650-1300mm Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Mount / EF

[MDJAK]

Originally Posted by Andythaler

Aah ... the suspense is killing me

How's build quality?

If no images, you could at least give us your first impressions!

Best regards,
Andy

Andy, with due respect, you can't be serious. Build quality? I had dollar magnifying glasses when I was a kid that probably were built better. In inflation adjusted dollars, those dollar glasses are probably worth two times that toy today.

[MDJAK]

"(QUOTE:something for nothing, of course. But it doesn't matter than the L lens is better to the person who can't afford it, but who still wants to take closeups of their kid standing in the outfield.)

Besides the above, Rick, your ending lines are hilarious. I look forward to reading them each and every time. In fact, I wish you would post more often.

As far as wanting a closeup of a kid in the outfield, just stand on the field, that's what I do.

And closeups are much more effective of batters, and you don't need all that long a lens to accomplish that, when one can usually stand right at the end of the dugout.

Mark, who thinks Rick is the funniest guy on this forum.

[ACDCROCKS]

I don't think this lens could really be used for sports, Unless it's 12 noon

[lakiluno]

it really depends how much third world *cough*corporate slaves*cough* umm workers are prepared to work for...

[pcasciola]

Originally Posted by rdenney

it's probably worth what it costs to someone who wants a really long lens and has no money

Absolutely. For $250, it's really not bad, but you have to remember it has very limited uses. If ever there was a sunny-16, tripod only lens, this is it. On an overcast day, forget it. Hand held, I haven't tried yet but it can't be good. Even at ISO 800 with the sun shining, I was only able to manage between 1/160 - 1/500, with an occassional 1/1000. It's fixed aperture. f/8 @ 650mm and f/16 @1300mm.

The t-mount adapter they gave me is absolute crap (the lens is threaded so you need an adapter). It's hard to explain, but the threads on the adapter spin, so I can't even get it off now, and the lens now spins on the t-mount. It looks like there are holes for set screws, but I don't see any set screws in it. Maybe my Celestron T-adapter will fit this thing and provide a firmer support.

The zoom is very bizarre too. It's push-pull zoom, but has a threaded lock ring which you have to turn about one full turn to loosen/tighten.

The 2x adapter looks like junk too. That was $19.95 down the drain. Other than a few test shots, that will probably just gather a lot of dust over the next few years.

I just went out and took some shots of it mounted on the tripod before the sun went down, and it looks like the clouds are clearing so I should be able to get some decent moon shots in a couple of hours.

Just about done with the first set of pics....

[lakiluno]

hmmm...sounds nice. There really is no point in using a 2x adapter with that kind of aperture...

Leo

[pcasciola]

Originally Posted by lakiluno

hmmm...sounds nice. There really is no point in using a 2x adapter with that kind of aperture...

Leo

Yeah. Plus, if a normal 2x converter costs 2 stops, from the looks of this thing I will lose about 4-8 stops.

[MDJAK]

Originally Posted by ACDCROCKS

I don't think this lens could really be used for sports, Unless it's 12 noon

That would be 12 HIGH NOON, very high noon.

Pcasciola, I give you a lot of credit for trying it.

Ever see The Odd Couple? Oscar (the slob) says to Felix (the neatnik):

OSCAR: You know, Felix, you're really a great guy so I got to give you credit. But you're such a pain in the butt, I got to take that credit away.

I'm not taking the credit away.

Remember what engineering student said to professor upon receiving an F on his bridge project.

STUDENT: But, professor, I built a beautiful bridge, don't I get at least partial credit for that?

PROFESSOR: Engineer builds beautiful looking bridge; bridge collapses. NO PARTIAL CREDIT.

Don't ask me what any of that means. I'm delerious.

[lakiluno]

Originally Posted by MDJAK

That would be 12 HIGH NOON, very high noon.

Pcasciola, I give you a lot of credit for trying it.

Ever see The Odd Couple? Oscar (the slob) says to Felix (the neatnik):

OSCAR: You know, Felix, you're really a great guy so I got to give you credit. But you're such a pain in the butt, I got to take that credit away.

I'm not taking the credit away.

Remember what engineering student said to professor upon receiving an F on his bridge project.

STUDENT: But, professor, I built a beautiful bridge, don't I get at least partial credit for that?

PROFESSOR: Engineer builds beautiful looking bridge; bridge collapses. NO PARTIAL CREDIT.

Don't ask me what any of that means. I'm delerious.

child: mummy, whos that strange man
Mum: Thats MDJAK dear

[nitsch]

Soon we will get to see the shots we have been waiting so long for but whatever the results of the lens tests are I think we all need to congratulate Pcasciola for his time and personal expense in taking on this task which has been of great interest/amusement to so many people on the forum.

It's kind of like a modern day freak show - the crowd waiting with baited breath to see the mythical beast perform!

Thanks Philip!

[codex0]

(continued...)
child: but what's a MDJAK?
Mum: I'll tell you when you're older, dear

Just kidding . I think I got half of what you said .

[pcasciola]

Ok, here are the first set of shots. Now, don't forget, it was windy, I had the grip ballhead and QR plate mounted so I could see shake through the lens, and I was in a huge hurry because the sun was going down. I already took all that stuff off for the moon shots later tonight, so now it's mounted directly to my tripod. I did use mirror lockup for all of these shots, and ISO 800. The test tree was roughly 150-200 yards away.

Here is the scene at 50mm with the Tamron (red circle is the area I aimed for with the Opteka):


The rest are captioned, but I should mention the exact USM settings I used. The 2nd to last shot is the only one that is completely unprocessed from the RAW.

Here is the Opteka at 650mm. It was a little soft looking out of the camera, so I cranked up the USM in Noise Ninja before resizing, to 200% at a radius of 1.9.



Here it is at 1300mm. Same USM, but I increased the radius to 2.4:



And here is the 100% crop from the 650mm shot, completely untouched out of the camera. Ok, it's not so great, but remember, under $300.



And with some USM. I couldn't do too much USM here because of the ISO 800 noise:



My first impressions are, for web sized shots it's very usable. I'm not sure where they got the weight from, but this lens feels much lighter than my Sigma 500/4.5.

It comes with a cheapo carrying case that doesn't really fit once you attach the t-adapter, cheapo snap on lens cover that's more like a telescope cover, and no EF rear cap. It only has a threaded rear cap that you can't use with the t-adapter attached.

I took some shots of the setup with my P&S which I'll post in a little while, but now I am chomping at the bit waiting for the moon to rise. I'm going to let it get a little high in the sky before I do those shots so I'm not shooting through too much atmosphere.

What do you think? Should I order like 50 for us and see if I can get them for like $100-150 a piece? I'm thinking this would make a great starter wildlife lens.

[lakiluno]

I'll pay $100-$150 for it - I live in the UK though

Leo

[MDJAK]

Give me about half an hour to get these test shots together.
It's been an hour. Let's go, I ain't got all day.

[pcasciola]

Originally Posted by MDJAK

Give me about half an hour to get these test shots together.
It's been an hour. Let's go, I ain't got all day.

Look up.