24th of October 2005 (Mon), 10:53
I've had alot of experience with cheap brand mirror lenses (unfortunately;) )

So far i've found none that are usable,and that's not being fussy.They really are a waste of time (allthough kinda cool to play with,being so tiny and all)



Thank you Ron, I have deep in my mind the same feeling, mirrors are not the same than glases, but I havenīt experience with them. Your opinion is very valuable.

Falkon
24th of October 2005 (Mon), 14:11
Maybe Philip can get the 500mm one for around 50 dollars. A bulk buy of that one might be better because it is a prime and cheaper.

lakiluno
25th of October 2005 (Tue), 11:25
Any news on the Opteka talkings yet? when will you recieve the samples?

Leo

lakiluno
28th of October 2005 (Fri), 16:34
Sorry to bump the thread after my own post, but have you recieved any word on ship dates for the Opteka samples etc? (Maybe a new thread on opteka lens reviews is needed at some point)

Leo

pcasciola
28th of October 2005 (Fri), 23:19
I'm getting there. I spent most of this week trying to find a new embroiderer for the POTN shop because the current guy is just not turning them around quick enough, so I didn't have time to follow up with our contact at Opteka to get the samples here. We played a little phone tag this week, but I guess he was busy as well because we just never hooked up. Hopefully I'll have them in the next week or so, but I can't promise anything, since the POTN shop is my top priority until we are caught up on orders.

ron chappel
30th of October 2005 (Sun), 15:47
Here is my first attempt at the moon with the Opteka. Definitely some funky stuff going on along the edges, especially along the bottom.

This was at 650mm, ISO 800, straight out of the camera, just sized for web:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/moon_3403.jpg

Same shot with some Noise Ninja+USM:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/moonUSM_3403.jpg






Sorry to be commenting so long after the fact-i've been away for awhile and haven't had time to look in properly.

Sadly i must say this lens is a looser (to me) .After seeing the examples,it just isn't sharp enough .

While it's totally fair to enhance images from a cheap lens (because people do want to know the ultimate potential of the lens) ,the noise ninja+USM example looks completely artificial to me.

*later edit* On the other hand,maybe a more subtle pass with noise ninja while sacrificing a little sharpness would give a good result...?

Ronald S. Jr.
30th of October 2005 (Sun), 20:20
sorta looks a bit like a watercolor to me, as far as the texture goes.

lakiluno
4th of November 2005 (Fri), 12:23
Any news on the lens samples yet? did I miss a thread, or have you just been busy?

Leo

ACDCROCKS
5th of November 2005 (Sat), 11:19
The lens would be kind of usesless....you would have toshoot it at 12'Noon with a aperature of f/8 ;)

pcasciola
5th of November 2005 (Sat), 12:54
The lens would be kind of usesless....you would have toshoot it at 12'Noon with a aperature of f/8 ;)Well, that's the same aperture that many people shoot every day using the 100-400L and 70-300 DO with the 1.4x TC, so are you saying that combination is useless too? Because I've seen many fine examples from those lenses that were shot at f/8. Even without the TC those $1000+ lenses are only 1 stop faster.

I've been really busy trying to get caught up on all the shirt and hat orders this week, so hopefully I can get back to talking to Opteka this week.

Falkon
5th of November 2005 (Sat), 13:43
Well, that's the same aperture that many people shoot every day using the 100-400L and 70-300 DO with the 1.4x TC, so are you saying that combination is useless too? Because I've seen many fine examples from those lenses that were shot at f/8. Even without the TC those $1000+ lenses are only 1 stop faster.

I've been really busy trying to get caught up on all the shirt and hat orders this week, so hopefully I can get back to talking to Opteka this week.

Ask them about the 500mm one. I think it is less expensive and it might be better because its not a zoom. What do you think.

http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sell/SSProfiles/12056235/Images/2/500mm_Preset_500.jpg

lakiluno
5th of November 2005 (Sat), 18:38
I'm also interested in the 500mm one...

Leo

innescapable
12th of November 2005 (Sat), 03:17
Hi

I bought one of the Opteka 650-1300 with a doubler. The zoom is very powerful and does work, but unfortunately the results you get never have the clarity of any of my other lenses. I think this makes it totally unsuitable for Nature or Sports photography and barely suitable for shots of the moon. I'm now looking at getting the Sigma 500ml which has excellent reviews and having seen the results can actually back them up.


www.davidinnes.co.uk

ron chappel
12th of November 2005 (Sat), 16:04
Be abit carefull of the older sigma 500/7.2 'apo' .It's not a very good lens.
On the other hand if you are refering to the modern 500/4.5 (fstop?) then that is a completely different lens!:)

frydryce
2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 20:30
haha well lets bring one back from the dead.

found this on ebay while looking for a film body.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vivitar-600-2000mm-Lens-for-Canon-Elan-7-7e-7n-7ne-NEW_W0QQitemZ7586725246QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQcmdZ ViewItem

codex0
2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 20:58
Hilarious - of course it's fixed aperture... "which varies from f/9.9 at 600mm to f/32 at 2000mm" - a lot of lenses don't even go to 32 anymore :p

Steve Parr
2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 23:24
Hey, I betcha' that thing is bitchin' for taking pictures of the sun...

Steve

goatee
3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 02:33
What concerns me is that they claim it has Vivitar Series 1 optics, but if that were the case, then it would be branded a Series 1 lens - which it isn't .

To be fair Steve, whack your camera on ISO 1600, and have a couple of floodlights, and you may be able to get a tripod shot of something still and white ;).

Steve Parr
3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 08:28
To be fair Steve, whack your camera on ISO 1600, and have a couple of floodlights, and you may be able to get a tripod shot of something still and white ;).

Well, there ya' go; yet another reason to add it to the arsenal...

Steve

mbellot
3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 09:54
Hilarious - of course it's fixed aperture... "which varies from f/9.9 at 600mm to f/32 at 2000mm" - a lot of lenses don't even go to 32 anymore :p
Not only that, but they have conquered the physical limitation of being in two places at once.

Lens Construction: 2 Elements in 4 Groups


I'd like to see an almighty "L" pull off that one. :lol:

Wilt
3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 10:10
>>Lens Construction: 2 Elements in 4 Groups<<

yeah, there's the universe and the anti-universe and the 2 elements are in both those places at once, so you have 4 groups total...what's wrong with that? <tongue firmly in cheek>

Jon
3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 10:15
Not only that, but they have conquered the physical limitation of being in two places at once.

Lens Construction: 2 Elements in 4 Groups


I'd like to see an almighty "L" pull off that one. :lol:

Simple. Both elements are broken.

ron chappel
15th of February 2006 (Wed), 17:24
Good news everyone.
I just bought one of those Opteka 500mm f8 preset lenses.I'll take some eaxample pics and also compare it to: An older preset design, Takumar 500/4.5 and a tamron SP500 mirror lens.I'll see if i can get a cheap brand mirror lens also

Wilt
15th of February 2006 (Wed), 17:46
ron, it would help with a directed link to the photo(s) you want people to see as examples of the topic...your general link to your site is bothersome to those of us who do not have time to wade thru the website to find the photo of interest. We don't want to see all of your work (you can pitch your examples in non-techical forums for showing off) or we would go to the 'show my work' forums!

ron chappel
16th of February 2006 (Thu), 08:30
Um,Yes i quite agree wilt - and i will post direct links......when i've got them!! ;)

I haven't done the test yet .I'll post here when i've got the results ,which will take a few days at least i'd say

budgetbus
16th of February 2006 (Thu), 09:25
great thread........presses CTRL D for future reading
:)

dougsmit
16th of February 2006 (Thu), 09:25
Every so often any forum gets a post asking about the advisability of buying one of the super cheap long telephoto options offered on eBay or elsewhere. Most like this one draw most resopnses from people who get more fun out of putting down others than in taking pictures. I'll start by saying that there are many different options offered so my results will not necessarily hold for other brands but this post may talk some of you in or out of making a mistake. If you have the money for something long and white, this will be of no interest. Others may read on.
My first shot uses my Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. As mirror lenses go, this is pretty high end costing three times the price of the bargain basement 500mm lenses usually offered. If my picture is not good enough for you, I doubt you will be happier with any mirror. It is shown uncropped but reduced for this space.



http://www.dpreview.com/images/one.gifhttp://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/56121740.jpg




http://www.dpreview.com/images/one.gif

The imbeded image has serious JPG artifacts from compression which are reduced in a less compressed version here (dial up users may not like this as much):
http://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/56140394 (http://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/56140394)

The second test used my 1970's vintage 400mm f/6.3 Tele-Amatar (a plain brown wrapper stovepipe design with preset diaphragm and manual focus). Since the non-mirror lens allows stopping down, I used f/11 here. The imbedded image is a composite of a full frame (a bit of sky cropped at top to keep the proportions here) on the right and a much cropped image on the left. I used PTLens to reduce chromatic aberation but it was not bad enough to show on this size result.




http://www.dpreview.com/images/one.gifhttp://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/56150821.jpg




http://www.dpreview.com/images/one.gif

Again JPG compression is a problem in the blue sky but doe not bother the printable size image. Don't blame the lens for this situation.
My opinion is that both lenses produced a reasonable result for the money spent. If I were limited to one of the under $200 options, I would probably choose the conventional style lens to gain the possibility of stopping down the diaphragm and to avoid the doughnut shaped bokeh that shows on some images (but not so much here). There is also the question of whether it is likely that a $120 mirror will match a $350 one. Do note that my 400mm f/6.3 is not one of the zoom models you see offered but an old fashioned prime which certainly is not 'L' glass but has a better chance of satisfaction compared to the multiple focal length offerings. If you look hard enough on eBay and elsewhere you will find someone selling the 'ordinary' 400 or 500mm versions even if they are not my exact Tele-Amatar. Both lenses offer some fun and a lot of need for careful work if you are to see decent results.
Both samples were taken with a 300D and used a tripod. Other mirror examples are on my pBase gallery.

ron chappel
17th of February 2006 (Fri), 09:54
An excellent post Doug- really quite outstanding!
You've even addressed the issue of jpeg compression
Can you tell me-is the sigma the last design (recently discontinued) or the earlier type?
The most recent version had diagonal grooves in the rubber grip,the early versions were straight (and i think the early ones had the word 'sigma' moulded into the runner as well in tiny lettering)

By the way-they still make those cheapo 'stovepipe' preset lenses,but only in the 500mm f8 versions.And they still perform very well for their price.

dougsmit
17th of February 2006 (Fri), 14:22
Ron;
My Sigma is the earlier type. What was the optical difference? Which is better? I got it used on eBay.

BTW, my avatar is reduced but not cropped from a 600mm frame at 10 feet. I challenge anyone owning a 600mm L to duplicate this shot without scaring off the bird. How many pictures need you make to 'pay off' a lens? One?

Part of me regrets being so hard on people who put down those of us who would consider this topic (see first page of this thread) but the vultures are really unique in my images with this lens in that they are the first things I shot that I really believe I could have done better with an L. There is a place in photography for can(n)ons and a place for bow and arrow. Depending on situation and the rules of warfare, the victory could be either.

ron chappel
21st of February 2006 (Tue), 03:46
I'm not sure if there is any optical difference between the old style and new style sigmas.I have heard slightly differing comments so i'm trying to find out-gathering all the info i can find

ron chappel
9th of March 2006 (Thu), 08:02
Hi Everyone,sorry for the delay in posting-been abit busy with other things lately and forgot:o

I've tested the opteka 500/8 preset lens ,and it's pretty good.
However it's abit different to what i expected:eek:

What i've got is definitely the right lens but it doesn't have the 7 elements in 5 groups as advertised ,it has the same 4/4 as the older preset lenses.
I think what has happened is one big rediculous typo/lazy mistake by the add writers ....which has then been repeated in every ebay auction since.
I see the 500mm preset lens plus teleconverter combo has the same quoted 7 elements in five groups so what has probably happened is that they have simply shared the auction wording without properly checking the numbers.(i.e the lens has 4 elements in 4 groups while the TC is 3 elements in 1 group)

Anyway you are probably wondering why i'm going on about this-especially those that just tuned into this thread....
Well ,i did think that this lens was a completely different design to the old 500/8 preset lenses that i usually recommend,so i had high hopes that this one may be even better!
Unfortunately i have bad news and good news.

The bad news is that it is a slightly cheaper version of those old preset lenses,with a shorter overall legth and smaller rear elements,so the optics are a touch less sharp.
The good news is that it is a usable lens nonetheless- you won't go too far wrong buying one
(i mostly say that because it gets ok to good pics whereas you CAN go wrong with cheapo mirror lenses.At least this one is usable)

Sorry i have no example shots to upload just now but here is a previous thread where i posted images from the older preset lens and a cheap mirror lens.
The opteka will give results very nearly as good as the better of these two shots (halfway down the page)

Also here is a general shootout of some old manual focus 500mm lenses i did recently.
http://oomz.net/mf/viewtopic.php?id=981&p=2 (bottom of the page)
Again the opteka is not included but this will give an idea of how it should compare to better lenses.(the opteka was in this test but i didn't get the focus right so it wasn't fair to include it)
These are 100% pixels center and edge crops -look at the crops marked "preset lens"
-the opteka was very slightly less sharp than these, but with less blue fringing

I now have another of the old 500mm preset lenses to try the opteka against so i'll double check it with that one and post the results soon (i hope....;) :o )





Oops,while i'm posting i should put in a plug for this shot which i'm most rapt about !!:D :D
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=145760




.

jsg
9th of March 2006 (Thu), 11:15
1300mm lens i think for some who cant afford other lenses it will have to do did this a while back. sometimes pull it out and mess around with it . ok for moon shots

canon 300d
10d
17-75 tamron
100 to 400l
bigma
28- 135 is
various other goodies

Grizz
9th of March 2006 (Thu), 17:12
Hmmm... I stumbled across this thread and remembered I have one of these Sigma 600 F/8 mirrors. I bought this a long time ago for my EOS 620. I dug it out dusted it off and tried it out for the first time on my 10d. The light was not good but what the heck its only a test.


Handheld, ISO400: 1/125: f/8. Need to add it to my sig. :)

http://astroskys.com/Gallery/albums/album02/IMG_5265a.jpg

vixeh
9th of March 2006 (Thu), 20:47
Here's the lens on the 20D:

http://www.casciola.com/pics/opteka_2703.jpg

At 650mm:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/opteka_2702.jpg

Zoomed to 1300mm:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/opteka_2705.jpg

I haven't use a P&S in a while. Dumb question, but I used a Canon Digital Elph, and I noticed the numbering changed. If I put this card back in my 20D, will it change my numbering for the 20D shots?

Maybe just an illusion but it looks like you've got a little tilt-shift going on there where the zoom is fully extented ;)

FScott
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 21:44
Hmmm... I stumbled across this thread and remembered I have one of these Sigma 600 F/8 mirrors. I bought this a long time ago for my EOS 620. I dug it out dusted it off and tried it out for the first time on my 10d. The light was not good but what the heck its only a test.


Handheld, ISO400: 1/125: f/8. Need to add it to my sig. :)



You handheld a 600 mm lens at 1/125 s on an XT???? You have much steadier hands than I...

-- Scott.

X-WoodButch
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 21:55
LOL!! Do they make it in a Nikon mount??:p

lefturn99
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 22:43
You guys just don't understand. It would be worth the money to put that thing on and walk around the zoo or Disneyland or just walk along the sidelines of an NFL game. It's not acturlly for taking pictures.

ron chappel
30th of March 2006 (Thu), 10:56
I've now done a few tests with the opteka 500mm f8 preset lens against several older but similar type lenses ,a good Tamron 500/8 SP mirror and a pentax takumar 500/4.5.
Overall the opteka does reasonably good.Certainly much better than it's price tag suggests ( and certainly far better than the similar priced mirror lenses ).

By the way- i'm not sure i mentioned it before in this thread but the opteka is allmost certainly identical to the Samyang/Pheonix lenses also available on ebay.For awhile i thought the opteka was a different design but that all turned out to be a dumb mistake in the specifications.
For the record the Opteka has 4 elements in 4 groups ,*NOT* 7 elements in 5 groups as stated in many ebay auctions.
They are made in korea not china.

Here are some example pics-mostly at f11 ,but f8 is certainly useable also.The first is heavily cropped (100% pixels) and has been darkened in photoshop,no sharpening was applied.

Oops,these others are slightly too big to upload .Here are the links
These are uncropped (or nearly so) and have been sharpened slightly

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/images/opt1.jpg
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/images/opt2.jpg
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/images/opt3.jpg

wazmunstr
30th of March 2006 (Thu), 11:14
any word on that opteka 650-1300mm lens? sorry if i missed something, this thread is new to me and its 24 pages long. i had to go to page 16 to even find what you guys were talking about lol. pretty cool lens though, for wildlife stuff on a bright day haha. anyone else bought/used that lens?

ron chappel
30th of March 2006 (Thu), 20:24
any word on that opteka 650-1300mm lens? sorry if i missed something, this thread is new to me and its 24 pages long. i had to go to page 16 to even find what you guys were talking about lol. pretty cool lens though, for wildlife stuff on a bright day haha. anyone else bought/used that lens?

Yeah this thread did go on abit at first huh
Did you see Phil's example pics from about pg 14(?) ?

NickSimcheck
30th of March 2006 (Thu), 21:34
Maybe just an illusion but it looks like you've got a little tilt-shift going on there where the zoom is fully extented ;)

I posted about this a bunch of pages back, I even drew a line to show how far off it was. It was enough that the tube connected to the camera was inline with the upper rim on the lens.

QUALITY! ;)

wazmunstr
30th of March 2006 (Thu), 21:37
yeah i did. i wish it was on something other than tree branches. id love to see some wildlife, or soemthing.

forsakenme720
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 02:19
Can someone show the original pictures that were taken with this thing? I'm dying to see them but the ones that are there don't work anymore.

forsakenme720
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 02:22
I thought this is supposed to cost $120,000? Seems like you could make a lot of money by buying it for $3,000 - lol. http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-FL-11-1200mm-Canon-Lens_W0QQitemZ7600366904QQcategoryZ107919QQssPageN ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

forsakenme720
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 11:35
Come on guys, I spent like 2 hours reading this post last night in anticipation to see the results. Could someone please please please post some pics of what this thing can do?

lakiluno
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 12:03
there is pics...

have a look around page 11 or 12 (from memory)

Leo

S Taylor
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 12:13
The pics from the lens are on page 15.... pictures OF the lens on 16. They're still there.

lakiluno
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 12:17
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=103319&page=15

just going to edit my comment - sorry :D

Leo

forsakenme720
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 12:35
That's very strange...when I was on that page yesterday, they didn't work...what page are the ones with the moon on?

Edit: Nevermind guys, I found them...thanks.

wazmunstr
31st of March 2006 (Fri), 14:07
I thought this is supposed to cost $120,000? Seems like you could make a lot of money by buying it for $3,000 - lol. http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-FL-11-1200mm-Canon-Lens_W0QQitemZ7600366904QQcategoryZ107919QQssPageN ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

dude, thats not the same lens that you are thinking about. the 1200mm is an EF f/5.6 L lens... and its roughly $80-90,000 USD.. that lens is f/11... thats 2 stops slower. not even do-able lol.:p

Falkon
3rd of August 2006 (Thu), 17:45
So how many POTN people have bought this lens and who likes it? Can you post some more photos?

northern_glenn
8th of August 2006 (Tue), 00:36
Have any of you ever tried this lens?
It may not be like a $10,000 lens from Canon, but I for the price, it's not bad at all. Got a good moon shot with.

Hope the image will past.


glenn

100581

Foote
21st of August 2006 (Mon), 10:56
I've been looking at the Opteka lens at 47th street for quite some time but wouldn't buy until I saw some test shots. It was so cheap I just assumed the pictures would be useless. I'm glad I found this thread today, changes my opinion I think. It's far from the best out there but then again I guess that matches my photography skills right now too. Plus, I couldn't count the number of useless items I've bought in my lifetime for that price, if I get a couple good shots (even if they require some CPU surgery) then I think it'll have paid itself off.

Foote (Newbie)

jack lumber
2nd of September 2006 (Sat), 23:34
The crowd is going nuts...! :D
---------------------------------------------
And the fan go,s wild.

cjm
2nd of September 2006 (Sat), 23:56
LOL this lens is funny. But they have even a better one! a 420-1600mm. Its black (so it doesnt look like a piece of crap!) All it needs is a 2x and best of all its ONLY $170!

I would never do business with this business 47st photo. Never mind seeing them on a dateline for ripping off tourists years ago. I wouldnt buy from a store that lies about their product. They advertise a 420-1600mm lens when in fact it is only a 420-800 lens. That is lying. Heck their math is even off with a 2x TC it should be a 840-1600 lens! So what sort of professionalism is that? Money is money no matter if its $170 or $1700! Its no good to be ripped off.

Check it out http://cgi.ebay.com/420-1600mm-Lens-for-Canon-EOS-Digital-Rebel-XT-350D-1D_W0QQitemZ280022780171QQihZ018QQcategoryZ106844Q QtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

Steve Parr
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 00:03
LOL this lens is funny. But they have even a better one! a 420-1600mm. Its black (so it doesnt look like a piece of crap!) All it needs is a 2x and best of all its ONLY $170!

I would never do business with this business 47st photo. Never mind seeing them on a dateline for ripping off tourists years ago. I wouldnt buy from a store that lies about their product. They advertise a 420-1600mm lens when in fact it is only a 420-800 lens. That is lying. Heck their math is even off with a 2x TC it should be a 840-1600 lens! So what sort of professionalism is that? Money is money no matter if its $170 or $1700! Its no good to be ripped off.

Check it out http://cgi.ebay.com/420-1600mm-Lens-for-Canon-EOS-Digital-Rebel-XT-350D-1D_W0QQitemZ280022780171QQihZ018QQcategoryZ106844Q QtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

I think what they're getting at, and it's pretty obvious, is that if you buy it (with the included 2X, you'll have a zoom range between 420 and 1600...

rpgroome
22nd of September 2006 (Fri), 22:12
For anbody interested in a review you can find on epinions at http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/porton/464/id37.htm


It also includes links to some sample photos. All in all it seems like it might be fun to play with at that price, but you might do better with something like a Celestron C90 which are available pretty cheaply on eBay.

Marzo
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 12:22
Anoyone got any new (perhaps original) shots with this lense? Think i might get me one like this to play with but would like to see some more pic's...

bettyn
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 17:35
OOO! I bet that's one sorry POS!:D

DAMphyne
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 18:11
I bought one of these when my wife got her Canon EOS IX.
I,ve still got it,if anyone wants to buy it, PM me, we'll make a deal.
here's a sample with B&W Film

DAMphyne
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 18:18
Here's another, you can see that it's a deer. Can't you?
The deer was probably 600 yards from me ant the sandhills were approx. 100 yards behind him. This lens is not for the weak, or impatient.:lol:

bettyn
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 20:53
HEHEHEHE ill tell you what ill buy the lot and just stick some CANON L stickers on them watch them fly. hey thats a thought LOL

Are you asking for a lawsuit...at the very least?

Marzo
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 21:56
DAMphyne: What was your settings for those pictures?

Not to happy with it or?

DAMphyne
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 22:08
Marzo,
Being that this was film, I can't provide the data you would like.
I believe it was fully extended, 1300mm and F11/fixed f-stop.
The lens is like F8 at 650mm ans F11 at 1300mm.
I could be wrong about the length, may be 500-1200, I can't remember.
It's kind of hard to use, you need a tripod for sure, manual focus, But I did have fun playing with it and it really impressed the people at the Little League.
I don't have any of those pics though, they belong to a sports photo company.
If your interested in the lens, let me know.

Marzo
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 22:19
So you would not say it's as awfull as some here want's it do be?


I live in Norway, for those of you who know were that is :P
think it would be quite expensive to send it over seas...?

hallbilly
21st of February 2007 (Wed), 22:27
2600mm
could use some better post processing but.... pff
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/moon/mooncorner.jpg

Dont remember how many mm this was..
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/moon/moonsep2nd2006copy.jpg

I got the lens just for pictures of the moon... its not a good lens at all compared to a Canon... Not really much compared to a quantaray either! I doubt it would break 800 on the photozone.de imatest charts.

Pictures are not that good in the daylight, which if you just want to see whats going on...


EDIT: man this is an old thread! Cant remember if i ever said anything in the previous post :\

Marzo
22nd of February 2007 (Thu), 07:52
But when you compare it to the price of any Canon lense then?

You would'nt have any examples of daytime pictures?

Edit: Yes i know it's an old thread but it's the same lense and I could not find any newer threads about it!

DAMphyne
22nd of February 2007 (Thu), 21:30
My suggestion, Get a Bigma and a 2X extender, although a lot more money, when you get done playing with this monster tommorow it makes a great doorstop.
I use mine as a paperweight now, for the stack of bills from my visit to the hospital.

DAMphyne
1st of March 2007 (Thu), 18:29
I found an example of a daytime picture with this lens, it's actually a 800-1200 Soligar F/9.9-14.9, Shot with my D30.

DAMphyne
8th of February 2008 (Fri), 13:13
I took a few more this year.
Had to clean the dust off before I used it.
http://www.damphyne.com/gallery/Sand-Hill-Cranes

DAMphyne
8th of February 2008 (Fri), 14:49
That was taken with a 75-300IS, yes it is a crop.
It's hard for me to judge how far away it was, but from your calculations, it was about twice that, say 80-100 feet.
The pics starting with "0" were taken with the soligar lens. Some were fully zoomed and some were not. It's hard to say because it doesn't communicate with the camera.

brownbugger
15th of March 2008 (Sat), 14:34
I was looking for something like this to take pictures of birds .. just for the heck of it, does seem like a tripod is a necessity with this. There just doesnt seem anyone with some pics off this one

basroil
15th of March 2008 (Sat), 14:44
want a good birding lens for relatively cheap? canon 100-400 or sigma 80-400. both are stabilized so it'll be easier to handhold. if you want something monstrous, sigma 50-500 (good old bigma) or, if you have 7k to spare, 300-800 f5.6

Love_Hate_Hero
17th of March 2008 (Mon), 10:47
Ha-ha wow, I’m very interested in this discussion to say the least :p, so let me be the bigger man to step up to the plate...I'll buy one of these aluminum pipes to see whether its worth your buck or not, personally, I’m curious and I have a little bit of money to throw around. I’ve already ordered it on eBay from a "Camtea Camera" I believe. So as soon as it comes in the mail, ill take this ridiculously large pinhole camera out for a spin and post a review, how’s that?
:D

goatee
17th of March 2008 (Mon), 11:19
Looking forward to some more samples!

Mom27andblessed
4th of April 2008 (Fri), 16:16
waiting on that review!

ben_r_
4th of April 2008 (Fri), 17:11
LOL that lens is crazy! Ive seen it a few times on ebay. I didnt think anyone actually bought it though! Nice job on the review to those that contributed. If nothing else at least we all know now.

lakiluno
4th of April 2008 (Fri), 17:17
Awesome. This thread made me join POTN 2.5 years ago! Review would be good. I want to see pics of it with a camera on it again - I think I might buy one one day just to be able to walk around with it over my shoulder!

:D

sigmonster
20th of May 2008 (Tue), 13:45
http://cgi.ebay.com/650-1300mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-for-Canon-EOS-Mount-EF_W0QQitemZ7551000450QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQcmdZV iewItem

What is this?

Must be a paper tube with plastic lenses.:lol:

Only nine left better get one now!

http://www.opteka.com/images/products/4127_L.jpg

I thought this was an umbrella stand but the bits of glass inside inhibit the sliding in of ones umbrella:evil:

TopGear1Ds
20th of May 2008 (Tue), 13:48
So as soon as it comes in the mail, ill take this ridiculously large pinhole camera out for a spin and post a review, how’s that?
:D

Its been a while.. Have you tried it out yet? two months ago and no posts since, but I hope to hear from you! lol

mangaloreaviators
2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 23:28
Hello All,

Was doing a search for Canon 300MM Telephoto Lens and came across this monster Opteka 650-1300mm High Definition Telephoto Lens for Canon EOS 40D, 30D, 20D, 10D, Digital Rebel XT, XTi, & XSi (http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B000IMRTFO/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1215057847&sr=1-12)

The lens cost $239.95. Wanted to know good is this lens. Can we do a review of this lens ?

davidfig
3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 00:04
Check out this.

http://www.pbase.com/dang/500

HaroldC3
3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 00:09
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=103319

Tee Why
3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 00:10
Well, it does not AF and I'm not sure if it'll be more than a curiosity type of a lens.

scombridae
3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 04:38
Check out this.

http://www.pbase.com/dang/500

sound good as a starting to play around with telefoto lens

thank for the input

SlowBlink
3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 04:52
Good for surveillance photography.

evandavies
3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 06:27
Better to get a cheap but decent telescope and T-mount. (The Opteka is basically a very cheap telescope and T-mount)

Of course a real telescope will be a bit bigger...

almo
5th of July 2008 (Sat), 12:52
Good for surveillance photography.


That is a really good point. I was thinking a while back that I would only buy one of these if I was being paid to gather evidence. A cheap way to maximize your gains.

Eagle i
15th of July 2008 (Tue), 08:20
i found one used on craigslist for 150 and after reading this thread I am gonna pass

Salma
9th of May 2009 (Sat), 11:22
I want to buy this.

urindar
12th of May 2009 (Tue), 03:49
in the end, 28 pages to get only two shots of the moon and some birds shot with other lenses. I wonder if any of you guys who already have this lens could just post a real bunch of pictures of the lens against different stuff. I dont mean to be rude, but it seems you are more interested in talking about it and laughing about it than in seeing photographs...

urindar
12th of May 2009 (Tue), 03:56
forget it, I just found someone who wrote much less, but posted much more pictures :p

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/porton/464/id37.htm

stormielane
30th of May 2009 (Sat), 18:12
Hi, new here..just wanted to say THANK YOU to Phillip C. I just bought a lens like this (from overstock.com) and was really upset since I heard nothing but negatives. It was really nice to hear a positive finally. I'm new at photography and want to do bird shots and shots of the moon. So I bought this since shelling out several thousands is not an option. Thanks again.

NebraskaPhotog1974
10th of June 2009 (Wed), 15:20
Hello There...
Just an FYI....attached is a picture I took two nights ago with my Canon Rebel XTi and Vivitar Series I 650-1300mm Telephoto Zoom Lens. Not bad for the pricetag and yes I would agree with the statement that it is good for the amateur. I am an amateur who is not in the position to lay out too much on lenses and such...so when I saw this (along side the Pheonix and Opteka)...I opted for the Vivitar on name recognition and similarity to the Canon Look.
I am having one problem....when I attach a teleconverter to the lens...my Canon tells me that there is a communication error between the lens and the camera. The teleconverter works with my 300mm, but the Vivitar doesn't seem to like it....anyone have any ideas??
Thanks!!:razz::razz::razz:

Simon Turkin
10th of June 2009 (Wed), 16:28
forget it, I just found someone who wrote much less, but posted much more pictures :p

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/porton/464/id37.htm


All the photos on that site were out of focus

ChiTown
18th of August 2009 (Tue), 17:40
Anyone have any more sample pics ? Im new to the SLR world and am looking to get a cheap ultra zoom lens like one of these generic 1300mm's. I live in Chicago facing the lake and always wanted a telescope. Isnt this in essence a cheap telescope that just allows me to take photos ?

ChiTown
18th of August 2009 (Tue), 18:02
On second thought...would connecting my canon eos rebel xsi to this be a better option ?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438391-REG/Meade_81004_RedTail_3_5_90mm_Spotting_Scope.html

beeng
22nd of August 2009 (Sat), 19:28
All the photos on that site were out of focus
True... but I would think that manually focusing this beast would be very very difficult.. a surgeon might have the precision to do it but I don't know who else ;P

JustChillin
22nd of August 2009 (Sat), 20:02
for the ppl who seem serious about getting such a lens: the images it produces even in focus seem so incredibly soft you have to ask yourself if you would be happy with this kind of IQ and would any of these shots actually be good enough to make it into your portfolio. if not then it seems like a waste of money. for that $$ you could buy a canon 55-250 or one of their many variaton on the xx-300mm which I'm sure will net you a lot more keepers and is a lot more practical & portable. i think most people who haven't shot with a long lens before don't realize that most subjects that you use a tele for move quite fast (birds, animals, planes, sports, etc.) and you need AF for that. attempting to MF on a moving subject with a FOV that narrow is extremely dificult.

TeamSpeed
22nd of August 2009 (Sat), 20:09
I would think you would be much better off using something like a Sigma 150-500 OS with a 2x converter, manually focusing. You would have OS available, and the quality is livable.

Here is a post where I did a head to head of a 100-400L to the 150-500, and did a moon shot with the Sigma w/2x. I also had a Rubinar 1000mm mirror lens that did alright as well in that thread.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5912560&postcount=69

Moon shot w/Sigma 1000mm (500mm x 2)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=288611&stc=1&d=1216092207

beeng
22nd of August 2009 (Sat), 21:03
for the ppl who seem serious about getting such a lens: the images it produces even in focus seem so incredibly soft you have to ask yourself if you would be happy with this kind of IQ and would any of these shots actually be good enough to make it into your portfolio. if not then it seems like a waste of money. for that $$ you could buy a canon 55-250 or one of their many variaton on the xx-300mm which I'm sure will net you a lot more keepers and is a lot more practical & portable. i think most people who haven't shot with a long lens before don't realize that most subjects that you use a tele for move quite fast (birds, animals, planes, sports, etc.) and you need AF for that. attempting to MF on a moving subject with a FOV that narrow is extremely dificult.
Which is exactly the kind of stuff I wouldn't be using this lens for ;)
I mean, it's basically a very very cheap telescope with a zoom capability. Which is precisely what I would be using it for. I'd never expect something this cheap or long to perform under any other circumstances.

mosesport
17th of May 2010 (Mon), 00:54
I can't believe after 5 years of this thread being alive, it is STILL being sold on eBay. Insane.

Supra_t
17th of May 2010 (Mon), 04:44
I love this thread, it was great to see everyone coming together and willing to contribute to test out the lens.

I must say even though the thread is 5yrs old, reading through I was very excited to see the sample pics :)

duongng
15th of June 2010 (Tue), 07:18
ok , guys , do you think should i buy it for ..... experimental reason and as a toy =)) ? i really want to shot the Moon at 1300mm ( obviously i'm not gonna compare it to my 70-200 f4L ) , but , should i give it a try ?
i'll post test pic from my 1D mk II ( oh gosh , i don't want to humiliate my camera ) as soon as i got it
thanks
edit : also found a 800mm mirror one on ebay which just $40 less ...... how about that ?

OregonRebel
15th of June 2010 (Tue), 08:13
Here's what one purchaser said:

"This lens is rare in one way--quality this poor is getting harder and harder to find. If you have too much money, I recommend you buy this lens."

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Canon/product-reviews/B00064YZAQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0

pcasciola
15th of June 2010 (Tue), 09:05
ok , guys , do you think should i buy it for ..... experimental reason and as a toy =)) ? i really want to shot the Moon at 1300mm ( obviously i'm not gonna compare it to my 70-200 f4L ) , but , should i give it a try ?
i'll post test pic from my 1D mk II ( oh gosh , i don't want to humiliate my camera ) as soon as i got it
thanks
edit : also found a 800mm mirror one on ebay which just $40 less ...... how about that ?I have this thing, and I used it exactly twice and it's been sitting in my basement ever since. See my previous posts on this thread, and that's how long it's been in my basement.

I think if you stack up some TCs on your 70-200 to get to 1000mm you will get far better results. I stacked two 1.4s and 2x TC with my 500mm Sigma lens and the results weren't even close. The Sigma destroyed it.

Combatmedic870
15th of June 2010 (Tue), 10:53
Good god...Is this real life?!?!?

boyyoo
26th of July 2010 (Mon), 23:03
here is a chinese website to sell the product with brand name Walimex (Germany), produced in South Korea.

sales price is 2680 Chinese Yuan = 2680/6.8 = US $ 394

http://www.fengshop.com/jt_650-1300.html

SiaoP
27th of July 2010 (Tue), 00:59
Great way to dump 394$. And this thread still lives :?

Steve of Cornubia
22nd of February 2011 (Tue), 00:49
Saw one for sale recently, with a 50D, described as a 'professional camera pack'. :-)

Jericobot
22nd of February 2011 (Tue), 00:56
Archaic thread

fiveohmike
15th of July 2011 (Fri), 12:32
Back from the dead...just for the laughs!

E James P
15th of July 2011 (Fri), 12:57
http://opteka.com/lensesfordigitalfilmslr.aspx

A valid thread for as long as there are people still buying this ---lens , who knows it might help others
from trying it .

simv
13th of August 2011 (Sat), 04:42
Not sure whether Bower or Opteka are same or different. Shouldn't be too much of a difference in the image quality.

I recently happened to meet a person from India on the net who owns this lens (Bower 650-1300mm). The images taken by this lens are rare to find on the net (you must have realised that after going thro 29 pages of this post :P ). I have taken his permission and posting his thoughts and unprocessed images here. In my next post, I will post the processed images.

His views in his own words:
I recently purchased a Bower’s super zoom lense at very low cost. I bought it from ebay.com (US) at 150/- dollars and shipping 61.25/- $. Total around 9,700/- RS. And I am very happy with it’s performance. I always wanted to have super zoom lense but cost of which was in 4-5 Lacs rupees. Which is no way affordable to me. May be there will be some drawbacks in this lens but truly speaking at this cost if I can shoot at 1300mm zoom it’s better than not having any lens. Below are my first 10 shots from this lens.
This being T mount lens I don’t have flexibility to adjust aperture and enjoy auto focus. But this can be handled by setting shutter speed/ISO and manual focus to some extent. The fixed aperture is f/8.0 at 650mm to f/16.0 at 1300mm. These being first shots from this lense and that too without tripod images cloud me even better. I’ll keep them posting here and updating this forum.
So as of now I am satisfied with this lens I observed at S 1/100 to 1/500 images were too bright so I had to go for slower shutter speed like 1/1600 to 1/4000.
All the below shots are taken from my Nikon D5000.

Posting images in 4 sets as only 8 images are allowed per post.

SET 1

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3742/86146388.jpg

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2380/51760610.jpg

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4396/13640571.jpg

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/9100/43345832.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7869/97145036.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2709/27579949.jpg

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2162/35919609.jpg

simv
13th of August 2011 (Sat), 04:43
SET 2

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1899/18760441.jpg

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1932/61846932.jpg

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6430/97080346.jpg

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/563/70914507.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8509/60909326.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3851/53500157.jpg

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/6914/73463980.jpg

simv
13th of August 2011 (Sat), 04:44
SET 3

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3426/61163696.jpg

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/1552/18370317.jpg

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1633/55617351.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6056/44591649.jpg

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5750/51215314.jpg

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1571/19872991.jpg

simv
13th of August 2011 (Sat), 04:44
SET 4

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8089/58012348.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6222/62548109.jpg

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/993/53674359.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3578/63311007.jpg

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/1702/28161196.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5374/42430593.jpg

simv
13th of August 2011 (Sat), 04:47
The above ones were unprocessed images. For those who are still interested / will be interested, I am posting the processed images. Now, I don't have patience to upload individual images so posting them in zip format. Please select 'Slower download' option as a free user to download them.

http://www.fileserve.com/file/q2GyYEX/Bower_650-1300mm_processed_images_SET1.zip

http://www.fileserve.com/file/JVPwHjR/Bower_650-1300mm_processed_images_SET2.zip

samsen
9th of September 2012 (Sun), 00:26
Here is my first attempt at the moon with the Opteka. Definitely some funky stuff going on along the edges, especially along the bottom.

This was at 650mm, ISO 800, straight out of the camera, just sized for web:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/moon_3403.jpg

Same shot with some Noise Ninja+USM:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/moonUSM_3403.jpg

Oddly enough, the moon was at nearly the same exact phase a year ago when I shot this with my 300/4L IS. This one is a 100% crop.

http://www.casciola.com/pics/moon300mm.jpg

Nice try.
Ok, so the Opteka has nothing on the 300/4L IS aside from the $900 savings.

I successfully removed the cheapo t-mount that came with the lens and fitted the Celestron t-adapter, so this thing should be rock solid now. Back out in a little while for some 1300mm tests.

That is one nice try.

El_Fez
18th of January 2013 (Fri), 10:47
I have this thing, and I used it exactly twice and it's been sitting in my basement ever since. See my previous posts on this thread, and that's how long it's been in my basement.

Granted this thing is craptacular, did you ever post any of the shots? I've been thinking of throwing away some bread on this thing.

RPCrowe
18th of January 2013 (Fri), 11:30
This isn't actually a "Telephoto" lens. Although we tend to use the term "Telephoto" for all lenses with long focal lengths; the actual term for a lens of this type is "Long Focal Length" lens...

The difference between a LFL lens and Telephoto lens is that when focused at infinity, the distance from the oprtical center of the lens to the focal plane (film or digital sensor) is shorter than the focal length. With an LFL lens, when focused at infinity, the distance between the optical center of the lens and the focal plave is the focal length.

This accounts for the very long size of this lens.

BTW: I wouldn't touch this baby with a ten foot pole!

DreDaze
18th of January 2013 (Fri), 11:39
Granted this thing is craptacular, did you ever post any of the shots? I've been thinking of throwing away some bread on this thing.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=857388&postcount=222

there's gotta be better ways to blow a couple hundred dollars...

El_Fez
18th of January 2013 (Fri), 19:37
I have to admit that I've been tempted by this thing for a year(ish) now. I've got my Canon 70-300mm for long shots, but it's suffered a couple of accidents and has been the worse for wear for a while. It still gets the job done, but it might be time to think bigger.

So I'm torn between the 600-1300mm (that doesn't look quite as good) and perhaps something like the Tamron 200-500mm (yeah it's more, but not unreasonably so) and perhaps a x2 teleconverter.

Evan Idler
18th of January 2013 (Fri), 23:41
For the $249.00 price on the Opteka website, it's cheaper than most 2X teleconverters, but
I think the Sigma 50-500/50-500 OS/150-500 OS with a 2X teleconverter would still work better
and give you a very nice lens for other activities. If you could find a used one on e-bay for
$50.00 I would say jump on it. You wouldn't be out much, at least no different than going to
the theater for a Movie and Pizza afterwards. And I'm sure you would get an evening of
entertainment out of it.

--Evan

DreDaze
19th of January 2013 (Sat), 13:57
I have to admit that I've been tempted by this thing for a year(ish) now. I've got my Canon 70-300mm for long shots, but it's suffered a couple of accidents and has been the worse for wear for a while. It still gets the job done, but it might be time to think bigger.

So I'm torn between the 600-1300mm (that doesn't look quite as good) and perhaps something like the Tamron 200-500mm (yeah it's more, but not unreasonably so) and perhaps a x2 teleconverter.

what are you planning to use it on that you think you can reliable MF at 1000mm, or 1300mm...

Shackleton
19th of January 2013 (Sat), 19:29
All you need is that and the 2X teleconverter that comes with the $149 500MM F8 and you're all set!