1200mm 5DSR (Page 2): Now I feel better about my attempts at monster lens stacking....Florida heat makes it really tough, but for close in, it works! Just clumsy! I am impressed with...

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Now I feel better about my attempts at monster lens stacking....Florida heat makes it really tough, but for close in, it works! Just clumsy! I am impressed with the steadyness displayed in the first shots - handheld..pretty damn good!!

JBRIII

If you check you tube, I remember articles on making your own, inexpensive, super telephoto lens in similar ways. An interesting comparison would be this versus using a modern, well color corrected refractor telescope.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I have used a 1.4x and 2x extender with my Olympus 40-140mm Pro lens with excellent results for bird and other wildlife photography. This provides a light, affordable rig with an equivalent focal length (EFL) of up to 600mm. Fast shutter speeds and/or a tripod will maximize results. Olympus' new 150-400mm Pro lens with a built-in 1.4x extender (EFL up to 1,120mm) provides even more reach, albeit at the cost of $7,500.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

hcmcdole wrote:

George Lepp did something similar years ago with a Canon 1D, a 600mm and two 2x TC and wrote his column in Outdoor Photography (or Popular Photography). But then he gets a lot of those goodies from Canon I believe to test out. Okay I was wrong. It was 500mm. Here is the article.

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/pro-perspectives/george-lepp/keeping-your-distance-claiming-your-space/

Thanks for the reply and the link hcmcdole, I can only wish for a 500 f4. Regis has shown the R5 with a 800 /f11 + 2X = 1600 to be excellent IQ hand held, with auto focus. My rather silly attempt would be the poor man's special.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

uhaas2009 wrote:

👍👍👍

Thanks for the thumbs up uhaas2009

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

Manglesphoto wrote:

Heck just buy a Nikon 1200mm lens

Last price I saw was only 125K

Great idea Manglesphoto, why don't you send me the $125k and I will send you a feather, that way we will both be tickled.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

ELNikkor wrote:

If you start at 5.6, add a 2x + a 1.4x, you are down 3 stops = f16 wide open. Seems it would be hard to get fine focus, but your photo of the bluebird is very sharp, great photo!

Thanks ELNikkor, I knew my camera was lying to me. With lots of light (bright sunny day) it was not as difficult as I thought it would to achieve focus. Reminded me of the film days before auto focus. Thank you

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

olemikey wrote:

Now I feel better about my attempts at monster lens stacking....Florida heat makes it really tough, but for close in, it works! Just clumsy! I am impressed with the steadyness displayed in the first shots - handheld..pretty damn good!!

Thanks olemikey I am about 2k foot elevation on a clear cool winter day. The photo's of a Redtail 150 yds away did not turn out so well. SS was north of 500 and iso exceeded 6400 worthless except I could identify her dinner.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

alberio wrote:

Astrophotographers feel your pain. Try using 4,000mm f10 mounted on a moving mount, slight wind, ground vibrations, turbulent atmosphere, sometimes exposures minutes long to get pinpoint stars and nebulae trillions of miles away in 20 degree weather. Then you wonder why we are such an odd bunch.

I think that might be next for me alberio, sounds like an interesting setup can I borrow yours?

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I looked at all three in ddl, and the 400mm cropped looks sharper to these old eyes. Though the shady one looks pretty good also.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

unlucky2 wrote:

Ever wonder what stacked "TC" would look... (show quote)

Back in the early 1980s I worked at the old Helix Rental in chicago. We would assemble similar set-ups to see what we could do. Always ended up a waste of film. Got better images using one of our Nikon 1000mm or 2000mm cat lenses.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

DeanS wrote:

I looked at all three in ddl, and the 400mm cropped looks sharper to these old eyes. Though the shady one looks pretty good also.

I agree Dean, I do not see a great difference but I do think the cropped 400 is better. Sharper and more color depth, a better presence.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

ecurb wrote:

Back in the early 1980s I worked at the old Helix Rental in chicago. We would assemble similar set-ups to see what we could do. Always ended up a waste of film. Got better images using one of our Nikon 1000mm or 2000mm cat lenses.

Using manual focus always stirs memories of the film days, the care that went in to the shot, the anticipation waiting for the film, and the disappointment when your once in a "life time", came back blurred.

SteveR21 Loc: Oklahoma

Alberio,

The effort you make to provide beautiful images that most people would never see is appreciated. I have a friend that does astrophotography and the colors and images he shows are absolutely breathtaking!