Any stupidly cheap LONG telephotos that really work?

I'm talking 500mm and above and under 500 dollars. Lenses in which image quality is a second (or third or fourth) priority and getting the image is more important.

I want to do some fun celebrity photography in my area (a lot of films are being made).

And for what it's worth: No, I have no intention of participating in any kind of "gotcha" paparazzi-style pictures, just photos of the actors during their around-the-set downtime in which they are relaxed, sipping a coke, etc. I have no wish to embarrass anyone or make money off another's embarrassment.

But it would be fun to take celebrity photos, and they can get published for a few bucks here and there or sold on stock agencies for editorial use.

Thanks

Also, has anyone used something like this? It's 600mm

http://www.keh.com …1/sku-CE08999033943J?r=FE

After I read your post, the old mirror telephoto lenses came to mind, which is what you linked to. Just be aware they can be T stops of T/11 or worse, wide open and manual focus only. I.e. don't expect to be using it at night,

No, not night usage. Just daytime, and nothing creepy. I don't want to hide and take photos. I just want extra reach. (often people stand just outside of the set to meet the actors, and the actors often come over to say hi. Where I live there aren't huge crowds, just a dozen or so people milling around in hopes of getting an autograph or photo).

Oh and an aperture of 11 or more isn't a problem. I am shooting full frame and don't mind using a tripod.

Do those kind of lenses have any kind of reasonable quality? Although image quality isn't my first priority, I don't want totally blurry Bigfoot photos either.

Thanks again.

You could look the mirror lenses that have atrocious bokeh, it would likely be manual focus with an adapter. Or double your budget and get here http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …thzBu0EVycLCmxa​YqT1Hw_wcB

Go ahead and get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS for about $250 and get a T3i for about $350 and you will have about the equivalent of...oh, that's right...about 480mm and for $600.

Never mind.

try cropping a 70-300, you can get a decent amount of reach with it. good luck on the find.

If I remember correctly there is a thread on this forum about this lens.

http://www.amazon.com …eywords=Opteka+​lens+canon

Canon SX50 HS. 1200mm zoom and good daytime quality.

Either that or a crop camera with a 300mm zoom.


ACtually just remembered Tamron 200-500 is pretty good, but a pain to handhold stead because of no stabilization. $430 at Keh right now for a used one. I'd probably get the SX50, though.

The Samyang 500mm f/8 preset telephoto is a "stupid cheap" $100 lens which gets better photos than the price would suggest. I find it quite a bit better than the 500mm mirror lenses mainly because it allows you to stop down and increase sharpness.

You can view some samples here in this thread. https://photography-on-the.net …t=1294328&highl​ight=500mm

EOS-Mike wrote in post #16979595
And for what it's worth: No, I have no intention of participating in any kind of "gotcha" paparazzi-style pictures, just photos of the actors during their around-the-set downtime in which they are relaxed, sipping a coke, etc. I have no wish to embarrass anyone or make money off another's embarrassment.

But it would be fun to take celebrity photos, and they can get published for a few bucks here and there or sold on stock agencies for editorial use.

rl]

save another $500 and get a lens you will enjoy

100-300 F5.6 L + TC?

The shots Mike posted taken with the Samyang don't look half bad.

If you scrounge up a few more ducats, for $1,069 you can get a stabilized Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3. I know that's double what you were looking to spend, but it's a lot more flexible, and you might use it more. Pretty good bang for the buck.

LV Moose wrote in post #16979767
The shots Mike posted taken with the Samyang don't look half bad.

If you scrounge up a few more ducats, for $1,069 you can get a stabilized Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3. I know that's double what you were looking to spend, but it's a lot more flexible, and you might use it more. Pretty good bang for the buck.

That is a good idea, but if I get in the neighborhood of a grand, I'll keep going and pick up the Canon 100-400L and then save for a converter.

But, celebrity photos are just for fun. I make extra money shooting portraits. My current gear works great for that.

I'll keep thinking on it.

LV Moose wrote in post #16979767
The shots Mike posted taken with the Samyang don't look half bad.

If you scrounge up a few more ducats, for $1,069 you can get a stabilized Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3. I know that's double what you were looking to spend, but it's a lot more flexible, and you might use it more. Pretty good bang for the buck.

only problem is that you might die of old age while on the wait list

^ word!