Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Anyone shooting vintage manual 400-600mm ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:37 am    Post subject: Anyone shooting vintage manual 400-600mm ? Reply with quote
It seems the consensus from what I have read, is to avoid any non - ED vintage telephoto.
Has it been your experience too, that all simple non ED vintage 400mm+ examples aren't useful compared to the ED stuff?

Any tip and experience is welcome, for example Takumar or SMC-M 400mm and stuff like that Smile


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMO it’s mostly better to buy a optically good 200mm or 300mm and then crop.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The SMC Pentax-A 400mm F5.6 seems to be a decent non-ED lens. It is the only manual 400mm by Pentax not carried over from the Takumar line, but it has it limitations. In my experience long tele-primes need work with sharpening and contrast to produce decent images. For really good longe tele's you have to look at pro glass and those are very big heavy and expensive.



PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
IMO it’s mostly better to buy a optically good 200mm or 300mm and then crop.


That is certainly a lot smaller and lighter to carry around, and cheaper.

For 400mm and above I never bothered with non-ED glass or non-APO glass, except for an 800mm mirror lens


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
IMO it’s mostly better to buy a optically good 200mm or 300mm and then crop.


That is certainly a lot smaller and lighter to carry around, and cheaper.

For 400mm and above I never bothered with non-ED glass or non-APO glass, except for an 800mm mirror lens


The same is true with my Beroflex 500mm f8 vs Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6. And the Canon is not even that good at 300mm.

But I can recommend the Beroflex for the purpose of exploring the super tele perspective and having fun. It is possible to get an acceptable image once in a while.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a 541mm Wollensak Aporchromatic Raptar that is incredibly sharp, but it requires mounting on a strange contraption of bellows and tubes I made for the task so is strictly tripod only. Contrast is low, but that is a click or two to correct.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The other thing to keep in mind is the distance to your subject. If you are thinking about using these lenses for very distant subjects, atmospheric conditions will start to have an effect.

When the atmosphere is subject to turbulent convection currents due to heat flows, getting a sharp image of something distant becomes impossible no matter what lens you use (heat haze / heat shimmer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Heat_haze


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I have shot take of things 10-12km away that are quitesharp but only because it was winter and the atmosphere was clear. I even have shots of offshore wind turbines that are 20km+ away where the curvature of the earth is visible that are reasonably sharp for the same reason. In summer, you wouldn't be able to get those shots.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not averse to using my Tamron 500mm f/8 Adaptall-2 mirror on occasion.
It's followed me around since the '70's and is still as good as it ever was, especially on film.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Anyone shooting vintage manual 400-600mm ? Reply with quote
Coyote23 wrote:
It seems the consensus from what I have read, is to avoid any non - ED vintage telephoto.
Has it been your experience too, that all simple non ED vintage 400mm+ examples aren't useful compared to the ED stuff?

Any tip and experience is welcome, for example Takumar or SMC-M 400mm and stuff like that Smile


Apart from several "Wundertüte" type lenses, I have a few 400 mm primes, and I've been using a few others.

Canon FD 4.5/400: good resolution, IF, but lots and lots of CAs

Canon nFD 2.8/400 L incredible resolution (including extreme corners) at f2.8. Limited CAs at f2.8, much more CAs at f5.6 ... f11!

Canon EF 5.6/400 L Excellent wide open. No CAs at 24MP FF.

Canon EF 2.8/400 L II EXCELLENT wide open. No CAs at 24MP FF.

Konica AR 4.5/400. Modest CAs (less than Canon FD 4.5/400), but less resolution than Canon 4.5/400 as well.

Meyer Görlitz Telemegor 5.5/400 (historic)

Minolta MC 5.6/400 APO all three samples I'm aware of have astigmatism in the image center at 5.6 (!!). EXCELLENT at f11 (better than Canon nFD 2.8/400 L at f11)

Minolta AF 4.5/400 APO Very good wide open; stopped down less CAs than nFD 2.8/400 L, but slightly more than EF 5.6/400L

Novoflex Noflexar T 5.6/400 (newest version): Almost free from CAs. At f5.6 ... f11 clearly less CAs than Canon nFD 2.8/400L. Strong field curvature. Wide open perfect for animals; stopped down to f11 also for landscapes (no CAs!!)

Schneider Tele-Xenar 5.5/36cm (historic)

Sigma 5.6/400 APO (MF lens for MD, seems to be pretty sharp, but my sample is competely fogged)

Vivitar 5.6/400mm (don't remember how it performs ...)


* If you can live with the field curvature of the Novoflex Noflexar T 5.6/400 (newest version), it is an excellent less with less CAs than many 300mm and 400mm "ED" lenses. The fast focusing "Pistolengriff" results in very fast focusing!

* Be aware that early IF-ED Nikkors such as the 3.5/400 IF-ED do not have the best reputation.

* Canon EF 5.6/400 L was absolutely stunning when I used it on 24 MP FF (not my lens)

S


EDIT "Anyone shooting ...?" - Yes, I actually bought the Canon 2.8/400L for a book project (documentation of frescos in a church). The results were incredible, and published / printed in large size (32 x 48 cm). Some images were taken combining the 2.8/400L with the FD 1.4x converter. Pretty good results, but CAs have to be removed.

More on using the 400L with several stacked teleconverters: http://forum.mflenses.com/full-moon-with-canon-nfd-2-8-400-plus-multiple-converters-t81443.html

This one was taken with a 2.8/400L plus two Canon 2x-B teleconverters (f=1600mm): http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20204/big_4216_artaphot_DSC06245_websize_bw_1.jpg

Last edited by stevemark on Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:14 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only long one that stands out for me is the Tamron Nesstar 400mm f/6.9. Performed very well for me on Canon full frame, no CA etc. Great for moon shots.

Not great on a crop sensor though.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Anyone shooting vintage manual 400-600mm ? Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Coyote23 wrote:
It seems the consensus from what I have read, is to avoid any non - ED vintage telephoto.
Has it been your experience too, that all simple non ED vintage 400mm+ examples aren't useful compared to the ED stuff?

Any tip and experience is welcome, for example Takumar or SMC-M 400mm and stuff like that Smile


Apart from several "Wundertüte" type lenses, I have a few 400 mm primes, and I've been using a few others.

Canon FD 4.5/400: good resolution, IF, but lots and lots of CAs

Canon nFD 2.8/400 L incredible resolution (including extreme corners) at f2.8. Limited CAs at f2.8, much more CAs at f5.6 ... f11!

Canon EF 5.6/400 L Excellent wide open. No CAs at 24MP FF.

Canon EF 2.8/400 L II EXCELLENT wide open. No CAs at 24MP FF.

Konica AR 4.5/400. Modest CAs (less than Canon FD 4.5/400), but less resolution than Canon 4.5/400 as well.

Meyer Görlitz Telemegor 5.5/400 (historic)

Minolta MC 5.6/400 APO all three samples I'm aware of have astigmatism in the image center at 5.6 (!!). EXCELLENT at f11 (better than Canon nFD 2.8/400 L at f11)

Minolta AF 4.5/400 APO Very good wide open; stopped down less CAs than nFD 2.8/400 L, but slightly more than EF 5.6/400L

Novoflex Noflexar T 5.6/400 (newest version): Almost free from CAs. At f5.6 ... f11 clearly less CAs than Canon nFD 2.8/400L. Strong field curvature. Wide open perfect for animals; stopped down to f11 also for landscapes (no CAs!!)

Schneider Tele-Xenar 5.5/36cm (historic)

Sigma 5.6/400 APO (MF lens for MD, seems to be pretty sharp, but my sample is competely fogged)

Vivitar 5.6/400mm (don't remember how it performs ...)


* If you can live with the field curvature of the Novoflex Noflexar T 5.6/400 (newest version), it is an excellent less with less CAs than many 300mm and 400mm "ED" lenses. The fast focusing "Pistolengriff" results in very fast focusing!

* Be aware that early IF-ED Nikkors such as the 3.5/400 IF-ED do not have the best reputation.

* Canon EF 5.6/400 L was absolutely stunning when I used it on 24 MP FF (not my lens)

S


EDIT "Anyone shooting ...?" - Yes, I actually bought the Canon 2.8/400L for a book project (documentation of frescos in a church). The results were incredible, and published / printed in large size (32 x 48 cm). Some images were taken combining the 2.8/400L with the FD 1.4x converter. Pretty good results, but CAs have to be removed.

More on using the 400L with several stacked teleconverters: http://forum.mflenses.com/full-moon-with-canon-nfd-2-8-400-plus-multiple-converters-t81443.html

This one was taken with a 2.8/400L plus two Canon 2x-B teleconverters (f=1600mm): http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20204/big_4216_artaphot_DSC06245_websize_bw_1.jpg


Those moons are so damn sharp!! They look crisper than my William Optics 90mm APO refractor telescope.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really? What camera were you using? The moon looks good but I can definitely feel the impact of two teleconverters stacked.

I also think a corner test of those would be interesting.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Anyone shooting vintage manual 400-600mm ? Reply with quote
I evaluated hundreds of test images a few years ago to find a viable (cheap and light, yet good) option.

In the end, that was the 4oo 4.5 Canon FD.

The 5oo/4.5L FD is even better, but much more expensive, and larger. I also value the greater flexibility of a 4oomm.
The 4oo/2.8L FD is very hard to find and expensive as L, weighs a ton, but yes, is sharper.
The 4oo/2.8L EF is NOT a manual lens. It's DEAD without a working camera. It can NOT focus manually at all :/
4oo/5.6 Novoflex Noflexar is indeed academically above the 4oo/4.5 FD.
4oo/5.6 Sigma APO (and only the APO) looks very promising as well.
EVERYTHING ELSE is rubbish, imho, and/or too big, too expensive - such as the Leica Modul R series.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Anyone shooting vintage manual 400-600mm ? Reply with quote
Coyote23 wrote:

Those moons are so damn sharp!! They look crisper than my William Optics 90mm APO refractor telescope.


eggplant wrote:
Really? What camera were you using? The moon looks good but I can definitely feel the impact of two teleconverters stacked.


The impacts you feel in the above moon shots are not caused from the stacked teleconverter. The main reason was air turbulence. When taking those images I was focusing using the image using the built-in viewfinder magnifier. The entire moon surface was wobbling, bulging in and out, and everything was in motion. Occasionally there was a short moment of calm air, and was getting a glimpse of the real preformance of the 2.8/400L plus converters. In addition I had to use quite high ISO. The effective aperture was in the f22 range, and you need quite short exposure to compensate for the movements of the moon, the air and the tripod ...

eggplant wrote:
I also think a corner test of those would be interesting.


Some poeple (including me) later were interested in the real perfomance of the 2.8/400L plus several converters. I have published the results here on mflenses.

S


PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my tests the only converter worth a damn was the Zeiss T* Mutar, all the others introduced noticable aberrations, even when matched to one of the lenses they were intended to be used with.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
In my tests the only converter worth a damn was the Zeiss T* Mutar, all the others introduced noticable aberrations, even when matched to one of the lenses they were intended to be used with.


1) Which Mutar did you use?
2) Which Zeiss (?) lenses did you combine with the Mutar?
3) Which other lens/converter combinations did you compare with the Mutar (Canon? Nikon? Minolta? Konica? Olympus? Pentax? Yashica?)
4) Which camera did you use?

Thanks in advance for your information!

S


PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mutar I, nothing else I tried was worth bothering with and I tried lots.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kypfer wrote:
I'm not averse to using my Tamron 500mm f/8 Adaptall-2 mirror on occasion.
It's followed me around since the '70's and is still as good as it ever was, especially on film.


+ 1 for the Tamron

To Coyote 23:
+ 1 for the Pentax 400 A. More than enough for what I do. Maybe a bit more expensive than the Tamron but more versatile.
What are you looking for mainly? (price or quality? What are you going to use it for?)
Assuming your question is because of cost, there are more options, like the Sigma APO which can be found cheap-ish. Problem is to find one which is not plagued by haze due to separation in the rear elements. This one :
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3345294
Mine are both a bit hazy but still very close to the Pentax.
And then this Vivitar :
http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-400mm-f56-t67226.html
It's a notch worse than the Sigma, but should be found much cheaper still.
As expected, these last 2 have rather low contrast WO but should yield better results than the vintage stuff.

One more option:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-400mm-f-5-6-sd.html
Make sure you get the later version (SD, red ring) the first one was really not so good.

If you do digital, these lenses flaws should be corrected easily, especially if you don't make wall sized enlargements.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anyone ever used a TAMRON SP 65B 400mm F4 LD-IF ?

One for sale in my area and I'm thinking whether it's worth a shot.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:
Anyone ever used a TAMRON SP 65B 400mm F4 LD-IF ?

One for sale in my area and I'm thinking whether it's worth a shot.


Excellent. One of my dearest lens, but it was stolen. [everybody cries please] Could never replace it.
But we're not sure at what kind of budget Coyote23 is looking at... Remember, he's been asking for options about non ED (cheaper?) lenses.

How much for your opportunity?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
Himself wrote:
Anyone ever used a TAMRON SP 65B 400mm F4 LD-IF ?

One for sale in my area and I'm thinking whether it's worth a shot.


Excellent. One of my dearest lens, but it was stolen. [everybody cries please] Could never replace it.
But we're not sure at what kind of budget Coyote23 is looking at... Remember, he's been asking for options about non ED (cheaper?) lenses.

How much for your opportunity?


$750 CAD


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 for the Tamron 500mm f/8 55BB mirror

Must mention Tamron SP 60-300mm F/3.8-5.4 23A zoom:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/23A.html (click or tap for Modern Photo Test Results)


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
+1 for the Tamron 500mm f/8 55BB mirror

Must mention Tamron SP 60-300mm F/3.8-5.4 23A zoom:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/23A.html (click or tap for Modern Photo Test Results)


I'm asking about Tamrons because I had only problems with mines: all of them very bad CA. Impossible to remove.
And I had the 60-300 and the 500mm mirror. And the 17mm. And some other zooms.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:
Anyone ever used a TAMRON SP 65B 400mm F4 LD-IF ?

One for sale in my area and I'm thinking whether it's worth a shot.


Yes, a few years ago. Relatively soft, but lts of detail wide open; pretty crisp stopped downe to f8. Similar rendition to the coreesponding Tamron SP 2.8/300mm from the same time frame!


Himself wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
+1 for the Tamron 500mm f/8 55BB mirror

Must mention Tamron SP 60-300mm F/3.8-5.4 23A zoom:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/23A.html (click or tap for Modern Photo Test Results)


I'm asking about Tamrons because I had only problems with mines: all of them very bad CA. Impossible to remove.
And I had the 60-300 and the 500mm mirror. And the 17mm. And some other zooms.


Which camera did you use? It's a bit suprising ... I know all three lenses, and while there are some CAs on the 60-300 of course, the 17mm and especially the 500mm mirror are not know for "vey bad CA". Are you talking about lateral CAs, fringing or longitudinal CAs?

S

PS the SP 4/400 has some CAs, of course - and so has the Canon nFD / EF 2.8/400mm L! The Canon, however, has much better micro-contrast and better detail resolution wide open.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2