Recommendations for a decent, cheap 300 or 400mm?

[Zamo]

Hi all,
I am thinking of buying a long telephoto for some pictures (no animals, just still images of landscapes, moon, etc). It is just a trial, I don't want to spend much, pretty much anything is valid. Preferably with Konica AR, Canon, PK, m42 or PB mounts, for which I already have adapters. Any recommended options around there? The cheaper the better. Maybe a long zoom would also be ok, since they are often quite cheap and I am not going to pixelpeep at all...
My longest one right now are a couple of Konicas 200mm (3.5 and 4), but wanted something longer. I don't care much about wonderful image quality, but probably there are out there some models that are better than others and cost about the same... (should not happen, but I have seen it happening).
Edit: I would use that with a Sony a6000 (APSC).
Thanks in advance!

[D1N0]

Tair 3Phs 300mm F4.5 but that is quite hard to manage without a tripod or monopod. A very good zoom is the Tamron SP Adaptall-2 60-300mm 1:3.8-5.4 (23A)

[papasito]

[Antoine]

The Minolta MD 300 mm 4.5 is light and dirt cheap (less than 100)
Why not Minolta 100-500 mm f 8. A bit more pricy less than 200
F:8 may be slow... but these days, you can really up the ISO to compensate... and 8 makes it much easier to focus and anyway you still have nice bokey and limited depth of field
Then a mirror lens for the moon. Ideal would be 800 mm for an APS, 500 mm much more compact and already quite nice. Downside is bokey, upside is no CA

[lumens pixel]

Soligor tokina et al 400 6,3?

[marcusBMG]

+1 tair 300mm and tamron 60-300mm as two of the best value/iq 300mm options.
If you are prepared to pay rather more (£300-500), then picking up one of the adaptall SP 300mm f2.8's will really give you good iq, and these are as ideal a lens as there is for teleconverter use. So with the matching 1.4x and 2x tc's you get 420mm f4 and 600mm f5.6. And you'll always get your money back on the lens as and when you decide to sell - these are vintage plums.

For 400mm, one of the tokina made 400mm f6.3 or (later) f5.6 is an obvious choice. The early f6.3 ones are t-mount. Later tokinas are fixed mount or, as vivitars and soligors, swappable T4/TX mounts. IMO the tokina made soligors and vivs are the best. See:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/minetar-400mm-actually-425mm-f6-3.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-rmc-400mm-f63.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-rmc-tokina-400mm-f5-6.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-400mm-f5-6.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/soligor-400mm-f6-3.html

I don't really recommend the generic 400mm f6.3's, however it is perfectly possible to find a particularly good one that pretty much matches the tokinas, so you might keep your eyes peeled, pick one up for next to nothing and get lucky. But check for hazed rear elements.

At 500mm I don't recommend those long "wundertute" 500mm f8 generics - horribly clunky to use, way long cfd, results once resized normally give no advantage over results from a 400mm IME. With few other inexpensive refractive options, mirrors are the obvious choice, and the reputable tamron adaptall 55B/55BB's are the readily available option (alt: Rubinar and other Russian made mirrors). Mirrors are quirky, ticklish to use with millimetric focus and fussy about light and backgrounds (doughnut bokeh). But still one of the particularly interesting vintage options to play with, and the compactness is a big handling and carrying plus. Shop around on ebay its possible to pick up one, perhaps a worn one advertised with a bit of fungus, for £50 or less (easy to clean). Otherwise up to a hundred or more. Make sure the big hood is included.

[Zamo]

Thanks everyone! This forum really is a gem!

[Phalbert]

£ 500 not really cheap is it ?
I got 2 sigma 400 / 5,6 APO really cheap, the one which was sold in MF and AF versions. I read most of them have hazy elements and one of mine does have a little bit indeed, but I find both very light and quite good from f8.
The later version of the manual focus Tokina 400/5,6 SD or ATX is good too. Should be found for around $ 200 (avoid first version RMC / SL)

[fiftyonepointsix]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-AI-300mm-f4-5-H-Lens-300-4-5-911/143974970849

If you don't mind the price of an adapter- the Nikkor 300mm F4.5 has served me well for 40 years.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Excellent-NIKON-Ai-NIKKOR-300mm-F4-5-Manual-Lens-from-Japan/284209051570

[stevemark]

[visualopsins]

As suggested, the cheapest option is one of the "girlwatcher" lenses sold under a variety of labels. https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tele-astranar-400mm-f6-3.html The IQ is quite good, it's lightweight. Watch out for hazy rear element group.

As DIN0 and others suggested the Tamron SP 60-300 has great IQ, a "Macro" closeup mode, the 60mm-300mm range has more uses than a 300mm or 400mm lens, and doesn't cost a lot more than a girlwatcher.

As others suggest for Moon the Tamron SP 500mm F8 mirror has arguably the best IQ for the price, but lens that long requires firm sturdy support and being slow F8 performs best in bright conditions.

I've had all of them, kept the Tamron mirror.

These inexpensive options (and PP software for correcting CA) will provide some experience before shelling out many times more $$$-$$$$$ for something not a lot better.

[fiftyonepointsix]

Nikkor-H 300/4.5, on the Olympus EP2 camera, u43 format- 12mpixels.

I used a tripod.



I used LR6 to correct for CA.

[fiftyonepointsix]

This is with the 400/6.3 Tele-Astranar on the Nikon Df, picked up for $20 or so. I had one 50 years ago, bought one a few years back.
Hand-Held.

[fiftyonepointsix]

Nikkor-H 300/4.5, on the Df at F8. Handheld.

[dualmp]

Soligor T Tamron 350mm 5.6 or 450mm f8. Sharp with almost no CA. T

[marcusBMG]

The tamron made preset t-mount telephotos are, IMO, the best of these 1960's/70's tp's. As well as the two mentioned in the previous post, the 400mm f6.9 comes in two incarnations - a standard one and a "nestar" that packs into itself for storage and carrying. Pretty neat - but hard to find (also the tripod mount fitting is non-standard).
They all suffer from fringing/CA IME, au contaire to prev post.
Nestar, pentax K-r.

[stevemark]

As promised yesterday, I've been looking at few 300mm lenses, using the 24 MP APS-C Sony A6000:

* Nikkor-H 4.5/300mm
* Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED (non-IF)
* Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I) "Big Beercan"
* Tamron SP 3.8-5.4/60-300mm
* Vivitar (Tokina) 5.6/300mm

Here are the 100% crops from the center (cropped JPGs directly out of the A6000):

(AS USUAL PLEASE CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE TO GET THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION)



It's remarkable how well the Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED (non-IF) performs. When it came to market, it was probably the best 300mm lens for 35mm SLRs available, maybe along with the Canon FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite. On 24MP APS-C it simply is flawless. The Nikkor-H 4.5/300mm is nearly as sharp, but has much more CAs - both lateral and longitudinal. Surprisingly well behaving is the "Big Beercan" Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I). At currently about CHF (USD/EUR) 30.-- is certainly is quite underrated, especially since the entire barrel is made of metal, and since focusing is super smooth. The well respected Tamron SP 3.8-5.4/60-300mm has a bit more CAs and stronger astigmatism than the Minolta zoom. Finally the Vivitar (Tokina made) 5.6/300mm: Slightly disppointing, especially in the center where I simply couldn't get a decent resolution.

Corner crops will follow.

S

[stevemark]

Here the 100% crops from the corner of the 24 MP APS-C sensor of the Sony A6000:

(CLICK TWICE TO GET FULL RESOLUTION)

[benadamx]

the tamron SP 300/5.6 tele-macro is also excellent, and a bit less unwieldy than the 60-300mm at full extension.

[marcusBMG]

Thanks for that comparison Steve.
Nikkor AI ED non-IF clearly the best. Slightly surprised the tamron didn't show a little better.
ps is the viv the fixed mount one, essentially the same as the tokina?

[kiddo]

I see the nikkor af-s 300mm ed goin cheap ,af not working but supposedly could be used on manual , is it worth it as a better option than the AI non ED?

[Zamo]

Thank you so much @stevemark for the pics, and everyone else for the comments. I have a much better picture (pun intended) now!

[cooltouch]

I have one of those ubiquitous 400mm f/6.3 presets that were sold for cheap back in the 70s and 80s. Mine is a Spiratone brand -- a "Sharpshooter." When I initially tried it out, I was disappointed. The lens appeared to be junk. The photos were not at all sharp, which puzzled me because I'd read so many glowing reviews of this lens and its 500mm f/8 big brother. I then noticed that it had come with some no-name UV filter, so out of curiosity more than anything else, I removed it, and took some more shots with the lens. Simply put, I was amazed at the difference. Now, mind you, for years I believed that the quality of a filter used with a telephone would not affect the photos very much. WRONG! It was literally a difference between night and day.

So, let this be a lesson to those of you who might think as I used to -- that the quality of a filter probably won't have that big of an effect on your photos. It most certainly can. So if you must attach a filter to your lens, be sure to use a quality name-brand filter.

Oh, and with regards to the 400/6.3 and 500/8 presets -- yes, they represent an excellent value, but their biggest drawback is their minimum focusing distances (MFD), which are usually quite long. But of course, this needn't be a show stopper. Just get a set of extension tubes for your mount and use the appropriate one to reduce the MFD by the amount you want. Yes, it's a bit of a hassle, but considering you can often pick up these lenses on the used market for $20-30, maybe the hassle is worth it.

[stevemark]

[stevemark]

Using vintage 400mm and 500mm lenses on 24 PM APS-C is a serious challenge, not only because of the lenses themselves, but because of air turbulence. I just have taken a series of 5 photos, using the newest computation of the Novoflex T-Noflexar 5.6/400mm @ f11.

Here's the result:



Not only detail resolution is varying considerably, but also the color and the shape of the longitudinal CAs! I wasn't aware that turbulences can affect the optical density that much ...

No way to get reliable test result under such circumstances ...