Oops - big lens
Author
Discussion

rasputin

Original Poster:

1,449 posts

236 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
Why can't I stop going on eBay? frown

I will soon be the owner of a 500mm M42 lens eek.

I fully expect quality to be crap, but for the price (£25) it's worth a shot. Hopefully with my M42 teleconverter it'll get me a better picture of the moon than my 300mm plus a huge crop can do.

At the very least it'll look impressive rofl

The beast:




jon-

16,534 posts

246 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
At least it wasn't the Canon 5200mm - good for photos up to 32 miles away apparently.



rasputin

Original Poster:

1,449 posts

236 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
jon- said:
At least it wasn't the Canon 5200mm - good for photos up to 32 miles away apparently.

eek

The problem with that lens is:

Do you fit the IS to the lens, or to yourself? confused

havoc

33,423 posts

265 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
rasputin said:
Do you fit the IS to the lens, or to yourself? confused
Given the size of that scaffolding, I suspect IS will only be required in earthquake zones...

gingerpaul

2,929 posts

273 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
You sure that's not an engine off a space rocket?

jason-l

134 posts

240 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
jon- said:
At least it wasn't the Canon 5200mm - good for photos up to 32 miles away apparently.

Awaits the "which bag?" thread laugh

cirks

2,547 posts

313 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
havoc said:
Given the size of that scaffolding..
That's not scaffoding, that's the quick release plate for the Jessops £25 tripod wink

MonkeyHanger

9,267 posts

272 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
jon- said:
At least it wasn't the Canon 5200mm - good for photos up to 32 miles away apparently.

Last time anyone saw that it was dropping out of a B29 over Hiroshima...

tegwin

1,682 posts

236 months

Wednesday 28th October 2009
quotequote all
Why on earth would you need a lens that big?.... getting in a plane and flying over to have a look would be so much easier!

...Mole...

2,780 posts

221 months

Thursday 29th October 2009
quotequote all
MonkeyHanger said:
jon- said:
At least it wasn't the Canon 5200mm - good for photos up to 32 miles away apparently.

Last time anyone saw that it was dropping out of a B29 over Hiroshima...
They used a pretty powerful flashgun as well...



getmecoat

furtive

4,503 posts

309 months

Thursday 29th October 2009
quotequote all
That Canon lens in a monster!

This thread reminded me of this story though:

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/unleashin...



Detail of the lens they are using:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nik...

jon-

16,534 posts

246 months

Thursday 29th October 2009
quotequote all
Only 16kgs? I could shoot that hand held.

furtive

4,503 posts

309 months

Thursday 29th October 2009
quotequote all
And I thought I would look into that Canon monster a bit more. Check out this pic:



The lens comes with its own chair!

philthy

4,697 posts

270 months

Wednesday 4th November 2009
quotequote all
I bought a similar one a couple of months ago, to use on the local airshow.
Here's a test pic I took, handheld, from my window:

http://www.skidvd.co.uk/images/falcon500mm.JPG



I was quite surprised !

Edit to add link to original.

Edited by philthy on Wednesday 4th November 17:01

jon-

16,534 posts

246 months

Wednesday 4th November 2009
quotequote all
That's not bad, but still fairly buttery (see other big lens thread for reference)

This was manually focused f8 handheld at 800mm on my 400d body. It's the 100-400 with a x2.



standing from here



A fair difference in price, but a noticeable difference in quality too.

rasputin

Original Poster:

1,449 posts

236 months

Monday 9th November 2009
quotequote all
Well the results are in...

I was using it with a 2x teleconverter, so 1000mm and roughly f/64. How the heck do you stop vibration? eek

I had it on a tripod, but even breathing in the general direction of the camera would completely ruin the picture. The tiny amount of swing in my camera strap because of the open window made it almost impossible to get a good shot even at 1/400s.

Anyway, here's the best one of the moon I managed. This is about a 30% crop.




And playing with it at a closer range (not too close, mind... Minimum focus at 12 metres!):


Compared to my Minolta 300mm:

JimNotJon

761 posts

239 months

Monday 9th November 2009
quotequote all
For the cost of the lense I think those pictures are pretty damn good. I was looking at one on ebay not so long ago but never really believed their example pictures, now I have seen yours, may consider it.

onomatopoeia

3,526 posts

247 months

Monday 9th November 2009
quotequote all
rasputin said:
Compared to my Minolta 300mm:
Which Minolta 300mm do you have?

LukeBird

17,170 posts

239 months

Monday 9th November 2009
quotequote all
JimNotJon said:
For the cost of the lens I think those pictures are pretty damn good.
Would certainly agree!
For the money, they aren't that bad at all!

ThatPhilBrettGuy

11,810 posts

270 months

Monday 9th November 2009
quotequote all
rasputin said:
How the heck do you stop vibration? eek

I had it on a tripod, but even breathing in the general direction of the camera would completely ruin the picture. The tiny amount of swing in my camera strap because of the open window made it almost impossible to get a good shot even at 1/400s.
What body? You'll need to have mirror lock-up to do anything half good as well.