Really Cheap, Really Long Lenses

[rdenney]

During the recent thread on the cheapie $230 630-1350mm ultrazooms, I mentioned a slightly more expensive alternative to get to the 1000mm range without spending more than $500.

In this thread, I'll review the 500mm f/5.6 Pentacon Prakticar MC. The Prakticar is based on an earlier lens designed and produced by Meyer Gorlitz. It was the longer companion of the 300mm Orestegor (later just labeled "Pentacon"), which was always overshadowed by the 300mm Zeiss Jena Sonnar in the same Pentacon Six lens mount. Both the 300 and 500mm Pentacon lenses used the same interchangeable mount, and came with either a Pentacon Six mount for medium format or an M42 mount for 35mm Praktica cameras (and anything else that uses the Pentax screw mount). Both mounts are easily adapted to the Canon EF mount using a sub-$40 adaptor.

The 500/5.6 Prakticar MC is multicoated, and provides a preset aperture in the range of 5.6 to 22. By "preset" I mean that you push the aperture ring forward, set it to the taking value, and then release it. You can then quickly turn it between wide open and the taking aperture without having to look. There is no automation with this lens. But it is a well-made all-metal lens of good build quality--much better than the cheapie discussed in the other thread.

Minimum focusing distance is about 20 feet, which ain't bad for a 500mm lens. At that range, the subject plane with an APS sensor is about twice the size of a postcard.

To get the Prakticar into the 1000mm range, you need a teleconverter. You could use a Canon-mount teleconverter behind the adaptor, but good ones are expensive and the best ones (made by Canon) will only work on authorized lenses. The cheaper alternative is to get a 2X teleconverter in the Pentacon Six medium-format lens mount. These are made by Arsenal in the Ukraine, the maker of the Kiev line of cameras and lenses. The 2X converter is multicoated and contains seven elements. In other tests, I've shown that it adds a moderate chromatic aberration but that you get much more in magnification what you lose in resolution. In other words, it's a pretty good teleconverter as teleconverters go.

The Prakticar typically sells on ebay for between $300 and $400, and the Arsat 2X converter is usually under $100. The adaptor is $25-40.

The first picture below is an Elan II with the Prakticar 500/5.6, 2X Arsat converter, and adaptor. (I show it attached to the Elan for scale--I needed my 10D to take the picture.) The second picture is the Prakticar lens, without converter or adaptor, sitting next to the Elan with a Canon 70-200/4L and a Canon 1.4X teleconverter. If you think it's big, then you should heft it. It's HEAVY. I didn't weigh it, but think in the 12-15 pound range. Don't skimp on the monopod if you intend to hand-hold it. With this lens, hand-holding requires a monopod.

In the next messages, I will show some results, and answer the question whether it's better to enlarge from an image made with a superior but shorter lens or go long with a cheaper lens of the needed focal length.

In all the tests, the camera was a Canon 10D in Av mode. The images were adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw for white balance and exposure (Av with a manual lens is not completely consistent in my experience, but always within the range of easy adjustment in Raw). The target was 24 feet from the camera, which should show the worst performance of the lens (lenses are usually optimized for infinity focus). The camera was mounted on a Bogen 3040 tripod (i.e., the tripod I have happily used for large format), but this wasn't enough and I also used a cable release. Exposures were long enough so that it mattered, but I don't think any images I used to draw conclusions were spoiled by camera shake.

Rick "1 of 5" Denney

[rdenney]

The first image is the full-frame image with no cropping. I resized it for web display and sharpened it with a .7 radius, and amount of 125, and a threshold of 5, in Photoshop CS. The only other adjustments were made during raw conversion, and consisted of adjusting the white balance and the exposure.

The second image is a 100% crop from the center of the 10D image, made before any processing. There is no sharpening in the crop.

This message will show the results at f/5.6 lens setting, which is effectively f/11 with the 2X converter. Focal length with this arrangement is 1000mm.

Rick "2 of 5" Denney

[rdenney]

Here is the Prakticar with the 2X converter set at f/11, which is effectively f/22.

I should have mentioned that all images were made at ISO 400.

Rick "3 of 5" Denney

[rdenney]

These images were made with the 500mm Prakticar without the teleconverter. These are 100% crops, the first from an image made at f/5.6, and the second from an images made at f/11. The f/11 image was degraded slightly by a bit of camera shake.

Rick "4 of 5" Denney

[rdenney]

The point of using a longer lens is to provide greater magnification so as to see a smaller field of view from a given camera position. But there are two ways to limit the field of view in the image, and that's either by changing the magnification (i.e., using a longer lens) or by using a smaller format and enlarging it more. If the objective is a print of a given size, one might have to choose between an affordable long lens and an over-enlarged image from a better, but shorter lens.

To illustrate this scenario, I've compared the 1000mm Prakticar-plus-converter to an enlarged image made with a Canon 70-200/4L. There is no question that the Canon lens is superior, but it is also twice as expensive and one-fifth the focal length. And we all know that a Canon 500mm lens with a Canon 2X converter would be better than the Prakticar, but it would cost at least ten times as much.

The first image is the full-frame image from the Prakticar, resized and sharpened as in the first message (in fact, it's the same image). The second image was made with the Canon lens, and the center part of the image was enlarged and scaled to the same number of pixels as the first image. This required a slight amount of upsampling, but it's really pretty close to comparing the 100% crop of the Canon lens to an image from the longer lens that has been downsampled by a factor of five. The effective format with the Canon lens was a 1-megapixel 3x5mm sensor.

Both lenses were set to f/11.

Yup, the long lens is better. The reason is simple: Format is king. The more information you start with, the better the image looks, even if it isn't quite as sharp. The first image is smoother and contains more tonal information. It's not really sharper, but it really is better. It has 6 megapixels of information in it, even though it's downsampled, because each downsampled pixel is informed by six pixels from the original image. That averages out the noise and that's what makes the difference.

So, don't be afraid of low-cost long lenses if you need the maginification and the alteranative is to over-enlarge images from a shorter lens. If you can deal with the convience issue, you'll get better images. Not everyone can afford Canon's longest lenses.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

[Dan GSR]

i'd love to see more samples from the Pentacon with and without the 2x converter

maybe some different subjects

[CyberDyneSystems]

Excellent review Rick,. and some amazing results!
I'm stunned that a 500mm could be so affordable. An excellent investment for anyone not ready to shell out the ducats for a 500mm AF lens.

[rdenney]

i'd love to see more samples from the Pentacon with and without the 2x converter

maybe some different subjects

You never can tell when that might happen, heh, heh.

The moon would be a good subject for this, because everyone knows what it looks like and it's bright enough to deal with the resulting small aperture. But the moon requires clear weather and the right time of the month. And all that has to coincide with my own availability. It could happen.

Rick "who will seek out a subject when time permits" Denney

[condyk]

Very good ... very interesting ... very hard to read as had to scroll left to right for each line because of the images size! Thanks tho'

Please no moon shots. It's just a grey blob. Why not use something that shows colour, contrast and sharpness nicely?

[lakiluno]

Where can you buy these? how much?

Leo

[rdenney]

Very good ... very interesting ... very hard to read as had to scroll left to right for each line because of the images size! Thanks tho'

Please no moon shots. It's just a grey blob. Why not use something that shows colour, contrast and sharpness nicely?

Get a higher resolution monitor, heh, heh. I don't have to scroll horizontally on my 1280x1024 screen.

But my widest image is only 600 pixels wide, sho there's something about the POTN software that draws such a big box around attached images. Sorry--I have no control over that.

Rick "who sees the sun out today, but also the wind" Denney

[condyk]

Get a higher resolution monitor, heh, heh. I don't have to scroll horizontally on my 1280x1024 screen.

But my widest image is only 600 pixels wide, sho there's something about the POTN software that draws such a big box around attached images. Sorry--I have no control over that.

Yeah, I am on my laptop today rather than my big desktop so fair comment.

[cmM]

Rick "who sheds light on forgotten lenses" Denney,
thanks for taking the time, that was a most interesting read, you definitely put things in perspective for a lotta people here (I bet).

Greetings,

[rdenney]

Where can you buy these? how much?

The how much is in my first message. You should be able to get all three pieces I described for under $500.

Mostly, these are ebay items. Search on "Prakticar 500" and you'll probably find all there is. Make sure it has the Pentacon Six lens mount already if you want to use the Arsat 2x converter. It also comes in M42, which you can also adapt to Canon EF, but then you have to find an M42 teleconverter and a good one might be harder to find.

A search on "Pentacon Six" will usually find all lenses with that mount, including the teleconverters, especially if you check the "Search items and descriptions" box. Many of these are available in Europe on German ebay, so this is not a U.S. availability thing only.

And if you ever go back to film, you can get a cheapie Kiev 60 camera that will take advantage of these lenses in the 120 film format. The 60 is about $300 or a little more, in new condition with a normal lens and a TTL prism. Buy from a source that provides warranty returns, however. With Kiev cameras, you often have to send one or two back before you get one that works properly, heh, heh. Once you find a 60 that works, however, they tend to keep doing so. They are not the miracle of electronic sophistication of a Canon DSLR, nor are they the miracle of mechanical sophistication like, say, a Rollei. They are made like a cheap alarm clock. Having 500mm capability in medium format for well under $700 for camera and lens is pretty astonishing, even today when MF stuff is being given away at fire-sale prices. The Pentax 400mm lens for my Pentax 645 costs as much as the typical Kiev 60 and ten lenses for it, ranging from fisheye to 500.

Rick "who has 50-year-old cheap alarm clocks that still tell time just fine" Denney

[lakiluno]

Film? Me? NEVER!!!!!!!

(sorry to burst your bubble)

Leo "Who takes so many photos he wouldn't be able to eat if he still used film" Rampen

[Sajjad Yasin]

Hi Rick
Could you please give some info picture quality on this lense: Phoenix 500mm f/8
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Mt-500mm-Tele-Lens-Elan-7-7e-7n-7ne-Camera_W0QQitemZ7554736296QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem

If possible please give us some birds or wildlife pics from Practikar........Thanks

[rdenney]

Hi Rick
Could you please give some info picture quality on this lense: Phoenix 500mm f/8
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Mt-500mm-Tele-Lens-Elan-7-7e-7n-7ne-Camera_W0QQitemZ7554736296QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem

If possible please give us some birds or wildlife pics from Practikar........Thanks

I have no idea of the quality of the Phoenix 500/8--I've never handled one or seen one reviewed.

I DO have a Phoenix 100-400 zoom that I bought to use on my Elan. I rarely use it because it's not that great, but I have made a few interesting images with it. The image below was made using this lens at 400mm, shot on Velvia in the Elan II.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/pinnacle_in_last_light_lores.jpg

That lens is like the Canon 70-300 (not the new DO or the IS version, but the cheap lens)--it's too light and too hard to hold steady. The image above required a tripod.

Rick "who doesn't do wildlife, but who will add a few images made with the Prakticar in the next few minutes" Denney

[rdenney]

Film? Me? NEVER!!!!!!!

(sorry to burst your bubble)

Leo "Who takes so many photos he wouldn't be able to eat if he still used film" Rampen

It doesn't burst my bubble, dude. It saves more for me.

Kidding aside, each medium has its own artistic possibilities. Medium-format film still has a certain quality that is hard to match with even full-frame digital, at least for now. But I never use it for mere documentation any more, and the cost is less because I only use film when my objectives make it worth the trouble.

Rick "who never shoots 35mm film any more but who still uses the larger formats" Denney

[rdenney]

Okay, there were some requests for more general sorts of images. I spent about ten minutes wandering around the yard with the Prakticar, the 10D, and a monopod.

Here's the first one, one of my two remaining roses, from about 30 feet away. As with the above, the first image is the 100% crop, unprocessed. The second is full frame, resized, sharpened, and adjusted quickly to look the way I want it. On this one, I didn't adjust the tone curve, so the contrast you see came out of the camera that way.

ISO 800, f/8, 1/750 using a monopod.

Rick "seeing a touch of chromatic aberration, but reasonable bokeh and good sharpness" Denney

[pcasciola]

I DO have a Phoenix 100-400 zoom that I bought to use on my Elan. According to my contact at Opteka, these AF zooms are all being discontinued. Opteka and Vivitar sell the same 100-400 lens.

[rdenney]

The lamppost was about 100 feet away.

The full-frame image got a boost on the contrast, just because I see it that way. But the original would not impress you with being low in contrast.

Prakticar 500mm, ISO 800, f/8, 1/250, monopod.

Rick "who needs to clean the driveway lamp" Denney

[rdenney]

This is the closest I get to being fast enough for birds, heh, heh. The small birdbath is about 40 feet away.

I forgot to mention that I performed no noise reduction on these, which I suppose was obvious.

Prakticar 500mm, ISO800, f/8, 1/2000, monopod.

Rick "who thinks this lens would feel mighty heavy on a long hike" Denney

[rdenney]

This image demonstrates how hard it is to use a lens like this for some subjects. Getting enough depth of field for this image would require something like f/22, but I would have had to have a very sturdy tripod to make that possible. The focus is on the birdbatch, which is perhaps three feet tall and about 350 feet away. The dogwood showing red leaves at the top is about 50 feet nearer, and the srub at left is another 50 or 60 feet closer still. This is not an image I would normally show, except as a demonstration of the difficulties of using such a long lens.

Chromatic aberration is more apparent on this image, but it still ain't bad.

The bokeh in the foreground is not as good as the bokeh in the background. I'm seeing bright edges and some double-line bokeh on the foreground out-of-focus highlights. I don't know how that compares with other 500mm lenses.

I didn't make any images using the 2X converter. The monopod just isn't enough to handle a 1000mm lens on the 10D--even if the shutter speed is high enough it's too hard to compose the image. The 500 on the 10D is like an 800 on a full-frame camera, which most would consider very long indeed. And 1000 would be like 1600, which would be most challenging to keep still even with a tripod. Extreme telephotos are demanding, and that's why IS is so popular.

Prakticar 500, ISO800, f/8, 1/500, monopod.

Rick "noting that both roses are visible" Denney