Prev: EF 50/1.8 AF Experiment?
Next: Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice
From: Shane on 21 Dec 2009 09:10
Has anyone had any experience with a Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm Super
Telephoto Zoom Lens. If not, how about any of the other lenses like this or
any of the spotting scope lenses.

Thanks,
Shane

From: Bigguy on 21 Dec 2009 09:39
Shane wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience with a Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm
> Super Telephoto Zoom Lens. If not, how about any of the other lenses
> like this or any of the spotting scope lenses.
>
> Thanks,
> Shane

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Canon/product-reviews/B00064YZAQ

http://www.epinions.com/reviews/Opteka_650_1300mm_F8_16_Super_Telephoto_Zoom_Lens_LR_1300HD_For_Canon

Looks pretty junky to me... YMMV :-)


Guy
From: RichA on 21 Dec 2009 20:16
On Dec 21, 9:10 am, "Shane" <atld...(a)bresnan.net> wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience with a Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm Super
> Telephoto Zoom Lens.  If not, how about any of the other lenses like this or
> any of the spotting scope lenses.
>
> Thanks,
> Shane

Garbage. The f-stops at those focal lengths are about f8-9 and
f16-19. Plus, lots of crappy, likely uncoated internal optics to
facilitate the zoom function. If anyone wants a decent, cheap
facsimile of a telephoto lens, then get a cheap achromatic telescope
optical tube instead. At least you'll have an f5 focal ratio at 400mm
which you can boost with eyepieces to whatever you want. Plus, you'll
get much better results.

http://www.telescope.com/control/telescopes/refractor-telescopes/orion-shorttube-80-a-refractor-telescope

From: M-M on 22 Dec 2009 10:42
In article
<4e2e9236-0482-4e67-935d-0d8d348f49d2(a)v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 21, 9:10�am, "Shane" <atld...(a)bresnan.net> wrote:
> > Has anyone had any experience with a Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm
> > Super
> > Telephoto Zoom Lens. �If not, how about any of the other lenses like this
> > or
> > any of the spotting scope lenses.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shane
>
> Garbage. The f-stops at those focal lengths are about f8-9 and
> f16-19. Plus, lots of crappy, likely uncoated internal optics to
> facilitate the zoom function. If anyone wants a decent, cheap
> facsimile of a telephoto lens, then get a cheap achromatic telescope
> optical tube instead. At least you'll have an f5 focal ratio at 400mm
> which you can boost with eyepieces to whatever you want. Plus, you'll
> get much better results.
>
> http://www.telescope.com/control/telescopes/refractor-telescopes/orion-shorttu
> be-80-a-refractor-telescope


I used a similar type scope for a long time until I upgraded to a Nikon
Fieldscope. If you have the skill, patience and the right conditions
(lots of light), you can get some once-in-a-lifetime shots for real
cheap.

Yes, it's soft and very small apertures with quite a bit of purple
fringing at times. And you need to manually focus with a DOF measured in
mm's. But here are some examples:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/eagle1L.jpg

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/jay1L.jpg

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/snowjL.jpg

All taken with a film camera on a Swift spotting scope.

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
From: NameHere on 22 Dec 2009 16:07
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:42:24 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote:

>In article
><4e2e9236-0482-4e67-935d-0d8d348f49d2(a)v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 9:10�am, "Shane" <atld...(a)bresnan.net> wrote:
>> > Has anyone had any experience with a Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm
>> > Super
>> > Telephoto Zoom Lens. �If not, how about any of the other lenses like this
>> > or
>> > any of the spotting scope lenses.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Shane
>>
>> Garbage. The f-stops at those focal lengths are about f8-9 and
>> f16-19. Plus, lots of crappy, likely uncoated internal optics to
>> facilitate the zoom function. If anyone wants a decent, cheap
>> facsimile of a telephoto lens, then get a cheap achromatic telescope
>> optical tube instead. At least you'll have an f5 focal ratio at 400mm
>> which you can boost with eyepieces to whatever you want. Plus, you'll
>> get much better results.
>>
>> http://www.telescope.com/control/telescopes/refractor-telescopes/orion-shorttu
>> be-80-a-refractor-telescope
>
>
>I used a similar type scope for a long time until I upgraded to a Nikon
>Fieldscope. If you have the skill, patience and the right conditions
>(lots of light), you can get some once-in-a-lifetime shots for real
>cheap.
>
>Yes, it's soft and very small apertures with quite a bit of purple
>fringing at times. And you need to manually focus with a DOF measured in
>mm's. But here are some examples:
>
>http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/eagle1L.jpg
>
>http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/jay1L.jpg
>
>http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/snowjL.jpg
>
>All taken with a film camera on a Swift spotting scope.

I've seen better image quality coming from a P&S camera and using two
stacked 1.7x teleconverters, along with using 1.76x digital-zoom (to take
advantage of the sensor's RAW resolution in-camera). Creating a full f/3.5
aperture (with no CA) for hand-held photography, now with an effective
focal-length of 2197mm (35mm-equivalent). 1249mm - f/3.5 without the
digital-zoom. All accomplished at 1/5th to 1/10th the price, weight, and
size of a DSLR + spotting scope. The two teleconverters less than the price
of that garbage Opteka lens too. The whole kit, two teleconverters plus
camera, all fitting in one roomy windbreaker pocket.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg

1/640s @ f3.5

Of course to get an image like that at those focal-lengths without a tripod
you'd better have good hand-held skills and use OIS in your camera. Do any
of those long zoom lenses or spotting scopes when used with a DSLR come
with OIS in them? Let alone auto-focusing. The P&S camera with two stacked
teleconverters provides for both. By looking at that hand-held image above
it seems to work fairly well.


Now let's hear it from all the highly insecure DSLR owners and trolls with
their claims that: the photo is stolen!, the EXIF was edited!, the image
was taken with a DSLR on a tripod!, the bird wasn't that far away! ...
yadda yadda yadda ... You know, all the usual childish, ignorant, and
stupid bullshit they try to claim to justify why they waste so much money
on their chosen camera gear.

Or even more funny, how they can't wrap their pea-brains around the fact
that an 80mm dia. teleconverter's entrance-pupil can't provide enough
aperture for a 208mm true focal-length, now allowing for a full f/3.5
aperture (true focal-length x 6 sensor-crop for the 35mm equivalent). When
in fact that much teleconverter aperture is enough to provide for a full
f/2.4 on another P&S camera I own that already has that aperture available
on its own lens at full zoom. (48.5mm true focal-length x 1.7 x 1.7 =
140mm) With another 1.76 digital-zoom that provides for a full f/2.4
aperture at an apparent 968mm 35mm-equivalent zoom lens' focal-length.
(247mm true focal-length x sensor crop of 3.92) Even without the
digital-zoom on that other P&S camera, that creates an f/2.4 - 549mm
(35mm-equivalent) lens by optics alone. I'd love to see them carry a DSLR
lens of that focal-length and aperture in their coat pocket, it'd have to
be 9 inches in diameter, weigh a ton, and cost a king's ransom.

C'mon all you whiney DSLR-Trolls, don't disappoint me. Do reveal your
ignorance and insecurity once again. You have to. It's EXACTLY what you
are.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: EF 50/1.8 AF Experiment?
Next: Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice