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

Recomment long range lens (600-800mm) or so.
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I am Russian myself and i started taking pictures with manual focus lenses made in USSR, now i of course upgraded since then and consider all soviet made lenses total junk that should be avoided.


"Junk" to me are all those plastic lenses designed to last a few years and then be thrown away.
In Russian production, there are many examples of lenses worthy of attention, although the mechanical part never reaches fully satisfactory standards, but this does not prevent surprising results, often many decades after they were made.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Ultrapix"]
Quote:
...
"Junk" to me are all those plastic lenses designed to last a few years and then be thrown away.
...


Not all plastics used in lenses and cameras are poor. Quality engineering plastics such as glass-filled polycarbonate and glass-filled nylon are dimensionally stable, and also very durable provided the mouldings have been well-designed. The limiting factor as to durability of plastic lenses & cameras is often down to undersized plastic screw-posts, which split or break, insufficient radius on internal corners where stressed (which leads to cracks), or the use of plastic filter-threads. Poor component/mould design rather than necessarily a poor choice of material, mostly.

But yes, there are also plenty of plastic lenses that have been designed for a tight budget rather than for longevity...


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="RokkorDoctor"]
Ultrapix wrote:
Quote:
...
"Junk" to me are all those plastic lenses designed to last a few years and then be thrown away.
...


Not all plastics used in lenses and cameras are poor. Quality engineering plastics such as glass-filled polycarbonate and glass-filled nylon are dimensionally stable, and also very durable provided the mouldings have been well-designed. The limiting factor as to durability of plastic lenses & cameras is often down to undersized plastic screw-posts, which split or break, insufficient radius on internal corners where stressed (which leads to cracks), or the use of plastic filter-threads. Poor component/mould design rather than necessarily a poor choice of material, mostly.

But yes, there are also plenty of plastic lenses that have been designed for a tight budget rather than for longevity...


I admit I expressed myself wrongly, because by "plastic lenses" I meant to refer to those distinctly consumer objects, children of the disposable society, which on the one hand have made photography more popular, but on the other hand have contributed to impoverishing it of the value of 'quality'. That said, your reflections are shareable, but they have awakened in me the memory of an Angenieux 70-210 with a polycarbonate body, where a crack cost the replacement of the entire body, at a stratospheric cost. And that was not the only flaw in that expensive optic, where the zoom bearings had to be tightened very often, with screws largely undersized for the strain...


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

D1N0 wrote:
This should do :p
https://aquilaa1.wordpress.com/2020/11/09/maksutov-1000mm/


I have one of those, it's seriously heavy.
I've always been able to use my other mirror lenses handheld in good light (even on crop bodies with an effective focal length of 900mm), but the MTO is impossible to hold anywhere near on target while focusing unless a support is used. It can manage well enough on a tripod Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I left the Rubinar to acclimatise for more than an hour outside... until I realised the heat haze left me unable to get any sharp shots!

D'oh... should've checked in advance. Will have to wait for a clear day.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
Quote:
I am Russian myself and i started taking pictures with manual focus lenses made in USSR, now i of course upgraded since then and consider all soviet made lenses total junk that should be avoided.


"Junk" to me are all those plastic lenses designed to last a few years and then be thrown away.
In Russian production, there are many examples of lenses worthy of attention, although the mechanical part never reaches fully satisfactory standards, but this does not prevent surprising results, often many decades after they were made.

In my experience any German or Japanese lens of same year has way way better quality than USSR lenses. I tried to shoot portrait with Helios 44-2 that supposed to be good, however after TTartisans 50mm f1.2 that lens looks exactly like "junk" so i sold it.

I have only come across plastic used in lens in Konika Hexanon AR 40 F1.8 all other manual lenses i have tried are fully metal. Anyhow i am more concerned of glass quality than the body of lens, which is very soft in USSR lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NiceDays wrote:

In my experience any German or Japanese lens of same year has way way better quality than USSR lenses. I tried to shoot portrait with Helios 44-2 that supposed to be good, however after TTartisans 50mm f1.2 that lens looks exactly like "junk" so i sold it.

I have only come across plastic used in lens in Konika Hexanon AR 40 F1.8 all other manual lenses i have tried are fully metal. Anyhow i am more concerned of glass quality than the body of lens, which is very soft in USSR lenses.


the Helios 44 is a copy of the Zeiss Biotar designed in 1927.
The Artisan has been on the market since 2020.

Those who like the rendering of the Helios 44 (or the original Biotar) look for certain "vintage" effects that may serve a stylistic quest or a certain genre of photography. This happens in photography, but also in cinema, where filmmakers use a lot of "imperfect" optics to introduce certain suggestions.

A comparison with the Artisan would be more appropriate with a modern lens such as this one, possibly: https://zenit.store/collections/zenitar-1-2-50s/products/mc-zenitar-50mm-f-1-2-s-lens-for-nikon-aps-c-sensors

But the fact is that of "perfect" lenses, with cold and aseptic rendering, there are a huge number of them today, even cheap ones, and that is why some photographers, including the majority of this community, like to delve into the diversity of optical schemes, advances, historical period, etc.
And this kind of research is much more rewarding and complex than buying the latest Korean, industrially built, computer designed, plastic aspherical lens.
I almost always use modern lenses for work, for my personal research I choose from time to time, and not infrequently try to turn the flaws of a lens into "beauty."

You are of course free to choose which path to follow, but please do not call the Soviet lenses junk, for the simple reason that they are a faithful representation of the quality achieved by the best German industry at the time of WW II, faithfully reproduced by the victors of the conflict who appropriated the know-how from Jena.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started from a good 3oo mm lens as well, as OP describes.
In years of looking around, I only came across TWO affordable longer lenses that actually gave me more DETAIL rather than just more magnification (i.e. not just a bigger picture but without revealing more detail).

One is the Canon FD 4oo/4.5, under 3oo €.
The other is the Nikon AiS 1ooo/11, under 4oo €.

All mirror lenses are inferior, including the 5oo/8 Tokina (or was it Tamron?) that's heralded as the best 5oo mirror.
All other affordable glass lenses I came across were also inferior. And all better glass lenses were more expensive (Canon FD 5oo/4.5 is tremendous, but 8oo €+).
And then of course there are many lenses that are more expensive AND worse (Canon EF 4oo/4 DO, FD 6oo/4.5, 8oo/5.6, many Nikons, all 15o-5oo and -6oo I've ever seen, ...)


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kathala wrote:
I started from a good 3oo mm lens as well, as OP describes.
In years of looking around, I only came across TWO affordable longer lenses that actually gave me more DETAIL rather than just more magnification (i.e. not just a bigger picture but without revealing more detail).

One is the Canon FD 4oo/4.5, under 3oo €.
The other is the Nikon AiS 1ooo/11, under 4oo €.

All mirror lenses are inferior, including the 5oo/8 Tokina (or was it Tamron?) that's heralded as the best 5oo mirror.
All other affordable glass lenses I came across were also inferior. And all better glass lenses were more expensive (Canon FD 5oo/4.5 is tremendous, but 8oo €+).
And then of course there are many lenses that are more expensive AND worse (Canon EF 4oo/4 DO, FD 6oo/4.5, 8oo/5.6, many Nikons, all 15o-5oo and -6oo I've ever seen, ...)


Mirror lenses can have less details, but since what I have seen on the web about the FD 400/4,5, much less chromatical aberrations too (virtually none). Of course the speed is way different, and that matters, too.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marcusBMG wrote:

Superzooms have improved a lot in the last few years, I have to say they are probably one of the most practical ways of getting this sort of ultra-extreme telephoto.
As soon as you are using more conventional sized sensor cameras - apsc or full frame - the practical limitations of optics (the really long focal length lenses are huge - small telescopes - and expensive eg pentax 1000mm, pentax A 1200mm ) mean that above 400mm options are limited. Mirror lenses are often frustrating, especially when the light is less than perfect.


True, the lenses of modern superzoom cameras are a technical marvel. They use a lot of extra low dispersion glasses and aspherical elements, which means that even at full aperture, the image is already of high quality. Ultra telephoto and macro photography are two areas where small sensors can actually be better than large sensors.

Superzoom cameras are small, lightweight and have excellent image stabilization, making them very practical for freehand use. Also, the use of autofocus eliminates one of the big problems with super telephoto manual focus lenses, which is getting fast and accurate focus.

If you use less than ISO 400 on a superzoom camera, the image quality can be as good as on a camera with a larger sensor. IMO, for equivalent focal lengths of 500mm or more, using an FF or APS-C camera to get clearly better quality than a modern superzoom camera requires spending thousands of dollars, using a tripod and carrying a large, heavy and cumbersome equipament.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I am Russian myself and i started taking pictures with manual focus lenses made in USSR, now i of course upgraded since then and consider all soviet made lenses total junk that should be avoided.


That's one of the most silly comments on this entire forum.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
marcusBMG wrote:

Superzooms have improved a lot in the last few years, I have to say they are probably one of the most practical ways of getting this sort of ultra-extreme telephoto.
As soon as you are using more conventional sized sensor cameras - apsc or full frame - the practical limitations of optics (the really long focal length lenses are huge - small telescopes - and expensive eg pentax 1000mm, pentax A 1200mm ) mean that above 400mm options are limited. Mirror lenses are often frustrating, especially when the light is less than perfect.


True, the lenses of modern superzoom cameras are a technical marvel. They use a lot of extra low dispersion glasses and aspherical elements, which means that even at full aperture, the image is already of high quality. Ultra telephoto and macro photography are two areas where small sensors can actually be better than large sensors.

Superzoom cameras are small, lightweight and have excellent image stabilization, making them very practical for freehand use. Also, the use of autofocus eliminates one of the big problems with super telephoto manual focus lenses, which is getting fast and accurate focus.

If you use less than ISO 400 on a superzoom camera, the image quality can be as good as on a camera with a larger sensor. IMO, for equivalent focal lengths of 500mm or more, using an FF or APS-C camera to get clearly better quality than a modern superzoom camera requires spending thousands of dollars, using a tripod and carrying a large, heavy and cumbersome equipament.


Some context is necessary-

Alot of these superzooms operate well into diffraction territory at the long end. The 3000mm equivalent of the Nikon P1000 is at f/45 full frame equivalent! I remember reading it's 1-3MP equivalent.

Of course, they're still an optical marvel- that's still a huge range to traverse (4.3 - 539 mm).

Now the reason for the low effective MP is probably because the atmospheric distortion at 3000mm is so great it prevents super sharp photos. It's also enough for HD video.

Now here's the thing- noone offers a 3000mm f/45 lens for full frame, so these superzoom cameras do look a bit better...


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eggplant wrote:
Alot of these superzooms operate well into diffraction territory at the long end. The 3000mm equivalent of the Nikon P1000 is at f/45 full frame equivalent! I remember reading it's 1-3MP equivalent.

Of course, they're still an optical marvel- that's still a huge range to traverse (4.3 - 539 mm).

Now the reason for the low effective MP is probably because the atmospheric distortion at 3000mm is so great it prevents super sharp photos. It's also enough for HD video.

Now here's the thing- noone offers a 3000mm f/45 lens for full frame, so these superzoom cameras do look a bit better...


Just as on Planet of the Apes there was a Forbidden Zone, for photographic optics there is also the "forbidden zone" of equivalent focal lengths above 1000 mm, no matter the format. Indeed, the only serious lens on the market today for the 35mm (full-frame) format with a focal length over 1000mm is the Canon RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM, which costs $20k.

Perhaps Nikon pushed the limits a bit with the 3000mm F45 equivalent focal length for the P1000, but for FL of 1200mm or less the results should be much more acceptable.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
eggplant wrote:
Alot of these superzooms operate well into diffraction territory at the long end. The 3000mm equivalent of the Nikon P1000 is at f/45 full frame equivalent! I remember reading it's 1-3MP equivalent.

Of course, they're still an optical marvel- that's still a huge range to traverse (4.3 - 539 mm).

Now the reason for the low effective MP is probably because the atmospheric distortion at 3000mm is so great it prevents super sharp photos. It's also enough for HD video.

Now here's the thing- noone offers a 3000mm f/45 lens for full frame, so these superzoom cameras do look a bit better...


Just as on Planet of the Apes there was a Forbidden Zone, for photographic optics there is also the "forbidden zone" of equivalent focal lengths above 1000 mm, no matter the format. Indeed, the only serious lens on the market today for the 35mm (full-frame) format with a focal length over 1000mm is the Canon RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM, which costs $20k.

Perhaps Nikon pushed the limits a bit with the 3000mm F45 equivalent focal length for the P1000, but for FL of 1200mm or less the results should be much more acceptable.


Atmospheric distortion aside, above 1000mm~ish photographic lenses simply get a bit unwieldy and expensive. No economic incentives for a production line for those lenses, so the few esoterics that did exist were pretty much fully hand-built with custom one-off tooling configurations required for both the optics and mechanics, hence expensive. Those lenses are/were made to order on an individual one-off order basis, and don't roll off a production line.

TBH with those extreme focal lengths, a one-off design commissioned from an independent specialised mfr. might not be all that much more expensive than the "made to order" ones that are/were on the catalogue of some of the main brands, albeit that the former wouldn't have the consistent brand-look and functionally might not integrate as seamlessly with the rest of the system.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RokkorDoctor wrote:
No economic incentives for a production line for those lenses, so the few esoterics that did exist were pretty much fully hand-built with custom one-off tooling configurations required for both the optics and mechanics, hence expensive.


For all Vivitar fans, how about a brand new Vivitar 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens, T-Mount, multi-coated, for FF format, for only $169?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/885033-REG/Vivitar_v_650_1300_650_1300mm_f_8_Telephoto_Zoom.html

Too good to be true? Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Gerald"]
For all Vivitar fans, how about a brand new Vivitar 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens, T-Mount, multi-coated, for FF format, for only $169?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/885033-REG/Vivitar_v_650_1300_650_1300mm_f_8_Telephoto_Zoom.html
Too good to be true? Twisted Evil[/quote]
It won't be up to the Canon 1200/8 (which, don't be fooled, is just their 600/4 with an inbuilt 2x extender, and shows appropriately dismal MTFs), but will almost certainly exhibit more detail than the 3000/45 with a phone-sized micro CMOS.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kathala wrote:
Gerald wrote:

For all Vivitar fans, how about a brand new Vivitar 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens, T-Mount, multi-coated, for FF format, for only $169?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/885033-REG/Vivitar_v_650_1300_650_1300mm_f_8_Telephoto_Zoom.html
Too good to be true? Twisted Evil

It won't be up to the Canon 1200/8 (which, don't be fooled, is just their 600/4 with an inbuilt 2x extender, and shows appropriately dismal MTFs), but will almost certainly exhibit more detail than the 3000/45 with a phone-sized micro CMOS.


That lens was labelled by many brands...I had one -- not terrible; certainly not great. Concave front element; no helicoid, tubes slide into each other to focus. I got better results with girl watcher + TC.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
kathala wrote:
Gerald wrote:

For all Vivitar fans, how about a brand new Vivitar 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens, T-Mount, multi-coated, for FF format, for only $169?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/885033-REG/Vivitar_v_650_1300_650_1300mm_f_8_Telephoto_Zoom.html
Too good to be true? Twisted Evil

It won't be up to the Canon 1200/8 (which, don't be fooled, is just their 600/4 with an inbuilt 2x extender, and shows appropriately dismal MTFs), but will almost certainly exhibit more detail than the 3000/45 with a phone-sized micro CMOS.


That lens was labelled by many brands...I had one -- not terrible; certainly not great. Concave front element; no helicoid, tubes slide into each other to focus. I got better results with girl watcher + TC.

Concave front element? Interesting, very unusual in telephoto lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TBH once we're talking about focal lengths above 1000mm we're really talking about telescopes.
There's an interesting comparison between a swarowski scope used "digiscoping" and a canon 800mm lens IIRC, online:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/scoping-out-digiscoping/

I briefly tried a 420-800mm version of those cheapo lenses. My review is on Pentax Forums (I need to repost the pics). Not recommendable imo.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
kathala wrote:
Gerald wrote:

For all Vivitar fans, how about a brand new Vivitar 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens, T-Mount, multi-coated, for FF format, for only $169?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/885033-REG/Vivitar_v_650_1300_650_1300mm_f_8_Telephoto_Zoom.html
Too good to be true? Twisted Evil

It won't be up to the Canon 1200/8 (which, don't be fooled, is just their 600/4 with an inbuilt 2x extender, and shows appropriately dismal MTFs), but will almost certainly exhibit more detail than the 3000/45 with a phone-sized micro CMOS.


That lens was labelled by many brands...I had one -- not terrible; certainly not great. Concave front element; no helicoid, tubes slide into each other to focus. I got better results with girl watcher + TC.

Concave front element? Interesting, very unusual in telephoto lenses.


Yes, concave.
(Old) photos of the lens; sorry none show front element...oops, it does have a helicoid.

#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't the rear of that really wobbly with crap tolerances?



This is the 650-1300mm. I have always wondered how focal length/performance would change without that rear doublet..


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eggplant wrote:
Isn't the rear of that really wobbly with crap tolerances?

This is the 650-1300mm. I have always wondered how focal length/performance would change without that rear doublet..


Not so wobbly when adjustments are properly tightened; tolerances would indeed be crap on a wide angle lens. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reminds me of this thread - pics gone now
http://forum.mflenses.com/mto-1000mm-f11-mirror-lens-t54186.html

I like my old superzoom canon sx50 hs quite compact 1200mm equiv.
I'd complain about size of p900 but compared to all the lenses mentioned . . .