From: Peter on
"infiniteMPG" <57classic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03d52c03-50f7-4260-897a-1bc039e465e7(a)o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> The only "good deal" on a lens like that is no deal at all. In other
> words, don't even think of wasting your money on one.

>Already done. Maybe you have a better way of getting a 800mm-1600mm
>lens for under $200? Even with fair quality shots it's a nice new toy
>and without knowing a thing I already snagged a few neat long distance
>shots.


Don't pay attention to him. Enjoy your toy and learn its strengths and
limitations. My suggestion is try to weight your tripod to minimize shake
and shoot at as high a speed as you can.

--
Peter

From: krishnananda on
In article
<a68e76bc-7b33-48e8-b429-6f7c2dd6732c(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
infiniteMPG <57classic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a Sony A100 DSLR and just snagged a good deal on a Rokinon
> 800mm mirror lens with the Rokinon 2X double to take it to 1600mm. My
> tripod has a quick connect base mount and all this mass hanging off
> the front of the camera body does not help the stability.
>
> http://cdn2.overstock.com/images/products/L11915385.jpg
>
> I have seen some ring mounts but none I have found are specific for
> this lens. Also, just about the entire lens body turns when you focus
> so not sure how that would work anyway as you couldn't fix the lens
> and turn the camera body :O/ Was thinking about maybe a ring mount
> for the 2X doubler but since the lens is so much larger in diamater,
> not sure if I could find one that would stand off far enough to clear
> the lens.
>
> I doubt I am the first person to buy one of these lenses and was
> wondering how people rigidly mount these to tripods without having the
> camera body have to support the mass of the heavy lens?
>
> All help greatly appreciated.

Way back when I had a Nikkor 500mm/8.0 I hardly ever used a tripod for
it because it weighed nothing compared to my refracting lenses.
Handholding down to 1/125 wasn't a problem.

IIRC the lens weighed significantly less than my F3HP body.
Significantly less than my F2AS Photomic.

Does this lens weigh significantly more than other mirror lenses, such
as you would require a lens mount rather than your camera's mount?

Remembering the construction, there's the front element with central
reverse mirror, the rear mirror with a hole in it, and a few glass
elements at the center-rear. All the rest is air.

Just a thought.
From: Peter on
"krishnananda" <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote in message
news:krishna-3EE4ED.01033426052010(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> In article
> <a68e76bc-7b33-48e8-b429-6f7c2dd6732c(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> infiniteMPG <57classic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a Sony A100 DSLR and just snagged a good deal on a Rokinon
>> 800mm mirror lens with the Rokinon 2X double to take it to 1600mm. My
>> tripod has a quick connect base mount and all this mass hanging off
>> the front of the camera body does not help the stability.
>>
>> http://cdn2.overstock.com/images/products/L11915385.jpg
>>
>> I have seen some ring mounts but none I have found are specific for
>> this lens. Also, just about the entire lens body turns when you focus
>> so not sure how that would work anyway as you couldn't fix the lens
>> and turn the camera body :O/ Was thinking about maybe a ring mount
>> for the 2X doubler but since the lens is so much larger in diamater,
>> not sure if I could find one that would stand off far enough to clear
>> the lens.
>>
>> I doubt I am the first person to buy one of these lenses and was
>> wondering how people rigidly mount these to tripods without having the
>> camera body have to support the mass of the heavy lens?
>>
>> All help greatly appreciated.
>
> Way back when I had a Nikkor 500mm/8.0 I hardly ever used a tripod for
> it because it weighed nothing compared to my refracting lenses.
> Handholding down to 1/125 wasn't a problem.
>
> IIRC the lens weighed significantly less than my F3HP body.
> Significantly less than my F2AS Photomic.
>
> Does this lens weigh significantly more than other mirror lenses, such
> as you would require a lens mount rather than your camera's mount?
>
> Remembering the construction, there's the front element with central
> reverse mirror, the rear mirror with a hole in it, and a few glass
> elements at the center-rear. All the rest is air.
>
> Just a thought.


I thought my hands were pretty steady, but I could never hand hold my that
lens.


--
Peter

From: infiniteMPG on
> Don't pay attention to him. Enjoy your toy and learn its strengths and limitations. My suggestion is try to weight your tripod to minimize shake and shoot at as high a speed as you can.

I didn't post the message on here expecting to get 100% warm and fuzzy
from everyone. I was tossing back and forth before I bought it. Cost
less then a couple of baseball tickets and at least I have something
to show for it :O)

As far as weight on the tripod, I have a quick release base with the
lever arm clamp. Since the clamp is on the back of the tripod the
lens weight hangs down the front trying to un-clip the quick release
tab. Since the leverage is high it makes the tripod camera part raise
up slightly from the base which teeters the whole mess on the top.
Was thinking I might try to put the camera into the mount backwards so
it's pulling on the fixed part of the mount. Something to try. Or
might just scrap the quick release part and screw the sucker down.
It's not bad with just the 800mm but the 2X adapter makes it all hang
several inches further overhanging the front.

As far as picture quality, in direct sunlight I was able to take some
very clear shots hand held with the 800mm alone. Not going to even
attempt that at 1600mm. I just need to get a feel for it and figure
out what ISO and other settings to use with the fixed aperture to get
the best. Didn't expect to use this except in broad daylight but here
in Florida, that's most all the time.

Last night I used the 1600 setup and snapped some pix of the moon.
Then I swapped it out for my Tamron AF 18-250/3.5-6.3 DI II Macro
Lens, zoomed in as tight as I could and snapped some more. Then
swapped that out for my Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens with a 2X
doubler and snapped a few more. Downloaded them and looked. With the
1600 the moon could just barely fit in the frame. I was really close
to good clear focus and think I'll do better when I get my 2.3x Finder
Magnifier (and maybe adjust my view finder better). The moon with the
18-250 pushed to 250 was a button in the middle of the frame and when
zoomed was pretty bad looking. With the 90 (actually 180 with the
doubler) the moon was pencil eraser sized and not any good when zoomed
on.

Toy or junk or whatever the opinion, I am happy with the 800mm and if
nothing else, I will get my money's worth out of it playing. Never
intend to be a professional photographer and not real anal about the
pictures I take. Just intend on snagging a few smiles along the way
goofing around with some techie toys. And I've already had a few
smiles with the 800mm and if I can give a few other people a few
smiles then all the better.

I'll swap the mount around on the tripod and try that (or screw it
down and be mostly done with it).
Thanks!
From: infiniteMPG on
Also, I ordered a UV filter for the 800mm as I don't like exposed
glass and have found with the harsh bright sun in Florida a UV filter
really cleans up many shots.

:O)