Long MF Prime?

I've been wanting a cheap(ish) setup to do some longer wildlife work but I absolutely do not have the budget to afford any serious toys, I'm only a student.

But, the more I think about it, the more I think... who cares about auto-focus? I can probably deal with a MF prime as long as it has decent quality glass and will mount to the Rebel XT I currently own.

That brings me here, I don't know enough about it, and really don't know where to start... is this idea even feasible? And better yet, has anyone done it? I'm shooting for something atleast 400mm, whether that involves TC's or not... pretty open right now.

Thanks in advance.

- Scott

Can you give us a better idea of what your budget is? Cheap is a relative term on these forums. I remember back in my film days I picked up a 500mm mirror lens and EF mount adapter for about $100 or so, obviously the quality was nothing to write home about but it got me some shots I just wouldn't have had otherwise. You also have some inexpensive options with autofocus such as the Sigma 135-400mm lens or 170-500mm, if you can find one used then you could stay under $400 with the former and $500 with the latter and can get decent results stopped down a bit. Autofocus is nice to have with the small viewfinder of the XT.

We'll say my price range is $500 for now, give or take a little bit. Thanks for the reply.

The reason I'm talking about MF primes is my only concern is really getting the best IQ/speed bang for my buck and I think I can deal with MF on the XT once I get used to it.

- Scott

take a look at the tokina 80-400 lens. you should be able to get one, at least used, for your budget. you dont want to deal with MF. especially on a cramped XT viewfinder.

Even most of the FD big lenses are still pricey. Some of the MF guys should chirp in here eventually, though.

In2Photos wrote in post #2081211
Even most of the FD big lenses are still pricey. Some of the MF guys should chirp in here eventually, though.

yea, and the FDs will either have to have one of the expensive and rare adapters, and if he goes with a cheaper adapter, the IQ will drop signifitcantly. theres really no cheap relaiable way to go supertele.

There are awesome M42 mount glass. I'm not so sure about the long lenses though.

However, I know that the 200mm f/2.8 Sonnar has beautiful beautiful bokeh.

SIgma 600/8 mirror lens, around $400.

Make sure you check out this link before purchasing and compare IQ of different lens with the ISO 12233 crops too. Although I don't think he has crops of some of the long long lens, just reviews.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …358&Camera=9&Le​nsComp=358

The big FD lenses are the same basic lens formulas that Canon used on the first EF lenses, and they went from there.

As mentioned above, the cheap FD-EOS adapters will reduce the image quality of these fine lenses.

The Canon FD-EOS converter will give you all of the image quality plus a 1.26x teleconverter boost. The hard thing to swallow is the $600-$800 cost of the Canon converter. However, the FD lenses are very reasonable, so you can actually save quite a bit of cash. For example, let's say you pay $700 for a Canon adapter and $1000 for an FD 500 f4.5L. For $1700 you have a 630mm f5.6 lens with L quality, versus $5500 for the EF 500 f4L IS. So you give up AF and IS, and you only have auto-exposure in the AV mode - quite a big savings, I'd say. And if you add an FD 300 f2.8L for $800, for a total investment of $2500 you would have 2 long L lenses for less than the price of a used EF 300 f2.8L (non-IS). Definitely worth a thought.

However, the Canon FD-EOS converters can be hard to come by. They show up on eBay from time to time. I got two of mine there.

If you decide to go that way, I have a spare FD 600 f4.5 I'd be willing to part with.

Have Fun,

Stime187 wrote in post #2081195
We'll say my price range is $500 for now, give or take a little bit.

As was mentioned, the long high-end FD-mount lenses aren't this cheap and require an optical adapter that will degrade the image a bit. And forget any of the current Canon lenses--I saw a lens shade for one of the 500mm Canon lenses that wasn't in your price range.

There are options, including cheapie third-party lenses, classic lenses in adaptable mounts, and mirror lenses.

One cheapie third-party lens in your budget is the Phoenix 100-500 4/5-8 zoom, which is actually autofocus. Expect a slow and noisy focus motor, mediocre image quality, and poor build quality. But it makes images. I actually own the 100-400 version of this lens, and it does indeed work. I've even taken a couple of decent pictures with it. Use a tripod. This is a real lens that you can own and use and not feel stupid for having it. Just don't expect too much.

The Sigma 170-500 is better, but you'll have to be lucky to find one at $500 or less. Tokina's 80-400 is also too expensive unless you find a used one.

There are several cheapie 400mm manual-focus lenses on ebay, with names such as Astranar and so on. The manufacturer is not known, but that doesn't make them worthless. But there is no track record, so you are on your own. They are also rather slow--the fastest one I saw was f/6.3. Opteka is another brand that has been discussed on the forum. These lenses are not what I would call real lenses--the barrels are saggy and getting good results with them requires a lot of fiddling. They are designed only to be cheap.

Classic lenses include the older telephotos made by the major companies, such as Pentax, Nikon, and so on. These are not as easy to find any more, but KEH lists several 400 and 500mm Pentax Takumars with the M42 screwmount. These can be adapted to Canon EF with a $20 adapter. I expect these would be far better than the cheapies, though they are at the upper end of your price range.

I have a Pentacon Prakticar 500/5.6 in an adaptable mount. Its image quality is reasonable considering the price (well within your range, including the adapter). The Takumars would probably beat it, though. I have reviewed this lens in detail on this forum--do a search on Prakticar and you should find it. Edit: Here is a link to that thread: http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=107439

Finally, there are mirror lenses. Most of these are cheapie 500/8 mirrors, but there are one or two 500/5.6 mirror lenses. With mirror lenses, you get small size and light weight, but you give up the ability to stop the lens down for ultimate image quality. They all work at one aperture only--wide open. But the Russians make a 500/8 that isn't bad for only $150. When used carefully these produce good results. They are subject to temperature variations, so let them assume ambient temperature before using them.

All lenses of this length will need a tripod.

All in all, I would try a 400 or 500 Pentax Takumar with an adapter first.

Rick "whose Prakticar covers medium format and looks is enormously big and heavy" Denney

Just to add to what Rick Denney mentioned, most of the mirror lenses come with or allow neutral density filters to be inserted in the rear of the lens, which provide the same effect as stopping the lens down.

You may actually be able to pick up a mirror lens on eBay for well within your budget. However, the image quality is not great, and you get donut-shaped bokeh. But sometimes a poor image is better than no image. . .

Have Fun,

CoolToolGuy wrote in post #2082408
Just to add to what Rick Denney mentioned, most of the mirror lenses come with or allow neutral density filters to be inserted in the rear of the lens, which provide the same effect as stopping the lens down.

It reduces the exposure, yes, but does not have the effect of stopping down most lenses, which is the sense of what I was saying. Most lenses perform better when stopped down, and there is an optimum aperture that minimizes the effects of lens faults (which show up most at wide apertures) and diffraction (which shows up at small apertures). Mirror lenses can only be used wide open, and thus you get what you get. You can adjust the exposure with a neutral density filter, but you can't improve the performance of the lens.

Rick "admittedly being picky" Denney

Cool... Good information... I've kinda been wondering about some of this stuff myself. One other thing I personally have wondered about is a telescope mount... I've noticed that telescopes aren't nearly as expensive as they used to be, and the reach you can get is pretty amazing... How would one go about hooking up something like that?

I know you wanted +400mm, but considering that you are a student, how about getting this ...70-300mm IS

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …SA&addedTroughT​ype=search

and then later gettting this... 1.4x extender

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …SA&addedTroughT​ype=search

I think this will give you maximum flexibility until your finances improve.