Lens Budget Problem
Aug 14, 2019 10:23:00 #
some members in past have posted pictures of wildlife taken with a nikon or tamron mirror lens , and some of them look just fine .it takes practice .i use a old 800 nikon prime lens from the 80 s , and there to the focusing was a challenge , got used to it after a few thous pics .now , it is no longer a issue .having the lens perfectly still is also crucial .
Aug 14, 2019 11:23:43 #
RichKenn
Loc: Merritt Island, FL
OK, you have convinced me. I will try in-camera cropping. I don't think I want to try a 1.4 multiplier, though. 500 mm is finicky enough! The launches are 19 miles away (according to Google Earth) through lots of haze. I routinely use PE 14 haze filter. It reforms miracles. The launch pictures, while not photographically good, prove that I was there. Hardly anyone commented on the Moon picture. Maybe you are just saving my feelings. I think it is pretty good, given ...
Aug 14, 2019 11:57:31 #
olemikey
Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
RichKenn wrote:
OK, you have convinced me. I will try in-camera cropping. I don't think I want to try a 1.4 multiplier, though. 500 mm is finicky enough! The launches are 19 miles away (according to Google Earth) through lots of haze. I routinely use PE 14 haze filter. It reforms miracles. The launch pictures, while not photographically good, prove that I was there. Hardly anyone commented on the Moon picture. Maybe you are just saving my feelings. I think it is pretty good, given ...
I like your moon shot (and that eight story tripod!!!). On replying to specific posts, instead of reply, hit "quote reply", that way we know who or what you are replying to. Moon shots for me are tough (at home), ground level, many trees, humidity is high, haze, and lately too much rain!! Manual focus with larger telephotos is tough, especially for those kinds of distances. Have fun!
Aug 14, 2019 12:00:50 #
Not good at all. You will do better with a used Nikon Coolpix B700 for about $300 on ebay. This pic of the moon was taken handheld at f6.5, iso-100, 1/500th second at full zoom with an equivalent focal length of 1440mm on the Coolpix B700.
If your lens has a focus motor in the lens, you might want to go for a used Nikon 1 J1 and the Nikon FT-1 adapter (about $80 for the J1 and about $250 for the autofocusing FT-1 adapter) which lets the J1 use center point autofocus with a Nikon f mount lens. Here's a pic of the J1 and FT-1 adapter on my 55-300 nikkor af-s zoom. The J1 has a 2.7x crop factor which will give your 400mm lens an equivalent focal length of 1080mm. With a cheap manual adapter you won't be able to set the aperture on your lens through the J1.
If your lens has a focus motor in the lens, you might want to go for a used Nikon 1 J1 and the Nikon FT-1 adapter (about $80 for the J1 and about $250 for the autofocusing FT-1 adapter) which lets the J1 use center point autofocus with a Nikon f mount lens. Here's a pic of the J1 and FT-1 adapter on my 55-300 nikkor af-s zoom. The J1 has a 2.7x crop factor which will give your 400mm lens an equivalent focal length of 1080mm. With a cheap manual adapter you won't be able to set the aperture on your lens through the J1.
Aug 14, 2019 12:52:10 #
aellman wrote:
I really miss the split image. That was foolproof. >Alan
It was!
Aug 14, 2019 13:33:16 #
Mirror lenses tend to produce images which are a bit fuzzy / soft focus compared to non-mirror lens images. If you don't mind that, they are an affordable way to get greater focal length. Rokinon produces some 800mm, and 1,000mm mirror lenses. If you want tack sharp images, forget about mirror lenses.
Aug 14, 2019 13:59:29 #
I have a Sigma 50-500 . Pictures are sharp , in my opinion it’s sharper than the Tamron.
Aug 14, 2019 14:04:32 #
[quote=RichKenn]I live in an eighth story apartment near Cape Canaveral and like .../quote]
Forget mirror lens, the IQ is not good.
Unfortunately the 100/400 is not the best of lenses.
Reality is you will never be happy with the IQ until you step up and spend above $1000!
The Tamron 150-600 G2 is a good choice
https://www.amazon.com/gp/slredirect/picassoRedirect.html/ref=pa_sp_phone_search_atf_aps_sr_pg1_2?ie=UTF8&adId=A031272527ISLXPSUX9U8&url=%2FTamron-150-600mm-5-6-3-Canon-Mount%2Fdp%2FB01LW2UGTD%2Fref%3Dmp_s_a_1_2_sspa%3Fkeywords%3Dtamron%2B150-600%2Bg2%2Bnikon%26qid%3D1565805441%26s%3Dgateway%26sprefix%3Dtamron%2B1%26sr%3D8-2-spons%26psc%3D1&qualifier=1565805441&id=4247510938733948&widgetName=sp_phone_search_
The Nikkor 200-500 is another good choice
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-500mm-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B013D1BI9Y/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=nikkor+200-500mm+lens&qid=1565805799&s=gateway&sprefix=nikkor+2&sr=8-3
Forget mirror lens, the IQ is not good.
Unfortunately the 100/400 is not the best of lenses.
Reality is you will never be happy with the IQ until you step up and spend above $1000!
The Tamron 150-600 G2 is a good choice
https://www.amazon.com/gp/slredirect/picassoRedirect.html/ref=pa_sp_phone_search_atf_aps_sr_pg1_2?ie=UTF8&adId=A031272527ISLXPSUX9U8&url=%2FTamron-150-600mm-5-6-3-Canon-Mount%2Fdp%2FB01LW2UGTD%2Fref%3Dmp_s_a_1_2_sspa%3Fkeywords%3Dtamron%2B150-600%2Bg2%2Bnikon%26qid%3D1565805441%26s%3Dgateway%26sprefix%3Dtamron%2B1%26sr%3D8-2-spons%26psc%3D1&qualifier=1565805441&id=4247510938733948&widgetName=sp_phone_search_
The Nikkor 200-500 is another good choice
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-500mm-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B013D1BI9Y/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=nikkor+200-500mm+lens&qid=1565805799&s=gateway&sprefix=nikkor+2&sr=8-3
Aug 14, 2019 14:14:10 #
RichKenn
Loc: Merritt Island, FL
[quote=sergiohm]
You are making me salivate.
RichKenn wrote:
I live in an eighth story apartment near Cape Cana... (show quote)
You are making me salivate.
Aug 14, 2019 14:26:03 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
There is absolutely no difference between cropping "in-camera" when the shot is taken or "in computer" later during post processing. Either way, you end up with exactly the same thing.
Well, I suppose there's one minor difference... with post-processing crops you can change your mind and undo it (or save the cropped version as a second file).
With in-camera cropping, you can't undo it later. Once it's done, it's done.
"Mirror" lenses like the Nikkor 500mm (aka "catadioptric") can be pretty good... it's possible the biggest problem you'll have with it is getting a steady shot. Even on a tripod, working from an 8th floor balcony there is probably some vibration occurring that will effect images. The image stabilization in the third party lens would probably counteract that and might make for sharper shots.
Years ago, I used a Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens that was quite good. Comparing them alongside each other, I was pretty certain one version of Nikkor 500mm was the exact same lens with a different rubber grip and, of course, different labeling. I had used a half dozen or so different mirror lenses and the Tamron (and Nikkor?) was certainly the best. Great color rendition, reasonably sharp and minimized the "donut" out of focus highlights. Both the following images were shot with the Tamron 500mm f/8 (on film that was later digitized using a Nikon L4000 film scanner)....
The image on the right ("bad hair day") can give you some idea how out of focus highlight "donuts" appear, with this particular lens.
I've also heard good things about the Canon FD and Minolta 500mm mirror lenses. Apparently there are also some good Vivitar Series 1 600mm f/8 and 800mm f/11 too. (Those were made by Perkin-Elmer company, which later made the optics for the Hubble Telescope, among other things.)
Konica, which I was shooting with then, never made a 500mm, but did offer a Hexanon Reflex 1000mm f/8... It just cost as much as a small car at the time! Konica also produced a 2000mm f/11 mirror lens, but never put it into production. Supposedly there were only two prototypes of it made and none were ever sold. The Konica "cat" lenses were unique in a couple ways. For one, they had variable apertures (most cat lenses have a fixed aperture, rely upon ND filters to adjust exposure). The Hexanons could be stopped down dialing a built-in, internal disk with "Waterhouse stops" into place. They also used a rear-mounted bellows mechanism for focusing on both the Hexanon cats.
Tamron also made a smaller, lighter 350mm f/5.6 mirror lens that was very good. It never sold in the same volume and is much less common than the 500mm, so is pretty rarely seen now and often sells for more than the 500mm.
There were two versions of the Tamron 500mm. The later one didn't have a tripod mounting ring. The earlier one did and that was the version I used. It was also quite close focusing for a 500mm lens.... as close as 5 feet, which makes for near macro magnification.
The above image also gives you some idea how the lens' f/8 fixed aperture handles backgrounds... in this case a fence that was about 15 or 20 feet behind the flower.
I usually used ISO 200 film (Ektachrome E200) when shooting with the f/8 lens. With other, faster lenses I used ISO 50 and ISO 100 films (Velvia 50 and Ektachrome E100VS).
Well, I suppose there's one minor difference... with post-processing crops you can change your mind and undo it (or save the cropped version as a second file).
With in-camera cropping, you can't undo it later. Once it's done, it's done.
"Mirror" lenses like the Nikkor 500mm (aka "catadioptric") can be pretty good... it's possible the biggest problem you'll have with it is getting a steady shot. Even on a tripod, working from an 8th floor balcony there is probably some vibration occurring that will effect images. The image stabilization in the third party lens would probably counteract that and might make for sharper shots.
Years ago, I used a Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens that was quite good. Comparing them alongside each other, I was pretty certain one version of Nikkor 500mm was the exact same lens with a different rubber grip and, of course, different labeling. I had used a half dozen or so different mirror lenses and the Tamron (and Nikkor?) was certainly the best. Great color rendition, reasonably sharp and minimized the "donut" out of focus highlights. Both the following images were shot with the Tamron 500mm f/8 (on film that was later digitized using a Nikon L4000 film scanner)....
The image on the right ("bad hair day") can give you some idea how out of focus highlight "donuts" appear, with this particular lens.
I've also heard good things about the Canon FD and Minolta 500mm mirror lenses. Apparently there are also some good Vivitar Series 1 600mm f/8 and 800mm f/11 too. (Those were made by Perkin-Elmer company, which later made the optics for the Hubble Telescope, among other things.)
Konica, which I was shooting with then, never made a 500mm, but did offer a Hexanon Reflex 1000mm f/8... It just cost as much as a small car at the time! Konica also produced a 2000mm f/11 mirror lens, but never put it into production. Supposedly there were only two prototypes of it made and none were ever sold. The Konica "cat" lenses were unique in a couple ways. For one, they had variable apertures (most cat lenses have a fixed aperture, rely upon ND filters to adjust exposure). The Hexanons could be stopped down dialing a built-in, internal disk with "Waterhouse stops" into place. They also used a rear-mounted bellows mechanism for focusing on both the Hexanon cats.
Tamron also made a smaller, lighter 350mm f/5.6 mirror lens that was very good. It never sold in the same volume and is much less common than the 500mm, so is pretty rarely seen now and often sells for more than the 500mm.
There were two versions of the Tamron 500mm. The later one didn't have a tripod mounting ring. The earlier one did and that was the version I used. It was also quite close focusing for a 500mm lens.... as close as 5 feet, which makes for near macro magnification.
The above image also gives you some idea how the lens' f/8 fixed aperture handles backgrounds... in this case a fence that was about 15 or 20 feet behind the flower.
I usually used ISO 200 film (Ektachrome E200) when shooting with the f/8 lens. With other, faster lenses I used ISO 50 and ISO 100 films (Velvia 50 and Ektachrome E100VS).
Aug 14, 2019 14:32:57 #
amfoto1 wrote:
There is absolutely no difference between cropping "in-camera" when the shot is taken or "in computer" later during post processing. Either way, you end up with exactly the same thing.
Well, U suppose there's one minor difference... with post-processing crops you can change your mind and undo it (or save the cropped version as a second file).
With in-camera cropping, you can't undo it later. Once it's done, it's done.
Well, U suppose there's one minor difference... with post-processing crops you can change your mind and undo it (or save the cropped version as a second file).
With in-camera cropping, you can't undo it later. Once it's done, it's done.
Often you end up with more pixels on subject when you use in-camera.
Aug 14, 2019 15:17:51 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
rehess wrote:
Often you end up with more pixels on subject when you use in-camera.
No, you don't.
Regardless whether you use the 1.3X in-camera crop or do the exact same crop in post-processing you end up with exactly the same pixels.
The only reason there would be a difference is because your manual crop in post-processing isn't as precise as what the camera does.
Essentially the in-camera crop is done by only using part of the camera's image sensor. The peripheral pixels are "turned off". This is more precise and repeatable "trimming" than a post-processing crop is likely to be.
Aug 14, 2019 15:30:40 #
RichKenn
Loc: Merritt Island, FL
Thanks for the wide-ranging discussion. It was interesting. I am beginning to think that I will be the limiting factor and not necessarily the lens.
Aug 14, 2019 16:35:45 #
Lots of advice on this one.
This past spring I was taking a lot of photos of local HS Softball team then American Legion Baseball. Have been using Nikon 70-200 2.8. Needed more reach. Purchased a 1.4x converter for way too much money and it didn't seem to be great. I shoot aperture priority usually in the f3.2 range. Gives me plenty of shutter speed and blurred background. The converter changes me to a 5.6. Needed more reach. Nikon still lists 3 300mm lenses. $1500 $3000 and $6000. I purchased one of the $1500s on ebay for $500. It is a f4.5. I was concerned about not having the instance focus of the 70-200 but it has worked well and given me the desired results.
Good luck.
This past spring I was taking a lot of photos of local HS Softball team then American Legion Baseball. Have been using Nikon 70-200 2.8. Needed more reach. Purchased a 1.4x converter for way too much money and it didn't seem to be great. I shoot aperture priority usually in the f3.2 range. Gives me plenty of shutter speed and blurred background. The converter changes me to a 5.6. Needed more reach. Nikon still lists 3 300mm lenses. $1500 $3000 and $6000. I purchased one of the $1500s on ebay for $500. It is a f4.5. I was concerned about not having the instance focus of the 70-200 but it has worked well and given me the desired results.
Good luck.
Aug 14, 2019 16:52:10 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.