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

High resolution tele lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:32 am    Post subject: High resolution tele lenses Reply with quote
I'm looking for high-resolving tele lenses for usage with Pentax Q.
I have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED but I'm looking for something longer.
Any ideas?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an idea, which is Tair-3S, but you didn't like it as far as I remember. My understanding is that in order to improve on Tair's resolution, you have to go for Canon FD L lenses and similar class optics.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had two Tairs.
Good for the price but I guess on a 5.5x crop they will look like crap.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quite probable, although on 2x crop they look very good. But then you know that you are looking at Canon L's and Leitz R's since chances to find something better than Tair among ordinary optics are very slim. Here's comparison with Nikkor 300/f2.8: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2412521. I think there also was another one here against other Nikkor.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Quite probable, although on 2x crop they look very good. But then you know that you are looking at Canon L's and Leitz R's since chances to find something better than Tair among ordinary optics are very slim. Here's comparison with Nikkor 300/f2.8: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2412521. I think there also was another one here against other Nikkor.

+1


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is your budget like? And when you write you want "something longer" than your 180mm Nikkor, can you be most specific? 300mm? 500mm? More?

If you like Nikkors, why not get a 300mm Nikkor? Like the 300mm f/4.5 ED, or if you've got the funds, a 300mm f/2.8 ED. Manual focus AIs versions will be relatively cheap compared to the latest AF versions. There's also the Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LD and 400mm f/4 LD, both which rival the Nikkor ED and Canon L lenses in image quality, but which can often be picked up on the used market for reasonable sums.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The obvious answer is process lenses, they have at least 160lp/mm, I read 190lp/mm for the one I have.

There are loads of these and usually cheap, CZJ Apo-Tessar 9/240 for instance, or the Agfa/Staeble Ultragon 9/210.

They aren't fast though, but are cheap and with a set of bellows and some extension tubes they are easy to use. Tripod mandatory.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Re: High resolution tele lenses Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:

Any ideas?


http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/teleconverter/index5.htm


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have pentax M*300/4, sharp at f4, super sharp at 5.6 - sharper than most lenses I tried in this class.
and nikkor 400/5.6 ED-IF ais - also super sharp.

Both are big and heavy on the Q.
You may need the Rokkor RF 250/5.6 Very Happy

Ian has a point.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
I have pentax M*300/4, sharp at f4, super sharp at 5.6 - sharper than most lenses I tried in this class.
and nikkor 400/5.6 ED-IF ais - also super sharp.

Both are big and heavy on the Q.
You may need the Rokkor RF 250/5.6 Very Happy

Ian has a point.


What abouT CA in those lenses?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hunt an expensive , stunning lens for a low IQ camera ... you can crop by your self what Q doing anyway.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i agree with attila on setting yourself up for disappointment with a great lens on this camera. i thik jesito just posted some moon pix taken with a good lens on this camera, and they were disappointing to say the least. i know what its like when you have your heart set on something and you want to follow through and really dont want to hear contrary views--ive been there! but i can almost guarantee you will be much better off cropping a great lens on a great camera than using the Q.
tony


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:22 pm    Post subject: CARL ZEISS Apo Teletessar T* 4/600mm (Protoype) Reply with quote
How about this one! Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm looking for something between ~400 and ~1000mm
Attila wrote:
Hunt an expensive , stunning lens for a low IQ camera ... you can crop by your self what Q doing anyway.

Low IQ yes but still much more resolution than a 5.5x crop of a NEX for example
Here an example with an 560mm telescope and the Q
Scroll down a little: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images-28.html
Direct link: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-q/155873d1358527190-reach-q-images-imgp0093.jpg

Processing lenses might be the best way to go Smile
Any more recommendations?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think process lenses with small apertures will leave you with a resolution problem on your sensor because of diffraction limits.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/tutorial/diffraction-limits-of-resolution.html

To not be limited by diffraction with a very dense sensor like on the Q you actually need rather large apertures.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Quite probable, although on 2x crop they look very good. But then you know that you are looking at Canon L's and Leitz R's since chances to find something better than Tair among ordinary optics are very slim. Here's comparison with Nikkor 300/f2.8: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2412521. I think there also was another one here against other Nikkor.

At the link, all I see is a red X where the photos should be. Is it me? Sad


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SonicScot wrote:
fermy wrote:
Quite probable, although on 2x crop they look very good. But then you know that you are looking at Canon L's and Leitz R's since chances to find something better than Tair among ordinary optics are very slim. Here's comparison with Nikkor 300/f2.8: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2412521. I think there also was another one here against other Nikkor.

At the link, all I see is a red X where the photos should be. Is it me? Sad


Nope, same for me too, unfortunately Sad


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I'm looking for something between ~400 and ~1000mm

Here an example with an 560mm telescope and the Q
Scroll down a little: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images-28.html
Direct link: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-q/155873d1358527190-reach-q-images-imgp0093.jpg


Any more recommendations?


If you're looking for a lens that rivals the quality of that 560mm telescope, they are out there. And they are not necessarily process lenses. But the fast long teles are ultra expensive and are not going to deliver necessarily better images than that 560mm telescope. Some older telephoto designs that aren't so fast work very well. Here are two examples, neither of which are very common, but they're out there if you look.

Century Precision Optics 500mm f/5.6 -- manual aperture, lens is a well-corrected achromatic doublet with an optical flat in front of the doublet. 1/125 second @ f/11, ISO 100. 100% crop shown.



Century Precision Optics 650mm f/6.8. Same optical formula as above, just a somewhat longer focal length. I've taken a lot of moon shots with the CPO 650 as well, and they look virtually identical to the CPO 500's shots, except the moon being a bit bigger. Subject is a water kiosk about 100 meters down the street from the camera. First image is what the camera took. Second image is a 100% enlargement of a portion of the first photo.




You can see that heat waves radiating from the pavement have distorted the straight lines in the photo. Despite this, the sharpness of the lens shines through. Of all the telephotos and long zooms I've tested using this kiosk as a subject, and I've tested a lot, the CPO teles score among the sharpest, if not the sharpest. The text "We care about the water you drink" is exceptionally clear in this example.

Okay here's a good one for you. Try this with your 560mm telephoto. Jupiter and the four Galilean moons. Taken with my CPO 650/6.8 on a stout tripod. Exposure unrecorded, but the shutter speed was probably down around 1/4 second or so and the lens was likely wide open. Any slower and motion blur would probably have occurred.



These two old Century telephotos, despite their simple optical design, are two of the sharpest lenses I own.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SonicScot wrote:
fermy wrote:
Quite probable, although on 2x crop they look very good. But then you know that you are looking at Canon L's and Leitz R's since chances to find something better than Tair among ordinary optics are very slim. Here's comparison with Nikkor 300/f2.8: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2412521. I think there also was another one here against other Nikkor.

At the link, all I see is a red X where the photos should be. Is it me? Sad


Nope, that review was done back when? 2008? He probably took the photos down a couple years after publishing the article.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow! Jupiter!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Nikon 800mm f/5.6 in't a bad lens, altough I've heard it's outclassed by more modern AF lenses and the 800mm Leica.

Jupiter (using non-optimal planetary imaging techniques):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6842892286/in/photostream

Moon:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/7016151869/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Sun (white light filter):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/8038240279/sizes/o/in/photostream/

M22 -- Globular Cluster (fuzzy due to seeing conditions and 300sec exposure)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/8504687760/sizes/o/in/set-72157622760163239/

M101 -- Galaxy (also fuzzy for same reason)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/8427419323/sizes/o/in/set-72157622760163239/


The resolution of this lens is rather poor compared to even a relatively inexpensive scope --

Jupiter with scope (and more conventional planetary imaging techniques):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/8305662307/sizes/k/in/set-72157622760163239/


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
s58y wrote:

Jupiter with scope (and more conventional planetary imaging techniques):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/8305662307/sizes/k/in/set-72157622760163239/


What telescope was used for those images? I find it hard to believe that an "inexpensive telescope" took such good pictures. Thus the reason for the question. I wouldn't mind owning a scope that can render such good photos. Cool


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

...
What telescope was used for those images? I find it hard to believe that an "inexpensive telescope" took such good pictures. Thus the reason for the question. I wouldn't mind owning a scope that can render such good photos. Cool



Actually, it's a "relatively inexpensive telescope", compared to the old 800mm lens.

The telescope is just the commonplace Celestron Edge HD 800 8-inch SCT scope, which cost around $1200 new for the OTA (on sale last year, but about $1300 now). The Nikon 800mm/5.6 lens cost about $2400 IIRC several years ago, used, and I think new (and hopefully much better) Nikon AF 800/5.6 lenses cost $17000+ now. I added a Feathertouch focuser to the scope, along with a Televue Powermate for this image, but the total cost is still less than the 800mm lens.

This doesn't include the cost of the tracking mount, power supplies, dew heaters, finder scopes, camera, computers, etc., but all these are needed with the 800mm lens, too.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a lot easier to make optics that are near perfect only in the center than to have sharpness over the entire field. A simple Newton easily outperforms a 5x more expensive refractor (mainly because you get bigger for less), but only in the center of the field, it's bad on the edges.
Those are some really nice photos of Jupiter!

Since we are talking here about high resolution optics and looks like aiming for object at infinity, we should not forget that the angular resolution is more important then the one on the sensor. And as at f/8 and more good optics should be diffraction limited the diameter of the lens(or mirror) plays a higher role in resolution rather than focal length.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sammo wrote:
It's a lot easier to make optics that are near perfect only in the center than to have sharpness over the entire field. A simple Newton easily outperforms a 5x more expensive refractor (mainly because you get bigger for less), but only in the center of the field, it's bad on the edges.


It depends on the Newtonian and how well they ground that mirror. Any mirror telescope has the advantage of elimination of chromatic aberrations because they reflect rather than refract images. But spherically ground mirrors will have a problem with the light rays not meeting at a single point, a condition known as spherical aberration. If this is what you mean by a "simple Newtonian," then I agree. But parabolic mirrors do not have this problem. All mirror lenses will suffer from some degree of coma, which is exhibited by point-source objects on the periphery appearing more like comets, but well-ground parabolic mirrors minimize this to a large degree.

I used to own a pair of Meade Newtonians -- a 6" and an 8", and later added a huge Cave 10" research grade Newtonian to my collection. That Cave must have weighed a couple hundred pounds easy with its big German equatorial mount. I also owned a Meade 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain design (basically a folded mirror, a lot like the ones used for photography), which was very well corrected optically. My Newtonians compared very favorably with the SCT in terms of aberrations, and did not show significant coma at the edge of the field.

S58y, well I suppose it's all relative. That's a nice looking OTA, by the way. Just had a look at one over at Celestron's website. There are times I wish I would have kept my Meade 10" and all the accessories I'd accumulated for it. It was a good scope for astrophotography, but somewhat tedious to use. I used an off-axis guider to keep it tracking accurately. This was back in the days of using film, though, where I'd have to track objects with the OAG for like a half-hour or more. Things have changed a bit since then.

This is not my Cave 10", but this is what mine looked like:


A Meade 10" -- not mine but mine looked a lot like this one.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1