Mine's Bigger

Just wanted to share one of my recent acquisitions, as it's somewhat of a novelty. It's bigger then the Canon 500mm, 600mm, and the 800mm, although those weigh more.

I picked up a Takumar 500mm f/4.5 in FD mount a few months ago. It's just over 20 inches long with hood extended, 17.3 inches with hood retracted. Weighs in at just under 8lbs. Front element is 4.5 inches (about 115mm) in diameter. This thing is a BEAST.

As for IQ, not really sure yet. Just got an FD>EF adapter (with glass ), and only tried a couple of shots of the moon tonight. The best (focused) shot was unfortunately at ISO 3200, and that's not a very good ISO for the 50D, not to mention the degradation from the adapter, and I got 'passable' results. I think with patience and some tweaking, it could be decent.

Moon shot is ISO 3200, f/8 (I think), SS 1/1000 Uncropped, only converted to jpeg (faithful).

So without further ado, I present to you the c. 1966 Takumar 500mm f/4.5

Haha,

Beasty.

My Tamron 600mm is 17.6" with the hood. But half the weight.

Too bad it's FD mount, and not just M42 mount. That would have made it stellar.

What'd you pay for that monster? I saw a few old telephotos with wide aperture for their length in the several-hundred range on ebay (I browse vintage glass all day... I'm a sucker).

I shot this tonight (not to steal thunder...)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nRZ9​WB

Nice shot. I really wasn't expecting much, especially without any post. It was more of an experiment than anything else. I'm going to play around with it a bit more and see if I can get good results. I have no intentions of keeping this lens for any length of time.

Yeah, I wish it was M42. It has a very weird mount. There is a small section at the back that comes off the lens, and you could interchange mounts. The correct procedure for mounting this is to take off the mount section (about 2" long), mount the lens to the tripod, the mount section to your camera, then mount that to the lens.

I have a weird feeling that if I used a glassless FD>EF adapter, I may still get infinity focus because of the way it's designed, but I seem to have misplaced that adapter. If I could find the M42 mount section, that would even be better.

Why 1/1000... and ISO 3200? Was that handheld?

If not, throw it on the tripod, 1/100 ISO 200 or less, and crop. Report back.

1Tanker wrote in post #16952669
Why 1/1000... and ISO 3200? Was that handheld?

If not, throw it on the tripod, 1/100 ISO 200 or less, and crop. Report back.

I would have probably done it too (high ISO). Mine was shot at 1/640s ISO 800 F8 for the same reason that he did. A moving moon at 1/100s is not what I'd do with a lens at these lengths. Faster shutter is better. The noise is negligible here anyways, so you can only benefit from the sharpness of a faster shutter.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16952686
I would have probably done it too (high ISO). Mine was shot at 1/640s ISO 800 F8 for the same reason that he did. A moving moon at 1/100s is not what I'd do with a lens at these lengths. Faster shutter is better. The noise is negligible here anyways, so you can only benefit from the sharpness of a faster shutter.

Very best,

I shoot 420-600mm f/8, ISO 160.. 1/80-1/200(usually 1/100-1/160) on 60D. No movement

Ok.. 1/2 moon..1/200

I went to 1/1000 @3200 for a couple of reasons, and yes, at 8lbs, it was on the tripod with 10 second timer.

First, I wanted to stop down as much as I could because I know the adapter causes really significant image deterioration when shot wide open (f/4.5 in this case).

First shot I took was at 1/200, f/5.6 at ISO 500 On the LCD I could see noticeable CA, and blur. I was not sure if the blur was because I missed focus or subject movement. I also continued to see the CA, and wanted to keep stopping until I didn't see it so clearly. At ISO 1600 1/500, there was still CA, so I went up to 3200 to be able to stop down again. Also, I figured 500mm x 1.6 = 800, so minimum SS should be 1/800, but I went safe and bumped to 1/1000.

After reviewing the shots again, I think the above image was at f/11, but I honestly am not sure. It was/is the best as far as least (almost non-existent) CA, and also was the sharpest (which I attribute to the 1/1000).

I guess I knew some/most of the limitations of the equipment I was using, and adjusted accordingly to get the best performance out of the equipment. And yes, I knew the 3200 would look like poop....

Also, remember, this is not a 300L with a quality 2xTC. It's a nearly 50 year old lens with a P.O.S. adapter stuck on the end of it, and concessions needed to be made. I was tempted to put my 1.4x or 2x on it, but I doubt the moon would be recognizable.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16952735
I went to 1/1000 @3200 for a couple of reasons, and yes, at 8lbs, it was on the tripod with 10 second timer.

First, I wanted to stop down as much as I could because I know the adapter causes really significant image deterioration when shot wide open (f/4.5 in this case).

First shot I took was at 1/200, f/5.6 at ISO 500 On the LCD I could see noticeable CA, and blur. I was not sure if the blur was because I missed focus or subject movement. I also continued to see the CA, and wanted to keep stopping until I didn't see it so clearly. At ISO 1600 1/500, there was still CA, so I went up to 3200 to be able to stop down again. Also, I figured 500mm x 1.6 = 800, so minimum SS should be 1/800, but I went safe and bumped to 1/1000.

After reviewing the shots again, I think the above image was at f/11, but I honestly am not sure. It was/is the best as far as least (almost non-existent) CA, and also was the sharpest (which I attribute to the 1/1000).

I guess I knew some/most of the limitations of the equipment I was using, and adjusted accordingly to get the best performance out of the equipment. And yes, I knew the 3200 would look like poop....

That's a guideline for hand-holding. On tripod.. there is no limit (well, within reason).

I have said it before, I will say it again. I'm never impressed wth shots of the moon. It is often out there, easy to find, well lit. You are shooting up through cool night air. It does not move fast. Exposure is no-brainer (think sunny f/16.)

gasrocks wrote in post #16953611
I have said it before, I will say it again. I'm never impressed wth shots of the moon. It is often out there, easy to find, well lit. You are shooting up through cool night air. It does not move fast. Exposure is no-brainer (think sunny f/16.)

I actually don't like shooting the moon. But in this case, it was an easy distant object that would give me some idea of what the lens could do. I was sitting in my yard, looked up, no clouds, and said "Hmm, I should try out that Tak", and that's what I did.

Pentax Takumar?
Sure it is native Canon FD mount?
I guess it is M42 or T2 mount with a FD adapter on it
So unscrew, and use it with a direct adapter to Canon EF.

gasrocks wrote in post #16953611
I have said it before, I will say it again. I'm never impressed wth shots of the moon. It is often out there, easy to find, well lit. You are shooting up through cool night air. It does not move fast. Exposure is no-brainer (think sunny f/16.)

He is playing with a cool new toy, the title of the thread is not "hey look at my awesome and impressive moon shot", but now that we all know you are not impressed with moon shots we can try to get the word out so no one photographs it again.


Looks like a killer lens, like others said though, the m42 would have been nice. I would look into glass less adaptor options. What did it set you back if you don't mind me asking?

The 600 II with hood in place is almost 25inches and the 800 and 500II are both longer than 20 inches with the hoods. Anyway it's girth that really matters.

^ That's what she said....