| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2007 01:54:01 AM · #1 |
650-1300mm
anyone use opteka lens's? the local camera buff said they get them sometimes, there cheep and i wouldnt mind doing manual if they are not a waste of space, even if you gotta get a converter n stuff. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:17:36 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:02:06 PM · #3 |
 alaska_juliens is the only one on earth who owns one apparently. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:32:35 PM · #4 |
I would bet that it would be a waste of money to get that lens as it probably isn't very good. As a small comparison, the Canon 1200mm f/5.6L IS lens goes for almost $90000. There are better places to put your $300 to better use.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:45:38 PM · #5 |
| look at the min. f/stop. with that alone I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. Then using glass that I've never heard of, extend my pole to 20ft....looks like very cheap body build that one little bump and it would all crumble... etc.. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:50:43 PM · #6 |
I'll tel you how good they are..
I found one in a rubbish bin in Japan took it home bought an M42 adapter for it put it on my D70 at that time took 1 photo with it, looked at the result, threw the damn thing back in the same bin i got it from.
Total CRAP! |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:54:00 PM · #7 |
| Amazon reviews Most say it is crap, one thought it was ok tripodded up. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:54:03 PM · #8 |
But it's WHITE! Who doesn't want a white lens?
So let me get this straight...at 1300mm and the 2x converter, I get 2600mm at f32. AWESOME!
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 07:00:58 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
I would bet that it would be a waste of money to get that lens as it probably isn't very good. As a small comparison, the Canon 1200mm f/5.6L IS lens goes for almost $90000. There are better places to put your $300 to better use. |
I'm sorry but I missed the part where you said "HOW MUCH" you would bet, My point is put your money where your MOUTH IS!
I am sorry but I am a doer, I am the type of person who maintains visual contact with the goal and consistently looks for solutions to move forward, when I hear people whining and bitching about the limitations of equipment they never have, and likely , never will lay hands on it just pisses me off. There are 3 types of people in this world those who make things happen, those who watch thing happen and those who stand around wondering WTF just happened. The doers of the world find a way when everyone else says there is no way. It is no surprise that so many people maintain the beliefe that "nothing can be done" it validates there "choice to do nothing"!
I am sooooooo sick and tired of all the keyboard heroes with their magazine educated opinions. I think that this post was requesting “Input” not “unsubstantiated "opinion" Do you own the $90000 Canon 1200mm lens?......... I thought not, and you probably never will either so I really do not understand WTF your point was. I happen to own an Opteka 650-1300mm lens so that means my opinion is qualified by experience unlike yours, and so with that I will say this!
It is an amazing lens for the money.
It is not the absolute best quality lens I own but it is fantastic for the price. Images quality is probably around 8 out of 10, IMHO. There does appear, some Chromatic aberration but it is nothing I did not expect. It is a manual focus lens so it isn't aptly suited for sports or active wildlife photography. In short it is a very limited application lens, but it gets you really close. In fact I would venture to say that what little image quality you loose with this lens would be compensated for by the lack of required cropping. I have shot the moon with this lens and with Canon 100-400 with 2x Extender and viewed at the same image size the images are close in quality. This lens may not be the most versatile telephoto lens, but for what it is, it exceeded my $300 worth of expectation. I think what would be most interesting is the coupling of this lens to an SLR for shooting video. Anyone looking to buy this lens for Lunar Photography would get a big resounding ABSOLUTE YES from me.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 07:29:23 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MAK:
I'll tel you how good they are..
I found one in a rubbish bin in Japan took it home bought an M42 adapter for it put it on my D70 at that time took 1 photo with it, looked at the result, threw the damn thing back in the same bin i got it from.
Total CRAP! |
I think you are full of shit! I would like to see this photo.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a complete Liar, I think that if I found Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM in the garbage and tried it out and got horrible results I might suspect that it was due to being damaged and better explain why it was in the trash and not that it was indicative of the quality of the lens.
So what is it are you a liar or just realy stupid?
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 07:30:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Ubersteiny:
look at the min. f/stop. with that alone I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. Then using glass that I've never heard of, extend my pole to 20ft....looks like very cheap body build that one little bump and it would all crumble... etc.. |
You are wrong!
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 07:40:46 PM · #12 |
| Realizing you just joined DPC today, you may want to read the rules. Posts like these could get you banned from the forums on your first day. |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 07:48:36 PM · #13 |
| Hi Patrick, would you direct us to some pics you have taken with this lens? |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 07:57:49 PM · #14 |
Thinking someone had his Cheerios peed in this morning.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:03:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Hi Patrick, would you direct us to some pics you have taken with this lens? |
There are 2 pictures posted here taken with this lens.
( patrickdharrington.smugmug.com/popular/2/1204749716_pwDwz#1219029405_RKUCJ ) you will have to cut and paste due to URL posting restrictions sorry,
There is one picture posted with the lens mounted to a 10D on a tripod. I would not call this a professional quality lens but it is quite impressive in performance and build quality for its price. You can see the Chromatic Aberration present if you view at Original resolution I intentionally did not process to hide this so it could be seen what to expect, but the Canon 100-400 with 2x also exhibits some Chromatic aberration as well, it's hard to get away from at that focal length without dropping big dough. Post processing helps. This lens is a lot of fun to play with. Its probably not for everyone, and definitely not for anyone who isn’t willing to work to get the image.
Message edited by author 2011-04-09 20:03:55.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:09:47 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Thinking someone had his Cheerios peed in this morning. |
Interesting diagnosis! Albeit, probably more indicative of your own mindset than mine.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:12:45 PM · #17 |
| Thanks Patrick. Light really does pass thru :) |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:18:26 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Thanks Patrick. Light really does pass thru :) |
Yes it does, I know how much it helps to get feedback from people who actually do know as opposed to those who think they know. f8/f16 really isn't that bad if you click on the info box on the images I posted you can see the shooting info I was shooting at ISO 400 and for 1/125sec and 1/100sec so really how bad is it?
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:22:20 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Thanks Patrick. Light really does pass thru :) |
Yes it does, I know how much it helps to get feedback from people who actually do know as opposed to those who think they know. f8/f16 really isn't that bad if you click on the info box on the images I posted you can see the shooting info I was shooting at ISO 400 and for 1/125sec and 1/100sec so really how bad is it? |
1/125th of a second at 1200MM? you better have an anchor tied to it, no wind and your subject bolted down. |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:23:46 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Thinking someone had his Cheerios peed in this morning. |
Interesting diagnosis! Albeit, probably more indicative of your own mindset than mine. |
Seriously, dude this thread is 5 years old, you joined the site and basically called everyone that posted about it an idiot. I know the thing is big, but it's not something to get butthurt over. Don't bother responding, I have the option to ignore this thread.
Have fun getting all defensive about your favorite toy.
Message edited by author 2011-04-09 20:24:30.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:28:12 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
So what is it are you a liar or just realy stupid? |
Wow, a lot of drama for a post that dates back to 2007!
And I have tried Opteka lenses... not this one, but lots of barrel distortion and very soft. |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:31:06 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Thanks Patrick. Light really does pass thru :) |
Yes it does, I know how much it helps to get feedback from people who actually do know as opposed to those who think they know. f8/f16 really isn't that bad if you click on the info box on the images I posted you can see the shooting info I was shooting at ISO 400 and for 1/125sec and 1/100sec so really how bad is it? |
1/125th of a second at 1200MM? you better have an anchor tied to it, no wind and your subject bolted down. |
I can respect that this is your opinion,
but it was not an idea,
or a plan,
or even something my friend's neighbor’s, uncle read about online,
it is the shooting info, for the image, that I personally took,…. oddly enough without an anchor, but thanks for the tip there MattOH!
Of course if you would like to actually know more, I would be glad to share anytime!
Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let others believe you to stupid,
Than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:36:52 PM · #23 |
| I can live with the barrel distortion and chromatic aberration, but that damn PROOF that the lens leaves right in the middle of the photograph, well... I'd expect that from a $300 lens and that's a deal breaker :P |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 08:41:05 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
I can live with the barrel distortion and chromatic aberration, but that damn PROOF that the lens leaves right in the middle of the photograph, well... I'd expect that from a $300 lens and that's a deal breaker :P |
LOL! |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 09:16:19 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
I can live with the barrel distortion and chromatic aberration, but that damn PROOF that the lens leaves right in the middle of the photograph, well... I'd expect that from a $300 lens and that's a deal breaker :P |
Actually that must have been the body it is pressent in images shot with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens as well. I knew this 7D was a mistake.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 11:51:13 AM EDT.
