Related Local Links:
Homebrew Medium Format Lenses Pages
Very Wide and Ultrawide Medium Format Options

Related Links:
500mm mirror vs 300mm+TC comparison
Binocular Telephoto DIY Mounting [11/2002]
Fast 240mm f/1.2(!) for Pentax 67 from Niall Sims [6/2001]
Light Activated Relay Schematics (remote releases)[1/2001]
Manual Telephoto Shots by Douglas Herr [updated link 2/2001]
Mirror Lenses (photozone)
Modern Photography Tests of Older Mirror Lenses
Schneider Filter Performance w. Telephotos
Seriously Huge Nikon Telephotos (jpg) [6/2003]
Tale of 3 Telephotos (preset = low $, hi quality)
Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 review [3/2002]

Overview

Compared to 35mm SLR telephoto lenses, medium format lenses are:
• heavier
• longer
• slower (aperture)
• more costly
• fewer choices
• rarer

Equivalence Chart - 6x6cm vs. 35mm SLRs

35mm     6x6cm           35mm     6x6cm
SLR:<-=->SLR:            SLR:<-=->SLR:

Normal Lenses:          Long Telephotos:
50mm	75mm            200mm    300mm
                        250      400
Short Telephotos:       350      500
65mm	100mm           400      600
85	120             500      800
100	150             650     1000
135	200             800     1200
180	250            1000     1500

Usage Equivalencies

As a rule of thumb, you can ratio the normal lens on a given format to that of a 35mm SLR to get a rough estimator of equivalent lens focal lengths. So on 6x6cm medium format SLRs, a 75 or 80mm lens is considered a normal lens, versus 50mm on a 35mm SLR. The ratio is roughly 75mm to 50mm, or 3 to 2. So you would estimate that a 300mm lens on medium format 6x6cm is roughly equivalent in usage to a 200mm lens on a 35mm SLR (3:2 as 300:200mm). Make sense?

The same 3 to 2 ratio rule of thumb suggests that a 500mm lens on 6x6cm is equivalent in usage to a 333mm lens on a 35mm SLR, or roughly a 300 to 350mm optic. You can determine equivalents to your favorite 35mm SLR lenses too. To get the effect of a 500mm lens on a 35mm SLR, you need to find a 750mm lens for your 6x6cm SLR, for the same 3 to 2 ratio (750:500 as 3:2). So using our simple rule of thumb, you can convert from 35mm SLR to 6x6cm lens equivalents too. It is simple!

Lens Availability Issues

6x4.5cm SLRs:

6x6cm SLRs:

6x7cm SLRs:

The above table will provide some interesting insights with study. For example, the Pentax 67 lenses for focal plane body are generally much cheaper than similar 6x7cm leaf shutter lenses. If you need fast telephotos for 6x4.5cm, the Mamiya Pro series has it - at a higher price. For the 6x6cm leaf shutter cameras, the Bronica SQAi series lens prices look like wholesale or third party lens prices compared to the Zeiss and Schneider optics for Rollei SLRs and Hasselblad SLRs. In many cases, it would be cheaper to buy a used Bronica SQAi body with a given telephoto than to buy just the same speed and focal length leaf shutter telephoto lens alone for the other brands. If you need a fast lens longer than 500mm in 6x7cm, your only choice is the Pentax 67 lenses. Similarly, the fastest lens at 500mm on 6x7cm is also the cheapest - the f/5.6 for $2,500 for Pentax 67. By comparison, the 500mm f/8 for Bronica GS-1 is over $11,000 US! So a careful consideration of your needs and available optics may point out a clearly superior choice among these limited telephoto medium format lens offerings.

Tips On Buying a Telephoto

Check Before Buying (in store..)
• Lens to camera fit - is it snug? attaches smoothly?
• Construction - at closest focusing point, is it loose in front?
• diaphragm operation - check for sticking, smoothness of operation
• internals - point at light, look for fungus, scratches, flare inside barrel
• focus binding - turn thru full range, does it bind or is it smooth?
• close focusing - is it enough to meet your needs (full size face..)?
• weight/balance - too heavy? handholdable? one hand operation steady?
• light falloff or mirror cutoff - check on film, as viewfinder can lie
• lens coloration - look at white paper thru lens, grey cast is okay, green is NOT!

Tests to Do on Film (with tripod, slow film, distant subject, all apertures/speeds..)
• check sharpness - esp. in edges and stopped down
• check distortion - pincushion distortion evident in walls/windows?
• check vignetting - are corners cut-off on film?
• check light fall-off - are corners darker? by how much?
• check curvature of field - usually ok, are edges in focus along with center?
• check color aberrations - color fringing at edges of field with lights?

Misc. Details
• filter slot - if present, usable? required UV filter in place*?
• Filter ring - is it dinged? bent? damage here may reflect misalignments!
• Tripod socket - does it rotate? is it stripped? right size (1/4", 3/8ths)?
• lens shade - built-in or not? long enough? can filters be used?
• barrel rotation - does it rotate when focusing so filters rotate too?
• infra-red mark - is there an Infrared film index mark (IR to cut thru haze)?
• depth of field scales - present? clear? feet and meters?
• click stops - smooth? full or 1/2 stops?
• preset lenses - smooth operation? can you force past preset stop?

[Source: Don't Buy A Tele Blind by D.L.M., Modern Photography, August, 1962, p. 70]

* some mirror telephotos are designed so as to require a clear ("UV") filter of a specific type to be in place as part of the optical design. If that filter has been lost, the lens will not focus correctly without it. Not any filter can be used, as thickness is critical along with size. Examples include Vivitar mirror lenses such as 600mm with T-mount and filters at rear...

Film Factors vs. Lens Speed

The answer is that medium format users have a hidden advantage in film size that makes up for the lack of fast telephoto lenses to a considerable degree. The larger film format also requires larger and heavier lenses (and often glass elements) to provide the adequate coverage to the image corners. This factor also means the same focal length and speed medium format lenses will be heavier and bulkier to carry than their 35mm SLR equivalents.

Medium format provides a larger size of film negative or image than 35mm cameras. The major advantage of medium format is that this larger film size provides more film area for the same image elements. You can enlarge a medium format negative by two to four or more times that of a 35mm negative and still enjoy the same or smaller grain size. But more importantly in my view, medium format images provide more information about midrange tones, thanks to having lots more grains making up each image element (cf. pixels). So shadow detail tends to be far more effectively captured on medium format films. The accutance of medium format images is also higher, partly due to the related Kostinsky effect. So medium format images are inherently more sharply defined than 35mm images due to unavoidable development factors.

What this means in practice is that a medium format photographer may be using a 300mm f/5.6 telephoto lens with ASA400 film and get similar or better results than a 35mm SLR user with a 300mm f/4 or even 300mm f/2.8 lens with ASA100 film. Even if the grain size is held constant, the medium format image may have better shadow detail and accutance than the 35mm image. The larger film negative will also be easier to work with in the darkroom (although harder to scan on most low cost scanners).

Fast Film Future?

We are already benefitting from the one+ stop improvement in film speeds and grain in current color films over those of a decade or so ago. Now adding 3+ stops from these new more sensitive films would radically change the capability of medium format telephoto users. The utility of the slower telephoto lenses often encountered in medium format would be greatly enhanced by these new films.

Conversely, the utility of a heavy and costly fast telephoto lens (e.g., 300mm f/2.8) may drop greatly if the 10 times faster films make it to market. The only optical difference noticeable between the f/2.8 and slower lens would be shallower depth of field achievable with the faster lens. But many of us find we don't have enough depth of field in most of our telephoto photos, even with say a 300mm f/4 lens.

Physical Factors

You may also be surprised to discover that a 150mm telephoto lens on 6x6cm weighs significantly more than a 150mm lens for a 35mm SLR. Why is this true? The medium format lens has to cover a larger film format than the 35mm SLR lens, so it may have larger rear lens elements. Many medium format cameras use leaf shutters in their lenses. These leaf shutters in the lenses also adds to the bulk of these lenses.

Speed

Due to the physical size issues and cost, most medium format lenses are necessarily slower if they are to be reasonable to carry and affordable for purchase. Rather than make an even more expensive and heavy lens, the majority of medium format longer telephoto lenses tend to be modest apertures such as f/5.6 for 300-350mm and f/8 for 500mm. So few 1,000mm lenses are made that they may be found in f/8 and even f/5.6 (mirror) lenses. The manufacturing cost difference between an f/11 and a f/8 1000mm optic is modest compared to its selling price circa $10,000+ US, so they might as well make it faster since the extra speed doesn't materially add much to the final lens cost.

Rarity

80mm f2.8 C Planar       - approx. 210,000  50.47%
150mm f4 Sonnar C        - approx. 70,000   16.82%
250mm f5.6 Sonnar C      - approx. 30,000    7.21%
350mm f5.6 Tele-Tessar C - approx. 3,000     0.72%
500mm f8 Tele-Tessar C   - approx. 4,000     0.96%

As you can see, roughly ten times as many 250mm lenses were sold as 350mm or 500mm optics. Similarly, roughly two 150mm telephoto lenses were sold for every longer telephoto lens sold. But most significantly, roughly ten times as many 150mm lenses were sold as 350mm and 500mm lenses combined!

What this simply means is that very few used 350mm and 500mm lenses are likely to be out there. If you are lucky, you may be able to find a local source for renting such optics. But if you opt to buy them, they will be rarer and harder to find than the 250mm and especially 150mm shorter telephoto optics.

My point here is that if you want to get into longer telephoto photography, you are probably going to have to buy rather than rent such lenses with most medium format systems, as rentals won't be available. Bargains in used longer telephoto lenses will be fewer too, as far fewer such lenses were sold. So if you intend to do longer telephoto photography in medium format, it behooves you to careful consider your options and system costs before doing so.

Missing Multiple Aperture Choices

In a few cases, you have multiple choices for lenses in the same focal length. For some lines, such as the Rollei SL66, the two 250mm Sonnar lenses are available, but they are both f/5.6 optics. What's going on here? One of the lenses is a later "super-APO" design with special glasses to improve contrast over the original offering. On the other hand, there are also two 120mm planar lenses, but one is an f/2 speed lens and the other is an f/5.6 macro lens. You might well need both 120mm lenses if you do both available light street shots and copy documents requiring optimum flat-field closeup performance.

The case is a bit different for the long-lived Pentacon-6 mount used in the Pentacon 6, the Exakta 66, and Kiev-60/Kiev-88 cameras with that mount. Schneider made some fine 150mm f/4, 250mm f/5.6 lenses, and nifty 140-280mm f/5.6 and 75-150mm telezooms. Carl Zeiss Jena (Pentacon) made a 120mm f/2.8, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and even a 500mm f/5.6. Kiev lenses include 120mm f/2.8, 150mm f/2.8, 250mm f/5.6, a 250mm f/3.5(!) and even an APO 500mm f/5.6 (see FAQ). So you have a lot more choices for telephoto lenses in this lens mount. Notice also the relatively fast apertures possible thanks to the focal plane shutter camera design.2

Costs

Costs for medium format telephoto lenses range from moderate to very high, with some 1000mm f/8 lenses costing as much as some new cars! As you might expect, sales for such expensive lenses at $10,000+ US apiece are also quite low. So their production is on a very expensive one-at-a-time custom craftsmanship basis. Paradoxically, such ultra expensive lenses probably lose money for the makers. They are made available more for prestige than profitability reasons. In some cases, only one 1000mm lens may have been made or imported into the entire USA market! Not only does this make such long telephoto lenses exotic and pricey, but they are also unlikely to be available for rentals.

Costs of leaf shutter lenses are also significantly higher than lenses which lack such integral shutters (i.e., for focal plane cameras). Estimates suggest that leaf shutters add 50% to the cost of making a typical medium format lens (80mm or 150mm). So a lens that costs $600 to make without a leaf shutter would cost $900 to make with a leaf shutter mounting. The lens might sell for $3,000 to $5,000 depending on the manufacturers and distributor's markups. So a discounted focal plane shutter version of the lens might sell for $2,400 US, while the same markup on a leaf shutter lens would mean $3,600 US. When you factor in such additional costs for each lens, and buy a number of lenses, you can see that the choice of a leaf shutter camera means higher overall system costs.

Missing Third Party Choices

But there are some possibilities we will explore below, including lens mount adapters and lens mount conversions. However, a few sources such as KievUSA offer Kiev lenses in Hasselblad mounts for the focal plane shutter Hasselblads (20x/200x series). While this conversion triples the cost of the remounted lens, it is still under $1,000 US and well under the cost of a new or used Hasselblad equivalent. Some repairers can reportedly provide similar custom mount conversions, but at a significant price. For most used cameras such as the Bronica S2/EC, the cost of such conversions is more than the price of similar lenses on the used market. However, a lot of lens hacking does go on to remount older lenses on different older bodies. This approach is particularly useful with telephoto lenses as we will see below.

From a certain viewpoint, the newer systems and optics by Tamron/Bronica for their Bronica cameras are effectively a third party lens - and camera - option. Costs for their leaf shutter lenses are often significantly lower than similar offerings from European makers (e.g., Zeiss or Schneider optics for the Hasselblad or Rollei SLRs). Outside of the USA, Mamiya cameras and optics are also very reasonably priced (see overseas buying guide). So if you must have new leaf shutter lensed optics, you can save significantly by pricing your overall system costs before buying into any one brand of camera.

SLR Telephotography - Lens Availability

Leaf Shutter Limited Availability

Similarly, the 1000mm lens for Rollei SLRs was available in both f/8 (glass) and f/5.6 (mirror) variants, but only a handful of such expensive lenses were made or sold. In practical terms, the 500mm Zeiss leaf shutter lenses for the Rollei and Hasselblad SLRs are the longest reasonably available leaf shutter lenses you are likely to find. In other words, just because you find a lens listed as being made for a particular camera such as Kowa 6/66 or Rollei SL/X, don't assume you will actually be able to find and buy one, even if you could afford it.

An important observation is that you have a fairly good chance of finding a longer 350mm or 500mm telephoto lens for your Hasselblad camera in some shop rental programs. If your need for a longer telephoto lens is rather limited, it may make sense to rent rather than buy if you are on a limited budget or have a paying client who can be billed for such usage.

Focal Plane Shutter Availability

The classic older Bronica S2/EC 6x6cm cameras have the largest number of telephoto lenses available of any 6x6cm SLR. Of some 78 Bronica S2/EC mount lenses, over 60 lenses were in the telephoto range! While 22 lenses were available in the range from 135mm to 250mm, you had your choice of 9 lenses in the 300mm range, 5 in 400mm range, 6 in 500mm range, 4 in the 600mm range, 3 at 800mm, and 4 more at 1000mm in both glass and mirror variant lenses. But a 1200mm f/11 nikkor and even a 2000mm f/10 lens were made. Wow!

Leaf Shutter versus Focal Plane Availability Explained

If you are using your camera to do portraiture work, as may professionals do, then having a range of short leaf shutter telephoto lenses is very handy. You can select the lens with the best match to your needs, particularly regarding its close focusing limits and image size capabilities (e.g., full size head shots). Here, having a range of short telephotos of 110mm, 150mm, 200mm, and 250mm is quite handy (e.g., Kowa 6/66). On the other hand, you can rarely use fill-in flash effectively at the extended distance of most longer telephotos in the 350mm and 500mm and up ranges (unless using extension tubes or bellows for closeup work).

For subjects 50 to 80 or more feet away and beyond, the leaf shutter's fill-in flash is not so useful as such powerful flashes to use this range are often impractical. On the other hand, the leaf shutter does present a tricky technical problem requiring more costly solutions in longer telephoto lenses. Longer lenses may be impossible due to the limitations of mechanics and leaf shutter opening sizes versus the needs of longer telephoto optical designs.

Conversely, longer telephoto lenses are often simpler and less costly for focal plane cameras. You don't need an expensive leaf shutter or complex mechanics, since the shutter is in the focal plane camera body. Many longer lenses in the 500mm and 1000mm range consist of only two or three lens elements, rather than the more complex optics found in shorter telephotos and wide angle lenses. Moreover, as we will observe, it is relatively easy to remount such lenses so they can be used on other focal plane camera bodies. One factor making this easier is that many longer lenses have excess coverage, making such remounting easier and less problematic.

Low Cost 500mm f/8-f/32 Long Focus 2 element lens is 18+ inches long
T-mount, empty adapter tube, and lens head with focusing mount

Long Focus versus Telephoto Designs

Long focus lenses are usually simpler designs with fewer lens elements, sometimes as few as 2 or 3 elements of glass. These elements are mounted near the front of a long focusing tube mount which simply mounts on the camera. The 500mm f/8 long focus lens shown above uses a lens head with focusing mount and empty tubes to mate it to 35mm or various 6x4.5cm and 6x6cm cameras. The achromatic lens features two elements of flint and crown glass chosen to minimize chromatic aberrations at low cost (versus more expensive APO and specialty glasses). The key point here is that such a simple long focus optical design provides a very viable low cost 500mm f/8 glass lens option for both 35mm and medium format users! (see homebrew lens pages for more discussion and details).

Lens Mount Adapters

Naturally, if you have a lot of telephoto lenses in the right mount collecting dust, it may be a great money saver. But then again, it may be cheaper to use the automatic diaphragm action camera body that matches the lenses. This reason explains why most folks who intend to use the lower cost Kiev mount telephoto lenses end up just buying the matching lens mount body. Note that the Kiev-88 has a Pentacon 6 lens mount body version now, and adapters are available for going from Kiev 60 to Kiev-88 too. This approach is very inexpensive, given $200 US and up cost of body and lens kits for different bodies, versus the cost of adapters to other camera bodies. The matching lens mount bodies feature auto-diaphragm operation and even TTL metering options which would be useful to most users - plus you get the camera kit for the price of most adapters.

Homebrew Lens Adaptations

The classic Bronica S2/EC cameras are particularly easy to modify, since they incorporate a simple 57mm x 1mm pitch threaded lens mount in their design. Oddball lenses are easily modified to fit into low cost machined adapters which have such 57x1mm mountings. The Bronica lens mount also includes a helical focusing mount on the camera body, so the lenses are just pieces of glass in the right length of tubing mounts plus lens aperture diaphragms. With preset or manual lens operation, you can use any lens with an aperture ring which can cover 6x6cm format with a focal length over 120mm or so. The barrel lenses often available very cheaply from view camera users are one source of lenses. Copy machine lenses have been used, at a cost of only a few dollars apiece. Lenses salvaged from older folders and even box cameras can also be used. So it is easy to create low cost telephoto lenses for many focal plane cameras using simple lens remounting techniques, depending on the lenses.

This trick makes it possible to remount a huge number of low cost telephoto lenses from view cameras and other systems to work on many focal plane camera systems. In the case of my Bronica S2/EC cameras, I have a lot of low cost telephoto lenses ranging from 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 200mm, 250mm, 300mm, 320mm, 400mm, and 500mm. I also have a lot of other homebrew closeup lenses and leaf shutter and other optics for this camera system, greatly extending its utility.

As an aside, the Bronica S2/EC line also has a deluxe Bellows II which features front standard tilts and shifts. This item makes it possible to turn many of these longer lenses into tilt and shift lenses which are otherwise unavailable or very pricey optics. You can also use some simple tricks to create your own shift lenses for very low cost ($20+ US) from a body cap and simple materials. Such lenses are great for curing converging verticals and other problems which would otherwise require setting up a view camera with full movements to resolve. The new Nikon tele-shift lens offerings have highlighted the utility of short telephoto shift lenses for some requirements. Now you can have your own for medium format work too.

35mm Lenses on Medium Format

Sometimes, however, you can bend the rules. The case of the 500mm f/8 lens shown above is one good example. In this case, this 35mm SLR lens is really a long focus lens which lacks any lens elements close to the camera body. There is nearly a foot of air space behind the lens. A tube unscrews from the rear of the lens focusing mount. So all you have to do is remove this tube and machine it to mount on the medium format camera lens mount at the right distance. In our T-mount example above, you would have to trim 46.7mm from the tube so the lens mounts at 101.7mm providing infinity focusing on the Bronica S2, instead of mounting at the old 55mm distance for T-mount focusing on a particular 35mm SLR with T-mount adapter.

But what about lens coverage? Turns out that this particular lens has enough excess coverage to cover 6x4.5cm and even 6x6cm formats at the right lens mounting distance. How can you tell if that will be the case with your lens? You can't, except by testing it. However, many longer 35mm long focus lenses do turn out to have excess coverage. So if there is a substantial air space at the back of your long focus lenses for 35mm, such as on 400mm, 500mm and similar lenses, you may have a good candidate for conversion. On other lenses, such as barrel lenses or lenses from 6x9cm folders or other cameras, you will already know that you have enough coverage.

As an aside, note that you can use folder lenses which have built-in leaf shutters in them with these designs too. If you set things up right, you may be able to use the leaf shutters in these lenses with your regular focal plane shutter camera set on bulb or time exposure. The result is to provide a leaf shutter lens, with fill-in flash at any speed flash synchronization, for your focal plane camera. Many focal plane cameras have one or two portrait lenses with such built-in leaf shutters to provide such options for their camera owners. Now you know how it might be possible to provide more such optics, in a variety of focal lengths, at low cost for your camera too.

T Mounts and Interchangeable Telephotos

You will find a large number of relatively decent T-mount telephoto lenses. Many non-OEM mirror lenses for 35mm SLRs have a T-mount design, since mirrors can't change their aperture with the usual diaphragm mechanics anyway. You will also find lots of low cost ($100 US up) longer telephoto lenses in the 300mm and up range available on T-mounts. The most popular longer telephoto T-mounts were a series of 400mm f/6.3 and 500mm f/8-f/32 glass lenses sold by Spiratone and other importers for $50 and up in the late 1960s and 1970s. While these lenses did not use APO glasses, they do a reasonably decent job for such inexpensive (under $100) lenses.

You will also find some odd-ball T-mount lenses out there too (see Third Party Lenses for tables of third party lenses, including telephoto listings). I have a very lightweight and compact 400mm f/7.7 Tamron T-mount lens ($15 US used in original box) which is surprisingly sharp even wide open. I often hesitate to take along a pricey and heavy 400mm APO Sigma lens when traveling and hiking, so a surprising number of shots have been with this low cost and very lightweight lens. The smaller maximum aperture also means I have less trouble with needing big 77mm filters too.

Filter Mania

The larger telephoto lenses often use even larger filter sizes, from 82mm and Series IX filters all the way to 122mm and beyond. The cost of such oversize filters is often more than the cost of many 35mm SLR lenses! They are also much harder to find in camera shows or sales. One good hint is to look at surplus shops (e.g., astromart) which may have some WWII surplus filters for aerial lenses in the 100+mm range rather cheaply. (See Filters Pages).

You can also check that page for tips on making homebrew filters at modest cost. For example, a sheet of polaroid film used in making polarizing filters up to 4x5"+ in size is under $10 US. Edmund Scientific also sells diffraction grating material in such sheets for similar modest prices too. Gel filters can be easily cut from sheets if you need a standard colored filter too. Black nylon stockings can be used to make a diffuser filter. Window screen painted flat black can be used for cross star effects.

For lenses using less than 100mm filter rings, you may be able to use the newer pro 100mm Cokin filters or similar filters from Lee Filters and others. These filters are quite pricey compared to the smaller 35mm SLR filters, but much cheaper than some of the high end OEM and other filter maker offerings.

You can also cheat. For many non-rotating filters (e.g., color warming filters), you can put a small circle of cut out gel filter at the rear of the telephoto lens. Naturally, this approach is very much cheaper than putting a big filter up front, but it is harder to remove the filter since you have to dismount the camera to do so.

Non SLR Medium Format Telephotography

Most rangefinders are poor candidates for longer telephotography. So you might not be surprised to learn that most medium format rangefinders are limited to short telephoto lenses at or below 250mm. For example, the Koni-Omega 6x7cm rangefinder has a 180mm short telephoto as its longest lens. The Mamiya Universal 6x9cm rangefinder has a 250mm lens, as does the Mamiya 7II. But the Mamiya 7II lens uses a special accessory viewfinder for framing as the lens is not rangefinder coupled. The Graflex XL rangefinder camera has a 270mm lens, but also provides ground glass back focusing options.

Similarly, while longer view camera lenses are readily available in barrel and leaf shutter mounts, they aren't commonly used on the more compact 6x9cm and similar mini-view and press medium format cameras. Here the problem is the limited bellows extension and lens support available on such smaller cameras. Many miniview cameras such as Linhof and Horseman are also rangefinder designs, so they suffer from the limitations of other rangefinders with longer telephoto lenses. If you add the bellows and supports needed for longer lenses, you might as well be using a 4x5" camera with rollfilm back. Here again, the standard press and mini-view camera telephoto lenses are limited to the 250mm or so short telephoto ranges, again because of rangefinder limitations and limited bellows extension factors.

Only one current twin lens reflex medium format camera is available from Mamiya on the new and used market (excluding collectibles). The Mamiya C22x/C33x series features both 180mm and 250mm leaf shutter lens options, each with its own coupled viewing lens. The 180mm is an ideal short telephoto lens for portraiture (versus the 135mm), while the 250mm provides somewhat longer reach. But you have no longer telephoto lens options.

While you can find some odd-ball wide angle and even veriwide angle designs, you don't see many telephoto fixed lens design cameras. I suspect this relates to the difficulty with accurate focusing of longer lenses, which is not a problem for the wide and very wide angle camera user. You would end up with a camera like the Mamiya 7II with 250mm lens and special optical adapter which is limited to mainly infinity focusing uses.

To focus and accurate frame and compose with anything longer, you would have to go to the SLR design. Possibly a future electronic autofocusing system could be setup to provide precision focusing with such a camera. But the market would be limited. One interesting idea is to create a "folded optics" camera such as some telescopes which use glass elements (refractors) and front surface mirrors to reduce the physical length and bulk of long lenses. Such lenses are still bulky by mirror lens standards, but offer superior contrast and the ability to vary aperture continuously over a wide range.

Afocal Monoculars

Monoculars are basically half of a pair of binoculars. If you need extreme or variable longer telephoto shots, especially with leaf shutter cameras, they may be worth considering. Like binoculars, monoculars incorporate various prisms in their design to form an erect image. Like binoculars, you can also find monoculars with either fixed or variable ("zoom") eyepieces. The use of a variable or zoom eyepiece on a monocular can give a tremendous range of focal lengths to the user. Some monoculars feature 360mm to 1200mm ranges, while others may go from 420mm to 4800mm. The optical quality of variable eyepieces is considerably less than for fixed eyepieces, but the costs of multiple high quality eyepieces can add up quickly.

Monoculars are coupled to the camera using a mechanical mounting, oftentimes a ring which screws into the filter ring of the camera's regular lens. The camera lens is usually set at infinity focusing point. The monocular's focusing mount is adjusted to bring the distant subject into focus. Since the camera is still hooked up to its regular lens, leaf shutter as well as focal plane cameras can be used with monoculars in this afocal setup. Metering may be effected, as the black areas of vignetting around the image may impact non-center weighted meters adversely. You simply have to bracket or otherwise compensate for this exposure factor (e.g., rule of sunny-16 for daylight subjects).

The big advantages of monoculars include modest cost, high magnification ratios available, relatively light weight, and usability with many camera models and designs including leaf shutters. The big disadvantages include modest to low optical quality and a serious tendency to vignette the image. Vignetting is often quite serious, with a circular image often being produced whose edges may also be cutoff, depending on the filter mounting and lens and film dimensions. You just have to check your setup to see how bad it will be, as it is impossible to predict without actually trying it out. But if you are doing your own printing, you can usually crop out a nice rectangular print in the darkroom even from such heavily vignetted images.

A monocular made from a 7x50 binocular design would be a 7X or seven power magnification system producing an upright image. The 7X factor is used with the camera's normal lens to produce an equivalent telephoto lens focal length. For a 35mm SLR using a 50mm normal lens, a 7X magnification monocular would correspond to a 7X times 50mm or 350mm focal length lens. On a medium format 6x6cm camera with an 80mm normal lens, the math suggests a 7X times 80mm or 560mm lens. Wow! That's pretty hard to find on many medium format systems, and rather pricey if and when you find one.

So what's the bad news here besides vignetting and optical quality? Well, that monocular still has only a 50mm wide piece of glass up front. A lens that has a 50mm wide round lens with a focal length of 560mm is about an f/11 system (560mm/50mm = 11+). Now most pro speed 500mm lenses would be at least f/8 or even f/5.6, so an f/11 lens is rather slow.

Suppose you have a variable eyepiece which lets you get the equivalent of a 15X magnification (15x50 monocular)? That 15X magnification times 80mm normal lens would yield a stellar 1200mm super-telephoto focal length. But that small 50mm opening would correspond to a dim f/24 optic (1200mm / 50mm=24). Ouch! Not much good for nighttime surveillance, but you might be able to use it in bright daylight with fast film speeds.

Telescopes

Several major problems will be encountered. Affordable amateur telescopes are designed for visual use, not medium format photography. Many medium format cameras, especially those using leaf shutters, are relatively hard and costly to adapt for effective telescope use. Special optics such as field flatteners may be required to cover the larger medium format frame (e.g., 6x6cm).

Most telescopes are optimized for use with the human eye or CCD sensors. The typical exit pupil of most telescopes is circa 7mm to match the human eye. The use of a 35mm SLR and T-mount telescope adapter is a reasonably good match to such telescopes. Used with medium format cameras, the same optical setups tend to yield tiny images that effectively use only a small portion of the medium format frame. In other words, you are better off and far cheaper and easier to simply buy a used manual 35mm SLR and low cost T-mount adapter.

Naturally, there are some exceptions. Most amateur telescopes are designed to use standard 1 through 2 inch eyepieces, and so are easily adapted using T-mount adapters to work with 35mm cameras. Trying to use the same telescope with a medium format camera requires a far larger opening to prevent severe vignetting of the image. Only a handful of amateur telescopes (e.g., Takahashi) have standard adapters available which can be fitted to provide such non-vignetting mountings for medium format camera users.

Some telescope makers such as Astro/ Physics have field flatteners which spread out light to fill a 6x7cm frame on a Pentax 67. Usually such medium format setups work best on refractors (glass) rather than mirror telescopes. High quality refractors tend to be both heavier and much more costly than equivalent size mirror only telescopes. Our pentax 67 camera pages have some notes on using that focal plane shutter camera on astrophotography.

Relatively few leaf shutter cameras can be easily used with telescopes. Some medium format leaf shutter cameras with interchangeable lenses such as the Hasselblad 50x/cm and Kowa 6/66 have a leaf shutter microscope adapter. The big benefit of such an adapter is that they have an integral leaf shutter that works with the camera's regular mount, as if it were a lens. These adapters have threads and tubing to mount the camera directly to a telescope or microscope. Depending on the setup, you may be able to use eyepiece projection for higher power magnifications too.

Such instrument adapters are called microscope adapters for a good reason. They have small openings (typically one inch or so eyepiece sized) that matches most standard microscopes, but may vignette with many telescopes using 2 inch eyepieces, especially if a field flattener is in use. Be sure to check for such likely incompatibilities if you do elect to try this leaf shutter microscope adapter approach.

Homebrew Leaf Shutter Adapter

Eyepiece Projection

A better approach in my experience is the use of a front surface mirror at a 45 degree angle in an adapter. The front surface mirror has only one reflection, rather than two reflections from conventional mirrors (with both a rear mirrored surface and reflective front glass surface on the mirror). The 45 degree angle redirects the light down the axis of the telescope, so the camera can be mounted close to the telescope main body. Less radical counterweights are needed, and they can be closer to the telescope body too. The camera's focusing system is used, perhaps with a chimney magnifier if available to take advantage of that viewfinder's higher magnification ratios (typically 3X to 5X).

It is helpful to have a mirror lockup camera model too (e.g., Bronica EC versus Bronica S2A). Naturally, any vibration from the camera mechanics will be magnified during exposure. Trying to use a telescope for terrestrial photography will naturally magnify any camera induced vibrations by the long focal length magnification factors likely to be in use (e.g., 1250mm, 2400mm). This fact makes telephoto action photography difficult, since it is hard to do mirror lockup and action photography at the same time. Use of the finder telescope on many amateur scopes can provide some alternatives, but use is more hit or miss than I would like.

Sigma 400mm f/5.6 (nikon mount)- later versions are APO and APO Macro
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!

Specialty Glasses - LD/ED...

Some of the early low dispersion telephoto lenses (e.g., by Canon) used lens elements made of calcium fluorite and similar low dispersion crystalline materials. Unfortunately, these materials were fragile, very costly to make, and less rugged than traditional glasses. Some elements tended to absorb moisture from the air unless protected by specialty coatings. Rapid temperature shifts and mechanical shocks could also cause cracking of the specialty elements.

These problems with calcium fluorite crystals and related items prompted a search for less costly more traditional optical glasses with similar low dispersion properties. Efforts by various manufacturers (notably, Nikon) brought a series of specialty low dispersion glasses into use. These glasses were much less costly to make, more rugged, and equally effective in reducing light dispersion and color fringing aberrations.

By reducing the amount of dispersion in a lens design, you are able to bring all the colors of light closer to the same focus point. This approach reduces color fringing and other related lens aberrations particularly troubling to telephoto users. If two colors are brought to the same focus point (e.g., red and blue or green), then the lens is said to be achromatic. If three colors or more are brought to the same focus point, with other colors well controlled, the lens is said to be apochromatic. The use of specialty glasses has produced a series of stellar performing telephoto APO lenses which outperform their predecessors.

APO and Apochromatic Lenses Surprise!

In theory, an APO or apochromatic lens is one which has been specially formulated to bring not just two colors (as in an achromatic lens) but three colors to a precise focus. Moreover, other colors should also be reduced in dispersion. In some optical industry segments, the amount of dispersion of colors is limited to certain maximum values, beyond which the lens can not claim to be apochromatic. But in the photo industry for 35mm and other consumer lenses, you just have to hope that a lens labeled "APO" or apochromatic really provides that level of performance. Some do, but many don't!

How can you tell if a lens is really an APO design? Cost is one indicator. The ED/LD specialty glasses often used in apochromatic lens design are quite costly, often as much as ten times more costly than previous glasses used. Lenses may be lighter and more compact too. Some manufacturers will provide test data on their lenses which will confirm their superior performance. Otherwise, careful reading of lens test reports and checking test photos for color fringing effects may be one way to identify true APO performance lenses. Nikon added a gold band to some of their telephoto lenses (e.g., 300mm f/4 AI/S) to make it easy to identify the models made with lower dispersion glasses and likely to have superior telephoto performance.

Should you reject any telephoto lens that is not made with LD/ED specialty glasses and claiming APO or apochromatic performance? Heck no! In fact, the prejudice against such earlier lenses have made them unloved and often great bargains are available. In the case of some of the Nikon telephotos cited above, some of the early lenses were not specially marked to identify their specialty glass construction and higher performance. Often you can get a good buy, if you know the serial number of a lens corresponds to the later improved versions, but before they put the gold band on the lenses. My related point is that the lens performance was improved by the specialty glasses, but it was already very good, and the decision to add the gold band was mainly a marketing decision.

On the other hand, the longer the focal length, the more the use of specialty glasses is likely to improve performance. Color fringing and dispersion get worse at longer focal lengths. Some third party lens makers such as Sigma have come out with very affordable specialty glass telephoto lenses. I am particularly fond of my 400mm f/5.6 APO macro telephoto Sigma as a compact and light weight lens that is very low cost. I am also swayed by the lack of a current OEM (here, Nikon) offering in a 400mm f/5.6 APO telephoto. Unfortunately, relatively few affordable specialty glass telephoto APO lenses are available past 400mm, so you may have to be content with lower cost and slower T-mount and auto mount lenses of standard designs.

Nikon TC300 Teleconverter
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!

Teleconverters

On of the unsung benefits of teleconverters is that they preserve the original close focus distance of the underlying optic. In other words, what if your 80mm f/2.8 zeiss planar close focuses to 12 inches? Then using a 2X teleconverter will give you a 160mm f/5.6 telephoto effect, but you retain the 12 inch close focusing distance of the 80mm lens. Wow!

Teleconverters come in multiple quality groupings. In 35mm, you can find low cost 3 to 5 element teleconverters, or more costly and better 7 to 9 or more element designs. The more elements, the better the correction and performance is likely to be. With low cost teleconverters, you are not only magnifying the flaws of the lens, but adding more aberrations from the teleconverter itself. In Hasselblad mounts, there are some very pricey ($1,000 US$+) zeiss teleconverters of stellar performance. But for much less ($125+ US$), you can buy third party teleconverters in hasselblad mounts by Telemore/Komura/Vivitar.

You shouldn't expect equal performance from a much lower cost teleconverter. But some users find that the 2X teleconverter plus 80mm normal lens yields a 160mm combo that is much less costly than the 150mm portrait telephoto. Equally important, the teleconverter faults are actually benefits when used in portraiture in many situations. The slight softening effect of the teleconverter-lens combination is more flattering that the razor sharp rendition of the prime 150mm telephoto optic. Cheaper teleconverters tend to add some spherical aberration, which can enhance the bokeh or out of focus highlights of some lenses. This good bokeh is much prized by many portrait shooters, but hard to find in today's computer optimized razor sharp lenses.

One of the issues with teleconverters is how do you mix them with short extension tubes? Suppose you have a 300mm lens that you need to be about 420mm? You have a 1.4X teleconverter, so that's no problem. But you want to get the best close focusing distance. Do you set it up as the lens, extension tube, and teleconverter to camera, or the lens, teleconverter and extension tube mounted on the camera?

The short answer is that if you want the shortest close focusing distance, you need to mount the short extension tube on the 300mm lens directly. Now put the teleconverter on and mount on the camera. This way, the teleconverter allows you to retain the close focusing distance of the 300mm lens and extension tube combination. But it provides an optical effect of a one stop slower 420mm lens. Do it the other way, and you still end up with a one stop slower 420mm lens. Only now, you have the more limited close focusing range of the extension tube used on the longer (420mm) lens equivalent.

Angle of View

Lens Hoods

The short lens hoods generally do a good job of reducing a primary source of flare. Such flare commonly happens when direct sunlight strikes diagonally onto the lens surface itself. Such flare is often made much worse if you have a "protective" UV filter or other filter in front of your lens.

Another source of flare is strong lighting just to the side of the field of view. Such strong lighting can reflect off the interior hood if it is too shiny. One of my favorite homebrew tips concerns reducing such reflections off a $300 US (!) lens hood. Mr. Chow suggested using self adhesive black felt (cost $1 US) to reduce this bounced light source flare off that $300 lens hood. Personally, I find the idea of a $300 US lens hood to be pretty outrageous by itself, but having to fix it to prevent flare is even funnier!

An ideal lens hood should be the shape of the format (rectangular or square) and at least as long as the focal length of the lens (plus half the width of the front lens element). Most slide forward lens hoods on telephoto lenses are way too short to meet this criterion. Our flare pages describe a variety of low cost homebrew lens hoods that can be made (and tested to ensure no vignetting happens). Low cost items like Tupperware and rectangular cans have been used by some folks. You can also use a bellows from an older camera (folder..) or one of the extending lens shade bellows (e.g., Ambico+ pro lens shade bellows).

The commonly used zoom telephoto lenses are very hard to fit with an optimized lens shade. A lens shade that doesn't vignette at the wide angle end may be less effective at the long telephoto end. Unfortunately, a majority of zoom lens users have decided to simply not use a lens shade, or to try and get by with using their hand or a "gobo" to block the sun or bright side lighting source. This works pretty well for some point sources, but it is easy to forget or miss doing until your prints and slides come back with low contrast and flared light bright spots. Aaargh! Some lens hood is better than no lens hood in nearly every situation.

Telephoto Adapters

Naturally, you shouldn't expect optical wonders to be performed by a $15-25 US set of lenses. The lenses generally reduce the sharpness and contrast of the resulting image. They may also increase the tendency to flare slightly (as would any front of the lens filter, but with multiple elements making it worse). The effects resulting from these modest strength 1.25X and 1.5X telephoto adapters can be useful. Certainly, a low cost option to get a 100mm or 120mm view out of an 80mm fixed lens medium format TLR, rangefinder, or folder may be a real boon.

For SLR and other interchangeable lens camera users, these telephoto adapters may also have a modest role to play. These adapters convert a very sharp image into a more diffused and less sharp rendition on film. When would you want to do that? The answer is whenever you are taking portraits where the subject would prefer that skin imperfections and wrinkles be de-emphasized and smoothed over. You can buy very much more expensive soft-focus lenses which are designed to provide similar or more variable soft-focus effects. You can buy softar filters (e.g., for Hasselblad or Rollei SLRs) that provide another type of soft focus effect. But even if you had these resources, you might find it interesting to try out these low cost telephoto adapters in your portraiture work.

You may also find some odd-ball telephoto adapters of up to 4X or more. These setups are basically low power telescopes which are used in an afocal design to fit in front of your primary lens. They provide a very slow aperture (often circa f/11) telephoto view equivalent to 200mm (4x) on a 50mm lens for a 35mm SLR. Often a good bit more costly, many designs will vignette badly on some cameras due to longer distance to recessed lens front (and filter ring issues). Test before buying! Costs are often more, as you are buying a 4X spotting scope of low power basically. A related alternative is afocal use of spotting scopes and monoculars. Naturally, I would recommend a prime lens over such an adapter and normal lens combination, but on many fixed lens cameras you don't have that option. For such cases, this may be the only option?

Mirror Lenses

Mirror lenses are often T-mounts (see section herein). T-mounts use simple mechanical mounting rings to put the lens on different brands of cameras, each requiring a different T-mount adapter ring to work. The disadvantage is that most mirrors are fixed aperture lenses.

I also need to point out that an f/8 aperture mirror lens may well provide the same light transmittance to the film in the camera as if it were actually an f/11 lens. This difference between aperture and actually light transmittance is often a stop in the more modest cost mirror lenses. You get the worst of both worlds, the shallower depth of field of a f/8 lens with the light transmittance level of an f/11 mirror lens.

The bokeh or background highlights of mirror lenses requires careful control. You may have seen photos where the bright out of focus highlights were recorded as tiny bright "donuts" or round circles of light. This pattern is a characteristic of a mirror lens, and such bad bokeh is one reason many of us prefer glass telephoto lenses.

A second reason for preferring glass telephoto lenses over mirror lenses is that fixed aperture of f/8. With a glass 500m f/8 telephoto lens, you can simply vary the diaphragm from f/8 to f/32 and control both the light levels and the depth of field normally. With a mirror lens, you are stuck with a fixed aperture. You can put neutral density filters into the light path (sometimes requiring clumsy removal of lens and rear filter holders to do so). These filters will reduce the light by a fixed number of stops (e.g., 2 stops). Beats nothing, but it isn't as flexible as a simple diaphragm setup on a glass lens.

The final and major disadvantage of many modest cost mirror lenses is the lower contrast usually found with such mirror lens optics. Sadly, most mirror lenses of the non-OEM economy lens type have rather modest to poor contrast compared to longer telephoto glass lenses of the same cost and speed. Even the best mirror lenses are well behind the latest APO or ED-IF glass telephoto lenses in the area of high contrast results. Since telephoto shots often have poor contrast due to dust, pollution, and moisture in the air ("haze"), using a low inherent contrast mirror lens makes this low contrast effect much worse.

The big upside on mirror lenses is small size and low weight. They fit nicely in most camera bags, unlike their longer telephoto glass lens cousins. They are often relatively cheap, considering their complex collapsed optical design. But I find that mirror lenses have a down side of low contrast, bad bokeh, fixed aperture (e.g., f/8), low light efficiency (e.g., lost stop to f/11), and a tendency to try and shoot handheld instead of on a sturdy tripod as the lens is so small and lightweight. However, if you pay for a higher end OEM or higher priced mirror lens (E.g., Zeiss), these lenses do much better on contrast than the lower end consumer mirror lenses.

Conversely, some glass telephoto lenses can be collapsed or unscrewed to fit in your camera bag more easily, and their weight isn't much more than a regular lens since so much of the tube is just empty air space. The glass lenses are easier to use in the regular way, don't drop a stop of light transmittance, have much higher contrast for similar cost, and can often be used on many camera brands and models (if a T-mount lens.

Unfortunately for medium format telephoto fans, there are relatively few mirror lenses for medium format cameras. The main reason lies in the difficulty of designing and building a mirror lens which will adequately cover the medium format film format(s) with the necessary sharpness and contrast. That's why the 1000mm Zeiss mirror lenses cost as much as some new cars! This problem also explains why few astronomical amateur priced mirror telescopes can be adapted to medium format use. Telescopes are usually aimed to cover the 7mm exit pupil of the human eye, or a small CCD sensor chip. Similarly, telephoto lenses designed for photography generally make less than ideal telescopes, and vice versa.

Interchangeable Screens

The reason for this lies in the nature of longer telephoto lenses versus the typical wide angle and normal lenses usually used by amateur photographers. Most wide angle and many normal lenses work best with a focusing screen with a degree of curvature and positioning which matches the slight field curvature of the average wide angle and normal lenses in use. When you switch to a longer telephoto lens, the lens probably has a flatter and less curved image field. What you need now is a screen that matches this different and flatter image field. The difference is small, about 1/2000th of an inch in positioning. But that is enough to make the equivalent of a full grade difference in lens performance (e.g., 1 out of 5). (See film flatness pages for related notes). A second reason for switching screens lies in the typically smaller aperture of telephoto lenses, especially when used with a teleconverter. Once you get below about f/5.6 aperture, the usual split screen rangefinder focusing aid in most camera screens will "black-out". Most autofocus cameras will likewise either fail to focus accurately or start "hunting" for the correct focusing point in dimmer light with lenses f/5.6 or darker. Currently, only one AF camera (Canon EOS series) using special technology will autofocus beyond f/5.6 to f/8. Similarly, your eyes are going to be unable to use those split screen rangefinders past f/5.6 or at best f/8. So you might as well change the screen for a matte screen or similar design which doesn't "black out" in the center.

Many current medium format as well as 35mm SLRs have interchangeable screens the user can remove and replace (e.g., Hasselblad 500 EL/M, 503C/M..). If you are using longer telephoto lenses with these interchangeable screen camera models, you should check out the recommended screens for telephoto use. You may be pleasantly surprised at the easier use and focusing such screens provide, as well as the improved focusing accuracy and sharper results from the 1/2000th inch shift in screen positioning built into such telephoto specialty screens.

Flash bulbs

The really exciting use of flashbulbs is to provide faster flash synchronization options for users of focal plane shutter cameras. Naturally, leaf shutter camera users can use any shutter speed to match film and ambient lighting with desired aperture effects (DOF..). But with the slow 1/30th to 1/60th second flash X-synch speeds of most medium format focal plane shutter cameras, this capability is not available - unless you use a focal plane flashbulb.

A focal plane flashbulb is designed to put out a lot of light over a longer period of time (like 50 milliseconds). The light output is also designed to be relatively constant. You get about the same amount of light at the start, middle, and end of a focal plane shutter exposure. So as your focal plane shutter opens up and exposes a small slit of film at the start of a fast shutter speed exposure, it gets the right amount of light exposure from the flashbulb. But the bulb keeps on burning at the same light intensity as the slit of the focal plane shutter is dragged across the width or height of the entire film surface. The width of the slit between the leading and lagging shutter curtains determines the speed of the shutter exposure (1/1000th, 1/500th, 1/250th...).

So with a FP or focal plane flashbulb, you can use any shutter speed within the bulb's range. Naturally, you can use electronic strobe for X-synch or slower shutter speeds (since the shutter opens up fully exposing the film at these slower speeds). But only with a FP bulb can you exploit those faster shutter speeds on your focal plane camera. If you try to shoot with a strobe, you will only light up the narrow slit of the film which is exposed at the given instant of firing the strobe, with most of the film unexposed as a result. But with the FP flashbulbs, you can get the whole film surface properly exposed since the flashbulb light output lasts during the entire 50 milliseconds or so that it takes to make the shutter work and provide the film exposure.

Flash Extenders

All of these devices work the same way. A fresnel lens some inches in front of your regular strobe flash-tube concentrates the light into a narrower beam angle. This narrower beam is able to reach out farther with more powerful lighting, since it doesn't have to cover as large an area. Most strobes are optimized to cover up to about a 28mm lens on 35mm SLR format (e.g., 65 degrees horizontally, 46 degrees vertically). If you are shooting a 300mm telephoto lens on 6x6cm, you need to cover only 10.6 degrees horizontally and vertically (see field of view calculator).

Unfortunately, even if you manage to reduce the area covered significantly, the light falloff is still square law based. So if you get four times the light onto your subject by using a fresnel lens with your strobe, you only double the strobe's effective flashing distance. But that can be quite an improvement with many portable flash units for the modest cost and weight of the fresnel lens add-on adapter. Without the adapter, you might be able to get 80 feet or so, but with the fresnel adapter that might be 120 feet or even 160 feet, depending on coverage needed and fresnel losses. Wow! That's a pretty big improvement for a few ounces of plastic lens, especially if you build your own for under $5 US!

Waterproof Cameras

Unfortunately, most telephoto lenses are far less robust when it comes to adverse conditions and weather. You can buy some Ewa Marine bags which can accommodate various sizes of cameras and attached lenses. Most such water resistant bags are too short to handle longer telephoto lenses however.

You may also be able to make a "rain cape" for your camera, using a plastic bag, some waterproof gaffers tape (doesn't leave sticky residue like duct tape), a filter, and some thick rubber bands. The idea is to put the camera inside a water resistant plastic bag, with the lens poking through a cutout but protected by a UV or other (warming) filter. The tape and rubber bands hold the stuff together. You will need an umbrella and some bags for your camera bag, unless it is really water resistant.

Bad weather is a great time to be taking photographs, since the weather effects produce unique conditions and unusual lighting that can produce some great photographs. But getting such shots can be challenging unless you prepare in advance. You will also find similar notes on cold and hot weather conditions in photography. Don't restrict your photography to being a fair weather friend, or you will miss out on many great photographic opportunities!

Remote Telephoto Motorized Cameras

While I have a Prinz 27Mhz radio transmitter/receiver pair for camera triggering, I find the range is rather limied and there is too much activity in the CB bands randomly triggering the camera receiver. But this setup is also useful for nature and public events (with the cameras premounted on the events stage or bird's nest). Using binoculars, you can wait for the speaker's dramatic gesture or the arrival of a parent bird before triggering the motorized camera.

One use of a remote motorized camera is the ability to use less extreme telephoto lenses. You might use a 150mm lens on a remote triggered motorized camera rather than a 500mm telephoto lens used manually from much farther away. One subtle advantage of the shorter lens is greater depth of field and the inclusion of more of the subject's natural environment in the photo.

Another advantage of the motorized setup is robotic patience. The motorized camera doesn't mind patiently waiting for days for the subject to pass through the infrared triggering beam. Nor does it get bit by mosquitoes all night long waiting for some critter to show up. So having a motorized camera and infrared LASCR (light activated silicon controlled rectifier) beam trigger is a simple solution to many photographic challenges.

Although I have emphasized electronically triggered cameras, you can also setup a remotely triggered camera using a pneumatic bulb trigger ($20 US or so). These rubber bulbs come with up to 25 feet of tubing and a shutter release plunger. When the subject steps on or otherwise triggers pressure on the bulb, the plunger presses on the camera's shutter release and takes the picture. While less expensive than most motorized cameras with IR triggers, this gear is more frustrating and difficult to setup and use. Unless the camera is motorized, you only get one shot per night or setup trip. The infrared trigger can be setup to work with smaller critters and even insects quite easily, unlike the pneumatic triggers. And a motorized camera such as the Hasselblad EL/M or Rollei 600X series SLRs can take many photos per session, especially if you use a 70mm bulk film back or even 220 film (24 exposures at 6x6cm, 35 at 6x4.5cm).

Hides

The hide provides many opportunities for the patient photographer to take great up-close shots of nesting birds and the like. Shorter telephoto lenses can be used, with more intrinsic depth of field, while still achieving frame filling results. This result is good news for the many medium format photographers who don't have ready access to the longer telephoto lenses beyond 500mm needed to compete with the more available and lower cost 35mm SLR lenses at 300mm and beyond.

Infrared Photography

My main reason for highlighting infrared photography in a page on telephoto photography is that IR films and techniques can be used to greatly cut through even deep haze. The techniques are especially useful for recording subjects such as mountains and related vegetation in a hazy or polluted situation. The images can be very sharp, provided you observe the recommendations to use the offset infrared focusing mark on most lenses. The deep red and similar infrared filters used in IR photography are also very effective in cutting out the blue light often associated with scattering from dust and moisture producing haze.

If you have been frustrated by persistent haze in an urban area due to pollution which you can't beat with even a haze#2 filter, look into the possiblity of using infrared films, especially if you can use a black and white image (or adjust false colors to your liking in photoshop).

Ultraviolet Telephoto Photography

Spot Meters (homebrew...)

If you are using a large format camera and the zone system, this spot metering approach is very handy for deciding on the proper exposure for any given subject and desired final result on the print. But for telephoto photographers, the spot meter has its uses too. You often can't use a handheld light meter to accurately measure the required exposure for a distant subject. Clouds or shadows may make ambient light readings at your location unlikely to match those at the remote site too. So a spot meter makes it easy to take a reflected light meter reading of some distant subject.

Most handheld light meters have light acceptance angles of 30 degrees or so. So they are averaging in a lot of light from a wider angle than most telephoto lenses (e.g., 16 degrees for 200mm on 6x6cm, 10 degrees for 300mm on 6x6cm...). You can buy a spot-meter attachment for many of these lightmeters (e.g., my Gossun Luna Pro series). The resulting light meter will provide a narrower angle of view and function to provide spot meter readings.

Unfortunately, spot meters are rather heavy to carry around, but you may have no choice but to carry one unless your system supports a spot metering prism. Sadly, most such spot metering prisms are available only for a handful of modern cameras. The price for such spot metering prism heads can also be quite significantly greater than a metering prism without such a feature.

What can you do if your older medium format camera does not support a spot meter? The short answer is look into adapting a standard light meter with an accessory probe to work under your existing prism, chimney finder, or even waist level finder. The idea is to simply mount the light sensor on its cable under the prism, facing down towards the viewing screen. On most medium format SLR cameras, you will have enough room to mount a thin light sensor and connecting wires under your existing prism or finder setup.

A simple clear plastic insert cut to fit snuggly under your prism can be used to temporarily mount the light sensor in the desired location (e.g., 1/3rd of the way up and in the center). You can also scribe a rule of thirds set of grids or other composition and framing aids on the clear plastic screen. Now you need to mount the camera on a handle mount with the light meter, and plug in the wiring (trimmed in place with tape or tyraps). You will have to adjust for the light losses for each wide open lens aperture (f/2.8, f/3.5..) with an appropriate film speed offset on most light meters. But the result will be a direct reading spot metering capability added to your older medium format SLR camera! Even better, if your system handles flash metering, you may gain that function as well.

Some of the remote sensors are designed to be held up to the ground glass at the back of a 4x5" or similar view camera. You may have to remount a sensor so it is flat when mounted on the plastic grid insert under your prism. Naturally, with chimney finder or waist level finders, you have lots more vertical room and may be able to use the standard sensor without modifications, or even just press it down on the ground glass viewing screen to take a reading through the lens. In that case, just a single offset factor (e.g., 4 1/2 stops) is needed to convert the readings through the lens and viewing screen to an equivalent direct reading.

If you are ambitious and handy with electronics, you will find a number of simple light meter projects in various electronics magazine back issues (e.g., Poptronics) or online at various electronic hobbyist sites. Some new light sensors and amplifiers (e.g., from Texas Instruments) are all built on the same chip, making it easy to build a compact light meter from these matchhead sized sensors. These devices are able to meter down not just to moonlight, but even starlight levels (see however reciprocity effects). Other devices such as cascaded LED bargraph chips (from Radio Shack) can be used to build compact lighted readouts. Such a homebrew lightmeter (spotmeter) could be built for costs in the $20 US and up range, versus $500 or more surcharge for a spot metering prism. As an added bonus, you could use such an under the prism homebrew metering setup on many different prisms (45 degree, 90 degree) and finders (WLF, chimney), and even on several different brands or body models (Kowa, Bronica, Hasselblad...).

Close Focusing Limits and Extension Tubes

In portraiture, you would like to be able to get just the face in a shot, with the perspective flattening effects of a longer lens. But you can't do so without knocking down your studio walls, since the close focusing distance is still too far to use indoors. The solution to some of these close focusing problems may be a thin automatic extension tube used with the longer focusing lens.

Many 35mm SLR users have never had to use an extension tube with their telephoto lenses. But a thin extension tube is an easy way to get improved close focusing distances with any telephoto lens. You could also use a bellows, but they are cumbersome in the field. Many bellows are too thick to provide just the right and modest amount of extra close focusing capabilities.

Notice I said "thin" extension tubes. I use a rather thick 16mm T3 auto extension tube on my 250mm Kowa 6/66 to provide improved close focusing capabilities. The other Kowa auto-tubes are way too thick (at 32mm and 75mm). On a Bronica SQ, your choices are 18mm or 36mm auto-tubes (at nearly $500 US). By comparison, you have tubes from 8 to 56mm for various Hasselblad cameras.

My point here is to check on the close focusing capability of your telephoto lenses options. You may find that you not only need the lens, but an often expensive thin auto extension tube to use the lens at closer focusing distances and larger effective image magnifications. Some systems may not offer such thin extension tube options, so carefully check to ensure you can live within their close focusing limitations for your work.

Recall that teleconverters can also be used to provide a longer (and dimmer) focal length lens which retains the close focusing capability of your original shorter focal length lens. So you can use a 2X teleconverter to convert a 200mm lens to a 400mm 2-stop slower lens. But the combination will have the close focusing capability of the original 200mm lens.

Fractional +Diopter Lenses

A fractional diopter lens has a weaker positive strength ranging from +1/4 to +1/3 to +1/2 diopters, depending on the lens. The corresponding infinity focusing points are 4 meters, 3 meters, and 2 meters. Objects beyond that limit will be blurry and impossible to focus sharply.

Now suppose I mount my nikkor 67mm +1/3 diopter lens in the 67mm filter ring of my 200mm f/4 Nikkor on my Bronica S2A or EC 6x6cm SLR. A +1/3 diopter closeup lens converts my 200mm lens to have a focusing range from 3 meters (infinity mark) to roughly 1 3/4ths meters. Normally, the 200mm f/4 nikkor can focus to just under 3 meters. So by using this fractional diopter closeup lens, I can extend my close focusing range from 3 meters to 1.75 meters. Sounds modest, but the 200mm now focuses closer than the 150mm and roughly as close as the 135mm short telephotos. But the resulting images have a considerably greater magnification factor.

A big advantage of the fractional diopter lenses is that they don't cost you any stops. You simply screw them on and use the same speed and aperture as before. Contrast this to the use of a teleconverter to get more magnification and closer focusing capability. You lose light (2 stops for 2X). You also have the extra hassle of dismounting the lens and adding the teleconverter and remounting the lens, and undoing all that to remove it.

Blimps

Naturally, you can also setup a strobe with the motorized camera too. Some strobes have high pitched recycle sounds that you can't hear, at least if you are an older adult, but which disturbs some critters. You can use a blimp here too, but it may be better to look for a strobe whose sound output is less intense or higher pitched. Others have reported success with repairpersons putting in epoxy and weights to alter the resonant frequency of the transformer (also helps cool some down). Some sound meters (e.g., at Radio Shack) will check frequencies well into the higher pitched ultrasound regions. Poptronics and Radio Electronics also have had ultrasound recording projects with sources for ultra high frequency microphones.

Notes:

The August, 1965 issue of Modern Photography (p. 64) has an article on building your own Mirror lens for circa $100.

See Think Big by Bernard Koenig in British Journal of Photography of March 19, 2003, pp.15-6, describing his 8x10" polaroid back Single Lens Reflex camera (!) sporting either an 800mm f/3.5 or 600mm f/3.5 lens. A mirror is used to flip the image forty-five degrees and up to a screen where it is imaged by a CCD camera, and then onto a full sized image on a monitor screen. See www.beautyphoto.de (or email [email protected]) for more details on this unique image polaroid homebrew camera. Note that an 800mm lens on an 8x10" camera is only slightly telephoto in its effect! Wish I could find some affordable fast telephoto lenses like that!

In the May 1983 Modern Photography Keppler's SLR Notebook (p. 106), Keppler notes in discussing mirror lenses with changeable apertures:

Stay away from them! While all actually do cut down the light transmission, when "stopped down", they do not increase depth of field appreciably as you close down the lens, and almost all we've seen are poorer in definition than their non-diaphragm cousins. And as you use smaller apertures, definition gets worse!

The March 1982 issue of Modern Photography (p. 115) describes the Meade 1000mm f/10 model 1020 telephoto lens. This lens has less than 1% distortion, loses only 0.78 stops (still a lot), and rates 50 lpmm center (exc.) and 44 lpmm edge (exc.) with contrast of 38% center (med.) and 32% edge (med.) per their tests.

The August 1982 issue of Modern Photography has a column by Herbert Keppler (p. 54) on mirror lenses. He notes that even a 300mm f/5.6 is too fast on a sunny day with today's fast films. Even the 300mm f/5.6 has minimal depth of field, just 4 inches at 20 feet when set on f/5.6 (wide open), and only 8 inches at f/11 (p. 55). A 500mm f/8 mirror lens is even worse. At 200 ft., you have a DOF of 100 ft. to infinity. But at 12 feet, that drops to just 1 1/2 inches for DOF. At 8 ft., that's just 1/4" of DOF. And remember, this is total DOF, and has to be split (front/back), so a small error can cause DOF problems (p.55).

Mirror lenses have more flare than non-mirror lenses. The reason is that some of the light reflects off the film, hits the secondary mirror, then gets reflected around and back to the film to cause flare. Bad baffling with a mirror lens can cause even worse flare. Shooting into a high, bright sun will make flare worse. [p. 154]

Why can you focus "past infinity" on some telephoto lenses, esp. some mirror lenses? With a 50 degree fahrenheit change in temperature, the barrels of the lens can expand or contract by up to 1/2 a millimeter. That's equivalent to a 3 or 4 mm internal focus shift, a substantial error given the narrow DOF described above at some distances. You lose about 1/2 stop with mirror designs, so an f/8 lens is really a T/9 or transmission value between f/8 and f/11. One test you can make is to compare the mirror lens metering of a uniform section of blue sky with a non-mirror lens. The reading should be within a stop.

What should you do if there is a focusing discrepancy between the central rangefinder spot and the screen ground glass? Use the scren ground glass for focusing. The fine focusing collar around the rangefinder central spot in most cameras is also handy.

From Modern Photography, November 1980, SLR Notebook, H. Keppler, p. 72
Finding the sharpest point takes practice. Rotate the focusing ring, quickly at first, back and forth across the plane of sharpness, gradually narrowing the swing until you get close to the correct sharpness plane. Then turn it very slowly. it will take some time until you are certain when the subject is sharp. [ for 500mm lenses...]

From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 06 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: easy long lenses tips Re: Contriving your own long, long lens

Having attempted the creation of long teles on 35MM and 6x6 cm for many years- here have been my results.

I have added multiple 2x converters to various lenses and in some cases got excellent results. The early two element converters were not great but later 7 element multicoated models are really good.

The Kiev 60 - Multicoated 2X converter is an excellent optical device. Using a Kiev 60 or Pentacon 6 Camera and an adapted or other 500MM lens - one can experiment and get good results at low cost in the 1000MM and 2000MM range.

- Sam Sherman

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000
From: "Nick Sheldon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tele is not long (was Re: Contriving your own long, long lens)

Anchor Supplies, Nottingham, England, used to do 8 inch *diameter* aerial camera lenses for about 55GBP (amongst others). They no longer stock them, but presumably the wholesalers they bought them off still do.

Nick

John R Pierce wrote

>On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, "John Stafford" [email protected]
>wrote:
>> BTW, this long and somewhat obscure thread demonstrates why it might be a
>>good idea to use the proper terminology. Telephoto is not the same a Long
>>Lens. Lens extension (bellows draw) is a real issue with such huge focal
>>lengths. One can only dream of a 2000mm telephoto, I guess.
>
>How about a 8" Celestron?  thats a 2030mm f/10 schmidt cassegrain.
>
>OTOH, with really long focal lengths like this, thermal air currents
>start to be a major problem in picture sharpness, including those
>inside the lens...

[Ed. note: Thanks to Mr. Michael Gudzinowicz and his informative post below, you have a handy table of longer tele lenses from larger format cameras now! ;-)]
Date: 6 Aug 2000
From: [email protected] (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Contriving your own long, long lens

John Hicks [email protected] wrote:

>  You might look into using some sort of astronomical telescope and a
> T-mount onto a camera body (at least one dealer advertises big
> T-mounts for MF cameras) or eyepiece projection.
>  I have _no idea_ of specifics; perhaps Michael G. could help here.

Mike Covington probably would kown which MF cameras and backs could be adapted to a telescope, and what one would expect for perfmorance. I don't recall if MF was discussed in his book on amateur astrophotography. Usually, telescpes are not good choices for terrestial photography.

My first reaction, is to ask if one can get closer to the subject, so a 450-500 mm lens could be used with a MF camera, or 4x5 with rollback or cropped 4x5 sheet. With 50 lpmm on film, a sharp poster would be possible.

If one can't get closer, I'd be concerned about atomospheric effects which may degrade the image to such a degree that "sharpness" would not be obtainable.

If that isn't an issue, I'd go with the slowest/sharpest fine grain slide film currently available (read the 35 mm groups or nature) and a 600 mm lens on a 35 mm body. With long lenses, I drape the camera bag strap over the lens at the tripod mount, and let the bag rest against the two reat facing tripod legs so it can't move. A couple of bricks can get the weight up for an occasional foray. A cheap filter easily will degrade the image with long lenses, so I'd stick with real gels, Heliopan or B&W. Next, a first rate 4x5 internegative won't lose any "quality" and probably can improve the slide, and printing from 4x5 to poster size is easier than from 35 mm, unless one has the proper lenses optimized for 20X magnification.

One could also use a long process lens or tele, and crop the 4x5 sheet or MF image as required. The problems are cost, shutter size, and extension (usually handled by a black flocked and baffled PVC pipe on a board with the camera attached).

Some long lenses are:

Fl      f/#     IC      Deg     Model                           E/G Shutter
720     16      215     17      Nikkor T ED                     7/4     1
750     14.5    621     45      Docter Apo-Germinar             6/6     3
750     9       621     45      Jenoptik Apo-Germinar           6/6 n.a.
750     9       591     43      Jenoptik Apo-T                  4/3 n.a.
760     11      645     46      Nikon Apo-Nikkor                4/4 n.a.
762     12.5    647     46      Goerz APO Artar                 4/4 n.a.
762     12.5    585     42      Goerz Red Dot Artar             4/4 n.a.
762     9       585     42      Rank Apotal                     4/3 n.a.
762     10      495     36      Wray Apo-Process Lustrar        4/4 n.a.
800     9       614     42      Rodenstock APO Ronar S          6/4     3
800     11      504     35      Schneider APO Tele Xenar HM     5/5     3
800     12      311     22      Nikkor T ED                     7/5     3
890     12.5    756     46      Goerz APO Artar                 4/4 n.a.
890     12.5    648     40      Goerz Red Dot Artar             4/4 n.a.
900     9       746     45      Jenoptik Apo-Germinar           6/6 n.a.
900     9       709     43      Jenoptik Apo-T                  4/3 n.a.
914     10      594     36      Wray Apo-Process Lustrar        4/4 n.a.
965     4.5     780     44      Fujinon Fujinon                 6/3 n.a.
1000    19.5    828     45      Docter Apo-Germinar             6/6     3
1000    8       335     19      Schneider Tele Xenar            4/2     3
1067    14      906     46      Goerz APO Artar                 4/4 n.a.
1067    14      777     40      Goerz Red Dot Artar             4/4 n.a.
1067    10      693     36      Wray Apo-Process Lustrar        4/4 n.a.
1200    15      1019    46      Goerz APO Artar                 4/4 n.a.
1200    11      994     45      Jenoptik Apo-Germinar           6/6 n.a.
1200    15      826     38      Goerz Red Dot Artar             4/4  n.a.
1200    18      316     15      Nikkor T ED                     7/5     3
1200    10      793     36      Wray Apo-Process Lustrar        4/4 n.a.
1600    10      1040    36      Wray Apo-Process Lustrar        4/4 n.a.
1780    16      1511    46      Goerz APO Artar                 4/4 n.a.
1780    16      1122    35      Goerz Red Dot Artar             4/4 n.a.

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
From: "LABourdillon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Looking for 500mm bird/nature lens

Here I have a Quantaray/Vivitar 500mm f/8 and also a Quantaray/Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6 APO zoom. The APO I use on my Minolta AF cameras - for the mirror lens I have adapters for both the AF cameras and my older Minolta MD bodies (SRT-101, X570, X700).

It's best to view the mirror lenses as different optics; and not try to directly compare them with a refractive lens.

Inherent in the catadioptric (mirror-lens) construction are some limitations and trade-offs.

- The overall focus (sharpness) will be softer, i.e. less edge contrast than an APO. This is due to the additional refraction effects caused by the central obstruction (secondary mirror).

- Defocused specular highlights will typically have a ring-light (or donut) appearance: this is actually an image of the central obstruction.

- The aperture is fixed; no DOF control. Most mirror lenses available are f/8. This includes the offerings from Minolta, Vivitar, Sigma, etc. There is a trade-off here - the larger the secondary mirror, the faster the lens can be made, but as the secondary mirror is increased in size, the image becomes softer.

Having said that there are some positives.

- Expense. Quite a bit cheaper. Unless you pick the Minolta reflex version that lists for some US$649 or so.

- Because most of the light "bending" is done by reflection, the color correction is very good (even better than some of the better APOs).

- Light weight: usually under a pound (.45kg); good for backpacking.

As for the Quantaray/Vivitar that I have, the optics are actually very good.

I've used this lens for astronomy, both for visual viewing (with an eyepiece) and for piggyback photography, whereby the camera and lens are mounted (piggybacked) on the clock driven main telescope. Star images are quite sharp. For nature photography I've used this lens often when hiking and wish to get a quick shot of something - you'll need a tripod though.

...larry

[email protected] wrote

> I've been looking for a 500mm lens for my trusty old Minolta SRT201 and
> I'm not sure what to go for.  I need a low-cost (don't we all!) lens so
> I've been looking at some of the mirror lenses.  Most of them are f8's
> and priced between $100 and $200.  Samyang, Quantary, Phoenix, etc., are
> some names that I'm seeing.  I know the old adage "you get what you pay
> for", but will these f8's do ok for general birding and nature
> photography.  The longest lens I've ever used was a 200mm so I'm not
> sure what I'm doing when it comes to the fixed aperature type lens.  A
> guy at Adorama recommended a "Pro-Optic" which was a tad faster than the
> f8's...I can't remember exactly, but seems it was one stop faster.

[Ed. note: Mr. Covington is a noted astrophotography book author etc...]
From: "Michael A. Covington" http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: eyepiece projection

Enigma [email protected] wrote

> I've been using the afocal method to take close-up shots of the moon, but I
> would really prefer an easier and higher quality approach. Will a
> tele-extender give me higher quality than just holding the camera up to the
> eyepiece?

My experience has been the opposite. I have yet to find an eyepiece that gives me really good edge-to-edge sharpness in eyepiece projection (with Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes; refractors may be different).

Oddly enough, one of the best techniques, though clumsy, is to put the camera on a separate tripod and aim it into the eyepiece. The telescope is then protected from camera shutter vibration.

Hand-holding the camera is not so good...

There are also brackets for aiming a camera into the eyepiece, and that's what I actually use most of the time. And I do a fair bit of eyepiece projection, because of the convenience of it, even though it's not sharp at the corners.

--

Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
Author, ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY FOR THE AMATEUR
http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com/astro

Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Mike LePard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: "cheap" long lens ?

There are these 2 lenses that are probally the cheapest long lens you can find:

MSRP: $ 249.95 USD Street: $ 129.95 USD
Quantaray MF 500mm/1000mm Preset Telephoto (T-mt.)

MSRP: $ 500.00 USD Street: $ 379.95 USD
Quantaray MF F:9.9-14.9 800-1200mm Zoom Lens (T-mt.)

Hope that helps.

The Photography Blue Book
www.photographybluebook.co.cx
www.frozenmoments.8k.com (updated, see below - editor)

[See http://server2039.virtualave.net/canadar2/index.html for Photography Blue Book]

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Mike LePard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What lenses do I need for photographing wildlife?

Hi Meghan,

No you are right, $1000 is probally too much so a 500mm, 600mm, 800mm or 1000mm Mirror lens might work too as you suggested.

Another thing you can try is a cheapie way out. I had one of these lenses and it took not bad pictures at all, Outstanding for the price really:

Quantaray 500mm f8 lens with x2 teleconverter (1000mm f16). for about $170 USD (new). It even comes with the x2 teleconverter too. It is a T-Mount lens so you can use it with any camera. www.ritzcamera.com

It was very good for the price and I could get shots of the moon with it as well. For $170 usd you cannot go wrong.

Another thing you can try is the:

Kalimar 800-1200mm f9.9 lens for about $360 usd as well.

www.ritzcamera.com

Let me know how you feel about these 2 items.

Mike LePard
Photography Blue Book

>Hate to be a pain, but even a Tokina 3002.8 used in the FD mount costs
>$1000. The AF version will cost more.
>
>WHile the price is reasonable for the lens, it is still quite
>expensive for most of us.
>
>To answer the original question, unless you are planning to be at a 
>wildlife park where you get very close with safety problems, you will
>NEED a long lens if you want a decent picture.
>
>Even at a wildlife park, you may find 300mm to be short.
>
>The only cheaper lens in the long range is a mirror lens. It has its
>drawbacks, but it can be useful, and it is cheaper.
>
>Depends on what you hope to shoot, what conditions you will face, and
>what quality you are willing to accept.
>
>
>Meghan
>Friesians in the Northwest
>http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm

Mike LePard
Frozen Moments Photography
www.members.home.net/frozenmoments

[Ed. note: an implicit warning regarding ultra-long medium format telephoto lenses...]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000
From: Michael Buchstaller [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: FS/FT: Tele-Tessar 500 mm

Hello HUG,

i have this lens for hpurchased 3 years ago and have used it 2 times after that, so i decided to sell it or trade for someting i would use more often.

The lens:
Hasselblad 500 mm f8 Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar,
Synchro-Compur shutter,
distance scale marked in meters and feet,
.......

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: "LABourdillon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror Lenses...Good, Bad or Ugly?

Mirror lenses are very much current production - Sigma, Vivitar, Minolta, Nikon(?), all sell these. The reflex twin mirror design is used extensively in telescopes for astronomy. With the central obstruction (secondary mirror), these lenses will always have less resolution that a comparable diameter refractive lens: out-of-focus specular highlights will often appear as donuts of light (the image of the secondary). They are generally at fixed aperture as the reflex design does not practically allow for a mechanical iris.

The optics can be quite good. Because the main optics are mirrors, the color correction of mirror lenses is often superior to the refractive counterpart. For wildlife you might find the image a bit soft, although I have taken a few mirror lens photos of birds flying and the less than totally sharp image wasn't a problem. I have a 500mm/f8 mirror lens which I use primarily for (piggyback) astrophotography. The mirror lens and the camera body sit on a guided telescope (C5+).

...larry

Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000
From: "LABourdillon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror Lenses...Good, Bad or Ugly?

Due to the catadioptric construction, one would expect any mirror lens to have less contrast than a comparable diameter refractive type - even if its optics were quite good. As you might know, (other parameters being equal) the loss of contrast/sharpness in a mirror lens is due mainly to the central obstruction (the secondary mirror), and at f/8 this obstruction is relatively large. I also have the Quantaray (Vivitar) 500mm f/8 version, and yes, it certainly does have lower contrast than my 135-400mm APO. But optically this particular mirror lens is quite good - I regularly use it for (piggyback) astrophotography, and the star images are very sharp across the entire FOV (and with good color definition too).

Perhaps you might like to come out from behind your "anonymous" shield if you wish to have your (somewhat uninformed, it seems) opinions taken seriously... :-|

...larry

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Opinions on the 300mm F2.8 AIS

Hi Don,

I dreamt of one of these for a long time. I finally found a very good sample for a reasonable price but as I went to the shop to pick it up, it was gone. A friend of mine has one, but he has found it a bit short for wildlife and use it with a TC most of the time. I know of others that have experienced the same. About a year ago I got a good offer on an AI-S 400/3.5 and bought it. I don't regret a moment and often use it with the TC-14B to reach 560/5.

Best regards,
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: smitbret [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Tamron v. Kenko Teleconverter Results

There've been a few people on this NG that have been wondering if the new Kenko and Tamron TC's are the same. One publication said they had some vignetting with the Tamron 2x that disappeared when they switched to a Kenko. Well, Just got back three rolls of Sensia that I'd shot to see if I could get my Tamron Pro SP 2x Teleconverter to vignette. I tested the TC with an EOS A2, hoods on, no filters, on tripod, remote release with the following lenses:

Sigma 170-500 f4-6.3 (shot at 170,300,500)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM (shot at 70,135,200)
Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX-Pro II (shot at 28,50,70)
Sigma 24mm f2.8
Vivitar 100mm f3.5

All were tripod mounted and focused at infinity, with clear, blue sky dominating 2/3 of the frames (always obey your rule of thirds). The zooms were shot at each of the listed focal lengths three times; wide open, f11 or 16, and completely stopped down. The fixed lenses were each shot three times wide open, f11 or 16, and stopped down completely.

No vignetting anywhere. Tested them the same way with a Kenko 1.4x and without any teleconverter. My guess would be that:

A. The vignetting only happens with certain lenses,
B. I run the tests focused at less than infinity,
C. The photo magazine was paid off by Kenko.

Incidentally, the 2x looks really, really, really good, even with the 28-70 @ 28mm, although I was just looking at them up against a window with an 8x loupe. I think I'll run over to the college and use their lightbox tomorrow. I don't shoot enough slide sto justify buying one myself.

My opinion, the new Kenko and Tamron TC's are the same.....they gotta be.

-Brett

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: dan of the north [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tamron v. Kenko Teleconverter Results

> smitbret [email protected] wrote:
> There've been a few people on this NG that have been wondering
> if the new Kenko and Tamron TC's are the same.

Below is some information that I gleaned from the listed sources. The only significant difference between the two brands appears in the contruction of the 1.4x teleconverters.

Construction:
Kenko Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter, 5 elements in 2 groups
Kenko Pro 300 2x teleconverter, 7 elements in 4 groups
Tamron 1.4x AF pro teleconverter, 5 elements in 4 groups
Tamron 2x AF pro teleconverter, 7 elements in 4 groups

*Size (diameter mm x length mm):
Kenko Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter, 67 x 19.4
Kenko Pro 300 2x teleconverter, 68 x 43.5
Tamron 1.4x AF pro teleconverter, 68 x 19.4
Tamron 2x AF pro teleconverter, 68.5 x 43.5

*Weight:
Kenko Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter 132g.
Kenko Pro 300 2x teleconverter 184g.
Tamron 1.4x AF pro teleconverter 132 g.
Tamron 2x AF pro teleconverter 184 g.

* Tamron lists different weights and sizes for different mounts,

I used the Canon weights out of selfish self interest; the other numbers listed are for Minolta and Nikon-D. Kenko lists a single weight and size for each teleconverter.

All prices are USD from:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Kenko   Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter  $180.oo
Kenko   Pro 300 2x   teleconverter  $200.oo
Tamron  1.4x AF pro  teleconverter  $173.oo
Tamron  2x AF pro    teleconverter  $195.oo

Kenko information here:

http://www.thkphoto.com/catalog/k/pro300af.html

Tamron information here:

http://www.tamron.com/35mm/35mm_pro_tele.htm

-----
dan

sci.astro.amateur
From: David Gray [email protected]
[1] Re: Folded refractor
Date: Fri Jan 05 18:16:48 CST 2001

See the July 1995 (p. 81) issue of Sky & Telescope. The article describes a 3.4" folded refractor, and provides plans for a 6" f/12 model (which is a size that D&G makes).

sci.astro.amateur
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Folded refractor
Date: Fri Jan 05 21:45:28 CST 2001

Geoff [email protected] wrote:

> I am interested in folded refractors but I am having difficulty finding
> any info on design.  Does anyone know of a source?

Hi Geoff;

The old Richard Berry magazine " Telescope Making " a great source of telescope infomation, in issue no. 1 has lots of information on folded refractors.

I always though I would like to have one like what you have in mind myself.

405

sci.astro.amateur
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Folded refractor
Date: Sat Jan 06 08:28:46 CST 2001

...

The March 2001 issue of Sky & Telescope (due out in a couple of weeks) will contain an article on building a 5-inch folded refractor. The author used a 5-inch D&G objective.

Regards,

Gary Seronik

sci.astro.amateur
From: "Alan French" [email protected]
[1] Re: Folded refractor
Date: Sat Jan 06 09:16:21 CST 2001

I don't know of any place with specific plans, but there are two approaches you can use. One way is to fold it with two mirrors so that it is shorter and fatter. One mirror reflects the converging light cone back up to a second mirror right next to the objective. The second reflects the converging cone back in a direction parallel to the original light cone from the objective. The eyepiece winds up at the opposite end from the objective. Unitron once offered a 3" folded this way. AP had a 6" f/12 folded this way at AstroFest one year.

The other approach is to fold it so it winds up a bit like a Newtonian. One mirror reflects the converging light cone back up to a point right next to the objective. A second mirror there reflects it back across the converging cone of light from the objective to the side of the tube. The eyepiece winds up right next to the objective and the arrangement can be mounted just like a Newtonian. The shorter, more compact mount can be an advantage, but I think one advantage of a refractor is having the entrance pupil well off the ground.

You can find an example of the second method in Henry Paul's "Telescopes for Skygazing" on page 89. He did not choose to send the beam back across the original light path however. Obviously the second method results in a longer tube that the first, but the eyepiece position might be more convenient for an existing mount.

Actually, there are other approaches. John Gregory had a nice 8" f/15 folded and mounted on a Springfield mount at TSP one year.

Clear skies, Alan

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Date: Sat Jan 27 2001
[1] Re: 500-600mm rental

>From: Les Greenberg [email protected]
>Where can I rent one of the above Canon lenses for a weekend?

Arthur Morris is one of the top bird photogs in the world and uses Canon gear. In one of his "Bulletins" he passed along reader recommendations for several places that rent long lenses. The bulletin is on his web site,

http://www.birdsasart.com/b31.html

Bill

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "JL" [email protected]
[1] Re: bird photography
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001

You can get bird closeups without a long telephoto by using a wireless remote and some camoflage:

http://home.cinci.rr.com/creek/remote_control.htm

Enjoy!
Jack

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wildlife Photography with Hasselblad

It basically depends what type wildlife photography you're interested in.

Large mammals are one thing, flying birds are another. I am a freelance professional nature photographer. For several years I shot with both Hasselblad and my 35 mm system (initally Nikon, now Canon) - but while Hasselblad excels for scenics and slow moving objects, I much prefer the technology and lenses available for Canon for wildlife such as whales or birds. BTW, it is unlikely you are going to approach birds in the nest with a Hassy 500 mm lens so closely that you will need extensions tubes. To do so is to put the birds at risk in many cases. No photograph is worth that.

Hasselblad has one speaker - Michael Smith I believe - who does a lot of bird photography with a Hasselblad. While he has some nice shots, for tha amount of work he goes through, his portfolio would be filled with many more dramatic shots (most likely with less effort) if he was using a high end 35mm system. Each format has areas in which it excels IMHO.

- Ellen

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Subject: Re: lens question...

[email protected] (Scoot) wrote:

>what would the difference in the look be between a 360 Nikkor Telepho lens,
>and, say, a 360 "standard" lense by Caltar.  Is there a visual differene
>between a telephoto & standard lens, or is it just a matter of convenience to
>use a T-lens that doesn't require as long a bellows draw?
>
>I hope I asked the question right..if not, and you think you know what I really
>mean, your help would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>
>Scoot
>
>p.s......It costs you nothing to laugh....

In general, Telephoto lenses have much narrower coverage than standard lenses of the same focal length. The idea is for the lens to be compact so that a longer than normal lens can be used on a camera with limited bellows draw.

Telephoto lenses have some inherant problems; they are hard to correct for geometrical distortion and the complete lack of symmetry makes them harder to correct for coma and some other aberration. Nonetheless, there are some very fine telephoto lenses on the market. My guess as to the two above is that the image quality may be very similar but the Caltar will cover an image circle somewhat larger in diameter than its focal length (at infinity focus) where the Nikon is likely designed for 4x5 although it may cover a somewhat larger format.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001
From: "Jesse" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Home made game trail cameras and camcorders

If you would like to make your own game trail camera or camcorder we have a webpage on how to make one and a talk forum to discuss ideas and post your pics.

The talk forum for game trail cameras is

http://www.jesseshuntingpage.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard//ikonboard.cgi

The webpage on how to make the cameras is at http://www.jesseshuntingpage.com/homebrew-cams.html

There is also talk forums for GPS, topo maps and compass and much more.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Long Lens

> I see that the Rollei system now offers the longest lens in medium  format
> photography-- 1000MM!  Just another demonstration of Rollei's
> superiority. I
> wonder if it's possible to make an adapter that would allow it to
> be used on
> a Hasselblad? Arthur

Basically, it's the same lense Hasselblad offered in 1979...

By the way, it is NOT the longest lense in MF photography. Since the 50's there have been quite a number of 1000mm and 2000mm lenses offered...in Hasselblad mount.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens
>
> Bob, I just saw it for the first time in the new Rollei catalog. Arthur

I don't know how good it is. It is a design from the 60s and does not use the UD glass types that have been developed since then. They also offered the 1000mm Mirotar in SL66 mount back in those days.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens
>
> What 2000mm lenses are available out there? No matter whose mount.

I think Kinoptik used to have a 2000mm in their line.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens

Yup, Zeiss will build just about anything for the price of a new home or boat. What is the current asking price on the 1000mm. A few years ago I remember seeing it advertised at about $76,000 (I think that the 500mm was a modest $20,000 then)

Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens

...

> a modest $20,000 then)

Those are Mirotar prices. The 1000mm Mirotar is down some now, only at about $ 55,000 the last time I asked, and you could probably get the 500 for less than $ 20,000.

I looked in my old Rollei price lists but the 1000mm Tele-Tessar only says "price and availability on request", so it was always apparently a special order item. BTW, one of the same old lists had new TLR cases for $ 56 !!! Those were the days!

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens

[email protected] wrote:

>Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I saw it listed at a modest $17,000. 
>Arthur

I suspect there are two different lenses being discussed here. There is the 8/1000 Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar and the 5.6/1000 Carl Zeiss Mirotar.

The Tele-Tessar has been offered for the past decade or so in Rolleiflex 600x mount; the 5.6/1000 Mirotar has always been a "one-off" item -- I last noted it in the Rolleiflex catalogue in the early 1990's, when it ran around $70,000, give or take (!). But Zeiss will cheerfully cook one up for you today, even though it is no longer in the catalog, for a paltry $100,000 or more. This IS the ultimate catadioptric lens. A cheaper alternative is to pick up the Jena equivalent, which can be had used for $5,000 or so, on rare occasions. Not QUITE as good, but you or I would never see the difference. But, when you absolutely, positively need the best -- go with the Oberkochen Mirotar.

The Kilfitt/Zoomar Reflectar, an extremely high-quality catadiopter, was offered in both SL66 and Hasselblad 200x mount. The lens is not uncommon; the mount is to die for. Far more common is the mount for the Hasselblad 1600F/1000F, and I know folks who have picked up a Kiev-88 in order to use a 1000mm or 2000mm Reflectar.

Marc

[email protected]

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tele lens thoughts

Among these lenses, I'd definitely recommend the Minolta 400 f/4.5. It works well with the Minolta 1.4x teleconverter.

However, the 400 is not likely to make you "happy enough." I bought the 400, and within 6 months I bought a used Minolta 600 f/4 (and also needed a sturdier tripod and head). Now, I hardly use the 400mm. I strongly suggest that, in either case, you look for a good used lens.

Even at the Venice Rookery, where the birds are only 50 feet away, you need the 600 lens to get even a big bird like a Great Blue Heron to fill the frame, and most often work with the 1.4x on the 600.

-Ross

...

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Tele lens thoughts

I'd also include several other choices:

the new Sigma 100-300/4 EX
the older Sigma 300/2.8 APO
the newer Sigma 300/2.8 APO EX

As to your choices the Minolta 400/4.5 is great because it is sharpest wide open which means you don't need to stop it down any. However the F4.5 aperture means that according to Minolta it won't AF with a 1.4x TC on it. This might also affect the choice of a lens I didn't mention which is the Sigma 500/4.5 either the older APO or the newest APO EX version.

Everybody I've read seems to think the Sigma 50-500 is a great lens from one end to the other. However the minimum aperture at the long end of F6.3 is going to make the use of 100 ASA film almost impossible if there are even any clouds in the sky un less the subject won't be moving. I still have a Tokina 100-300/4 which I consider a fine lens which will work with teleconverters fine. But using teleconverters also might require faster film in some situations.

Tokina and Sigma 300/2.8 lenses are very good. It's generally the first lens you buy when you can afford to move up from say a 300/4 or 400/5.6 for most outdoor shooting. I have an older Sigma 300/2.8 APO and it definitely focuses faster in AF on my Maxxum 9 than on one of my 700si bodies. Bonus is that a 300/2.8 will autofocus with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. My Sigma is very compact for a 300/2.8 lens. It is even smaller than the manual focus Tamron 300/2.8 I also own.

If you get lucky sometimes you can land primo pro telephotos on Ebay in the $1000-1500 range when new ones would cost from $2400-4000. For instance an older 500/4.5 APO which had already been converted to Maxxum 7 compatibility, including it's aluminum Anvil-type case, just finished on Ebay for $1400. I personally got my Sigma 300/2.8 APO on Ebay for $1100, and my Sigma 1000/8 APO for $900. I did bid on that 500/4.5 APO that just finished also, but decided I couldn't swing the extra money right now.

Even the older Sigma, Tokina and Tamron pro telephotos generate Photodo numbers in the 3.4-3.8 range which is very good performance indeed. In fact is it better than any of the pro zooms, even the current ones. Right up close to the factory primes lenses of the big 4 makers also.

Kent Gittings

...

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Tele lens thoughts

In real light transmission a 1000/11 mirror lens is about the same as a normal lens of 1000/13. You can't compare them exactly to a normal lens because of the obstruction in the front. In fact if you have access to both types in F8 you will see the camera meter show around 1 full stop difference in shutter speed as a result.

I own one of the best mirror lens telephotos ever made. This is the mid-80's Celestron 750mm F6. Unlike most maker's mirror lenses this is a Schmidt-Cassegrain as opposed to a Maksutov-Cassegrain. It lacks any of the extra optical elements used in regular mirror lenses to flatten the field, but which also reduce the light transmission of the lens. A lot of people don't know that the old Nikon 1000mm mirror lens was actually a modified Celestron built to spec. The 750/6 usually goes for around $500-600 on the used market when you can find them. Sometimes you can get lucky and get one for less. Only the old Questar 700/8 mirror telephoto commands a higher price on the used market in 3rd party mirror lenses (leaving out the expensive Pentax 1000/11 and 2000/13.5 mirror telephotos).

But I really don't use it much as a telephoto even though it is 1/5 the weight of my AF 1000/8 normal lens. Mostly I don't like the doughnut shaped out of focus images you get with them unless you're willing to carefully compose the shot in relation to background objects.

Kent Gittings

...

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001
From: "John Owlett" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fixed Teles

John O Connell wrote:

> All this talk of tele zooms has me thinking of a quandary I got
> myself into with my father, who has the birding/wildlife bug pretty
> fierce.  I borrowed his 85/1.8 instead of buying my own portrait
> lens (tho I feel there's a 105/1.8 with my name on it somewhere out
> there).  This caused a bargain to be made in which we'd split the
> cost of a long lens to facilitate his/our projects -- mainly centered
> around his desire to do bird photography around Cape May, NJ.
>
> {snip}
>
> Has anyone on the list been down this road before?

Hi John,

I have not yet been down that road yet, but I've looked down it from the tollgates at the start of the road. Bird photography seems to be a natural extension of the "memory" approach to photography that has led me to photograph flowers, fungi, and butterflies. The problem is the high cost of the toll for entering that road: it seems that for bird photography you need to use 500mm or 600mm, and maybe a 1.4x converter as well.

I have had thoughts (OK, dreams) about how to resolve this.

An amateur can afford to keep to the common colour balance, the common mechanics, and the common build and optical quality of Nikon by buying secondhand manual focus Nikon lenses from 20mm f/2.8 up to 300mm f/4.5. But ultrawide and supertelephoto Nikons are -- as you say -- pricey beyond compare on the used market.

However, Canon FD and Minolta MD lenses are merely expensive. And if you buy a lens, you can get a camera body (almost) free!

Let me give an example. A few weeks ago I happened to be browsing (and dreaming over) KEH's secondhand stock list and found a Canon FD 300mm f/2.8L for $1200: "L" glass of that aperture would make a stunning 300mm and, with a converter, a thoroughly usable 600mm f/5.6. For a further $100 or so, I could get a Canon AE-1P (Canon's competitor to the Nikon FG) to act as a dedicated body.

Because Canon and Minolta changed their lens mounts when they went AF, their secondhand lens prices are about half Nikon's, and cheaper even than third-party lenses in a Nikon mount. I cannot easily afford $1300 for a lens, but saving up for it is not out of the question (as long as my wife doesn't notice!)

KEH also had a Canon FD 800mm f/5.6L for $2200, which is a dream lens for two-thirds of the cost of a Sigma 500mm f/4.5. That's the sort of thing that tempts my Nikon purity.

Later,

Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

From Rollei Mailing LIst;
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: Tim Ellestad [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] long lenses on the sl66

-----Original Message-----
From: John Kufrovich [email protected]
Date: Saturday, June 23, 2001
Subject: [Rollei] long lenses on the sl66

>I noticed in the lens guide for the sl66, that there is a 500mm lens.  Is
>the camera able to support the weight of a 250 or 500mm lens, even rack out.
>I did not notice any collar for supporting the extra weight.
>
>John Kufrovich

John -

There is also a 1000mm Tele-Tessar but they are scarce as hens teeth. Be prepared to pay several pounds of flesh. Toughen up your shoulder, too, as they weigh over 19 pounds.

Rollei also indicated 1000mm and 2000mm Mirotar catadioptrics (made to order I'm almost certain). I've never seen one nor have I ever seen one for sale.

Tim Ellestad
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: Gerald Lehrer [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] long lenses on the sl66

Marc

No, the Zoomara is made in Mujikistan.
And it is spelled "Zhumara"

Jerry

...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Slightly OT: Have you seen the 1000mm PQ Zeiss Tele-Tessar Lens?

FYI,

For those of you who have been waiting to sell your family car to get one of the 1000mm Zeiss Tele-Tessar lenses, Eli Kurland is advertising one with a big picture in this month's ShutterBug for the bargain price of $18,995 (new demo model). To see it online you have to go to www.elikurland.com, then to the "Print Ads," and see the current ad through a pdf file.

R.J.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: A1 Shooter [email protected]
Subject: Re: Anyone can explain this? 3rd party 300mm lens
Date: Wed Jul 11 2001

Shallow DOF is a nice feature of a 300mm f/2.8 lens, but the real reason for having a fast lens is to gain shooting time at the beginning and end of the day. For nature photographers, an extra 15 or 20 minutes of shooting light is priceless.

...

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Tokina zoom

you wrote:

>That's interesting to hear.  From your experience, how do Tokina's and
>Sigma's (and Tamron's, if you like) pro-level (e.g. f/2.8 zoom) lenses
>compare with the equivalent Nikkors, in terms of optical and build  quality?

The Nikon has the build quality, certainly, and outperforms the others wide open. Once you stop down a couple of stops, image quality gets closer, although some say there're subtle color differences. For day-in-day-out daily high-mileage use, I'd certainly place the Nikon at the top. But many people who want fast long zooms do not use them daily and the Sigma (and others) offer very good quality at more affordable prices.

We don't all NEED BMWs, can't all afford BMWs, but still manage to get to work in our Hondas, after all. :-)

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001
From: Birger Petterson [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] 14mm 2.8 Hood cap

Pet Store-Brewers Yeast and Garlic Tablets- 1000 tablet bottle-By BYS- Brown jar - should be about $9 US. Fits perfectly-all the way back to the body. OD of Nikon hood-3.428 inches. Do not make too short. The bottom may touch the lens.

Have no idea what to do with tablets unless you have a dog- then at two per day you have a 500 day supply.

Birger

[Ed. note: Mr. Simmons is a noted author and editor of View Camera magazine]
From: [email protected] (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 01 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: tele lens

A telephoto lens and a lens that is longer tyhan a normal focal length for a given format are not the same type of lens.

A 'tele' design is such that ist optical center (usually at the point of the diaphragm) is actually out in front of the lens - thus the lens requires only about 60% of its focal lenght in bellows extension for an infinity focus. A 360mm telephoto lens will require about 250mm of extension for an infinity focus. Front Movements on these lenses are very limited due to a small image circle.

Nikon makes a series for 4x5 360/500/720. The shutter and front element remain the same and the rear element changes to change the focal length (no, this is not what is called a convertible lens). Fuji makes a 400mm and a 600mm telephoto lenses as well.

View Camera magazine did an article on these lenses in our March/April 91 issue and not much has changed since then.

One additional note, other than the lenses mentioned above the older telephoto lenses are not very good and I would recommend avoiding them.

steve simmons

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Paul Butzi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: tele lens

"bg" [email protected] wrote:

>I currently use 90 and 210 lenses for mostly landscape photos on my 4x5.   I
>am interested in a longer focal length lens such as a 360 apo syronar S.   Is
>this the better type tele lens or is there advantage to other types of  tele
>lenses for 4x5?  Any pros or cons regarding tele lenses?
>bg

First, an 360mm Apo-Sironar-S is not a telephoto lens. Although the term 'telephoto' has been diluted in meaning to the point where for other formats its interchangeable with 'long focal length', in the large format world 'telephoto' refers to a lens where the bellows extension at infinity is shorter than the focal length.

To focus an Apo-sironar-S at infinity, you're going to extend the lens from the film plane roughly the focal length of the lens - any difference has to do with how the lens is mounted. The relevant statistic is called the 'flange focal distance' and for the 360mm Apo-sironar-s the flange focal distance is actually 330mm.

That said, the 360mm Apo-Sironar-S is going to be one honking big lens. It fits in a #3 copal shutter (pretty big), and the front of the lens is threaded to accept 112mm filters. Think big, and think very heavy. The image circle at f/22 and focused at infinity is a staggering 468mm, or about a factor of four larger than you'd need for 4x5 work. The diameter of the rear barrel is 80mm, so this lens will fit through the throat of a camera that takes Linhof/wista lensboards, but it's mighty close.

360mm is a focal length that doesn't offer many options other than the massively large and heavy plasmats.

If you're willing to go shorter, say to 300mm, there's the 300mm Nikkor-M and the 300mm Fuji-C. Both are widely regarded as small, light, and excellent optical performers.

True telephoto lenses might be an option, too. Nikon makes a 360mm f/8 T-ED, it weighs 800 grams and fits into a #1 shutter. 800 grams is pretty heavy but you can also use the same shutter and front element with different rear elements to get a 500mm f/11 and 720mm f/16 lens; this might let you amortize the weight and bulk across multiple focal lengths.

-Paul
http://www.butzi.net

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: tele lens

....

I'd like to add to Paul's comments (which are right on). You didn't mention what camera you're using or how you intend to use the lens. Since you said you mostly do landscape work, it's probably safe to assume that you are not using it on a rock solid 20 lb. Sinar or Linhof monorail. If you're using a lightweight field camera, you may not have enough bellows to focus the 360mm APO Sironar-S with your camera. Also, depending on your camera, such a big lens may be too big and heavy for your camera to handle.

If you don't have at least 15" or 16" of bellows draw, a non-telephoto design like the APO Sironar-S would be pretty useless. In this case, you're limited to a telephoto. The 360mm Nikkor T-ED Paul mentioned is a good choice that only requires 261mm (10 1/4") to focus at infinity - so it works well with the lightweight double extension wood fields that only have ~12" of bellows draw. It's a wonderful lens for a telephoto. Actually, it's wonderful PERIOD - see:

http://largeformat.terrashare.com/future.htm

As both Steve and Paul mentioned, it also has interchangeable rear elements that allow it to be converted to 500mm and 720mm focal lengths, Beware, however that you still need 349.9mm to focus the 500mm focal length at infinity (so still about 14" for infinity focus - 15" - 16" to be really useful). And the 720mm needs even more (469.2mm - 18.5" for infinity). Although the 360mm Nikkor T-ED is no pip-squeak at 800g with 67mm filter size, compared to the 360mm APO Sironar-S at 1560g and 112mm filters, the Nikkor is downright diminutive. Although the image circle of the 360mm T-ED is small for the focal length (210mm), I rarely found it limiting for general landscape use. Probably the biggest drawback to the 360mm Nikkor T-ED might be the cost - the best price I've seen is $1640 from Badger Graphics - of course, their price for the 360mm APO Sironar-S is $1695 so this might be a rare case where the Nikkor T-ED is a "lower cost alternative".

Fuji and Schneider both make 400mm Telephotos that might also serve your needs. The Fuji is smaller and lighter (a better match for a lightweight field camera). It's in a Copal #1 shutter, weighs 600g (quite light for a telephoto design), takes 67mm filters and has an image circle of 220mm (slightly more than the 360mm Nikkor T-ED). It require only 252.4mm (a hair under 10") of extension to focus at infinity. Price (from Badger Graphics) is $1095 (a downright bargain compared to the other two we've discussed so far) The Schneider is a brand new design that was introduced last year at Photokina. It officially goes by lengthy moniker APO-Tele-Xenar HM 400mm f5.6 Compact. It's in a Copal #3 shutter, weighs 916g, takes 82mm filters and requires 285.1mm (11 1/4") of extension for infinity focus. Price from Badger Graphics is $1275 (it MIGHT be cheaper from Robert White, but I'll let you calculate the exchange rates, shipping and duty charges).

In more compact (than the 360mm APO Sironar-S) non-telephotos there are a couple options in the 360mm focal length range. Late shutter mounted 360mm APO Ronars were multicoated. Although they were in the big, heavy Copal #3 shutter, they aren't grossly large or heavy (58mm filters, 550g, 318mm image circle). I believe these have been officially discontinued, you might still be able to find one in dealer inventory. Badger Graphics has it listed on their web site at $1215. If you can't find a new one, they are fairly common on the used market. One other used option is the 360mm f10 Fujinon A (see also that Future Classics link above). This is the only non-telephoto lens in this focal length range to ever be offered in a Copal #1 shutter. It's reasonably small (58mm filters) and even lighter than the APO Ronar (475g), plus it has enormous coverage (504mm). This last figure also makes it popular with the 8x10 (and bigger) crowd. This lens was discontinued about a decade ago, and is fairly hard to come by on the used market. Later samples (1981 and later) are multicoated. When these are available on the used market, they tend to fetch $1000 - $1200 (sometimes even more). Still, that's in the same price range as we're talking for most of the other lenses discussed so far. Finally, there is the option of getting a "process" lens like a 14" Red Dot Artar mounted in a shutter by Steve Grimes. This is custom work that is not cheap, plus you need a shutter (usually a Copal #3, but a 14" Artar will fit in a Compur No. 2 - if you can find one). The Red Dot Artars are still highly regarded, but even later samples from the 1970s are only single coated. Keep in mind that ANY of these non-telephoto solutions will require a camera with at least 15" - 16" of extension to be useful for general landscape work (more for close-ups).

Finally, Paul briefly mentioned the 300mm Nikkor M and 300mm Fujinon C. Both VERY compact, lightweight and reasonably priced. IF you have enough bellows, there is also the wonderful little 450mm Fujinon C. The 300 M and 450 C are also mentioned in my Future Classics section I referred to above. And, they are also discussed at:

http://largeformat.terrashare.com/300-450.htm

I should have just posted this link in the first place and saved a lot of typing.

Hope some of that helps.

Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com

Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001
From: Paul Butzi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: tele lens

...

I use two lenses longer than 210mm.

1. 300mm f/9 Nikkor-M. I like it a lot - good sharpness, good contrast, excellent flare resistance, very small and light, relatively cheap. I like it a lot and am looking for a good deal on it's little brother, the 200mm Nikkor-M, as a small, lightweight alternative to the 210mm Apo-Sironar-N that I carry.

2. 450mm f/12.5 Fuji-C. This is a focal length that I don't use terribly often, but when I want to use it, I *really* want to use it. It's breathtakingly sharp, very good contrast, very small and light, and not horribly expensive. I like it a lot. So much I've pondered how it's little brother, the 300mm f/8.5 Fuji-C would stack up against the 300mm Nikkor-M. If anything, it's a better lens than the Nikkor-M, and that's saying a lot.

Both lenses are on the slow side. My experience is that it doesn't matter much with longer lenses; focusing is still pretty easy. Far easier than focusing my 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW, and about as easy as focusing my 210mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar-N.

-Paul
--
http://www.butzi.net

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001
From: Charles Pezeshki [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: tele lens

Hi BG,

I use the Nikon Tele 360/500 combo. The 360/500 is fantastically sharp at infinity.

I've also used it to shoot wildlife with my Wista. This is difficult, but possible. Shallow depth of field has made me think that the old 'focus on infinity' trick is the way to go and have the animals just a little less sharp, cuz when you're shooting animals with a view camera, usually 'scene' is the thing that is important as well.

I also have a Fuji 300 C, and it is a wonderful lens. Because it has a rather large image circle (covers 8x10) the middle of the image circle is super-sharp.

The Wista only has a 300 mm draw, and I use the extender tubes. This works great with the 360. It works OK with the 500, but wind can be a problem, and you definitely have to watch to make sure the thing isn't shaking.

Check out my pix on my web page, which is sorely in need of an update.

Chuck
Chuck Pezeshki
http://users.moscow.com/pezeshki

> From: "bg" [email protected]
> Organization: http://bellsouth.webusenet.com - Home of the fastest NNTP
> servers on the Net.
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001
> Subject: Re: tele lens
>
> To follow up the thread, what lenses do you  landscape gurus use beyond  the
> length of 210 or so for 4x5 work?
>
> bg

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (Joseph O'Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: tele lens

"bg" [email protected] wrote:

>To follow up the thread, what lenses do you  landscape gurus use beyond  the
>length of 210 or so for 4x5 work?

I'm no guru, just a grunt. :) But I do use a Komura 300mm, F6.3 lens I think is great. Komura lenses are not well known, but they are very good. I think my brand new Rodenstock Sironar is a better lens than the Komuras in general, but still, if you find a Komura at any size, they are worth looking at.

joe

http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Long Lens

I see that the Rollei system now offers the longest lens in medium format photography-- 1000MM! Just another demonstration of Rollei's superiority. I wonder if it's possible to make an adapter that would allow it to be used on a Hasselblad?

Arthur

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: 400mm f3.5 EDIF-AIS

you wrote:

>I'm asking others who have this lens if their sample, like mine focuses
>slightly closer than the 4.5 meter mark and a little further past the
>infinity mark on the lens barrel.

Many long tele lense focus past infinity. It lets the lens expand and contract when the temperature changes, according to what I have been told.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: 22 Oct 2000
From: Tapani Tarvainen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Anyone used the Sigma 600mm?

3in4 [email protected] writes:

> Sigma Super Telephoto 600mm f/8.0 Miror (Reflex) Manual Focus Lens
> f/Canon EOS [USA] to be exact.  It runs about $420 at B&H. Besides
> the fact that it will be bulky, is there anything wrong with buying
> this lens? I want to get some good shots from the stands at games..

Actually it isn't all that bulky at all -- indeed, it's more or less smallest and lightest 600mm lens there is, easily handholdable if there's enough light. That and the price are the good things.

On the other side, its shortcomings are:

* Aperture is fixed at f/8, supplied ND filter can drop it to f/16 (won't change DoF though).

* Out-of-focus highlights appear as donut-shaped, which is sometimes amusing but mostly annoying.

* It's very slow to focus (focus ring is wide and easy to handle but moves slowly).

* Unusual filters are hard to get, polarizers probably impossible. (Filters are rear-loadable, it comes with four: red, yellow, orange and neutral).

Optical quality is OK for the price (better than any cheap 75-300 zoom with 2x teleconverter anyway), but not pro quality. Moderately sharp, and as a mirror lens it doesn't have any chromatic aberration, but contrast isn't all that great (lens hood helps).

I don't know much about sports photography, but I suspect it would not be very good for that, primarily because of the slow focusing. Then again a friend has managed to shoot birds in flight with it... If you can prefocus to where you expect the action to happen it should be OK, but don't expect to be able to follow any fast-moving action across the field and keep it in focus.

If you get one, get a monopod and fastest film you can tolerate (remember it's only f/8 - if light levels change a lot and your camera's top speed is limited, keep the ND filter at hand), and do keep the lens hood (it's included in the price) even though it's a bit hard to screw on and lens cap won't fit on it.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.ph oto.misc
Subject: Re: stacking teleconverters article

"Earl Fieldman" [email protected] wrote:

> >  Chieh Cheng [email protected] wrote:
> >> I finally took the time to write up the long awaited
> >> 'Stacking Teleconverters' article. The article explains
> >> the purpose of stacking teleconverters and how to
> >> calculate focal length, aperture, and aperature diameter.
> >> It is located at my Camera Hacker web-site below.
> >> Please do let me know what you think of the article.
>
> Well, there are stacks and there are stacks.
>
> I've been experimenting with 2x tcs, all of:
> TC-301
> TC-200
> Vivitar 2x-3
>
> I have 3 of each, and a Nikon AF300/f4.
> The 301's are worth about $300 each,
> the 200's about $100 each,
> and the Vivitars about $25 each.
>
> Here's the ballpark:
> The natural light limit is around a stack of 7 2x TC's deep.
> (the tallest stack I can make from my collection).
> This requires bright sunlight, a reflective subject, and
>  a "pre-focused" setup.  It is barely visible at all. After that,
> it's all dark. Some would say this limit is more like 5 or 6, but I can
> find the subject and focus successfully in most bright sunlight situations
> using a 5 deep stack.  With 6, one's first impression is that it
> is completely dark, but effort yields an identifiable subject.
>
> At least for the Nikkor AF300/f4, the TC-301 is of no obvious
> improvement over a $25 Vivitar when stacking.  Worse, you
> cannot stack TC 301's; you can use only one.  Irritating, they're
> about 4 times as long as a Vivitar (the TC-200 is nearly twice
> as long as a Vivitar).  I was disappointed in the TC-301..
> although I concluded that they hadn't designed it for what I
> was doing, and if evaluated for its intended purpose, it
> woould probably fare better.
>
> I have photos taken with a 6 deep stack; you would not consider
> them successful, although the subject is readily identifiable.  I've not
> given up, however.  There are problems keeping the setup
> still.  You've heard that you need a tripod for a 300mm lens?
> Well, you need more than a tripod for a somewhat flexible
> 300mm *2^6 lens (300*64, or 19,200mm) lens.  About 385
> "power".  You need even more than two tripods.
>
> And there you have it,
> Earl F.

There were some tricks in the article I read about the man in Berkeley and here are those I remember (BTW the article was in Pop, Modern, or Petersen's sometime in the late 1970s)

The two by four (this works; I do it with my baseball bat 500 and it's 2x) Instead of a tripod he used a 2x4 board with holes drilled and 4x20 bolts in the appropriate places. The lens and camera were tightly bolted down and I believe he used a few foam supports under the tele- converters. I have also built a smaller on of these, 1x4 to use under my 75-300 zoom with a teleconverter. This one mounts to my tripid. With the board system attached to his porch by bungies and other chunks of wood he was able to angle down to the bay. He also used the roof rack on his car, setting angles again with wood blocks, a pair of step ladders (or perhaps saw horses) staked to the ground with tent pegs, and any trees, buildings etc he could get permission to tie onto.

The part I've never tried was the sapotting scope. He had it mounted to the board with adjustable stand-offs. By first using a relatively short lens on the camera (attached to the board) he would set up his shot. The next step would be to line up the spotting scope with the adjustments in the stand-offs. He then would put in the long lens and wait, watching through the spotting scope, for something to happen. There was a islet, little more than a rock at high tide where the pelicans gathered. The picture of a flock of pelicans, some sitting, some waving their wings, in the blue mist was quite amazing.

I think the young fellow who wrote the artical on his web site deserves a big hand of applause for his experiments and his photographs. We need more rule breakers. They are the ones who will advance photography.

--
An iota of wisdom
from Ol' Phil

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More on the 500mm lens question

David Meiland wrote:

> Thanks for the responses. It seems everyone thinks I am talking about
> vignetting in the viewfinder, which I am well aware of, but I'm
> not--it's on the film. I just looked through some recent shots and I
> see a couple of examples of this, slightly darkened corners on
> transparencies shot with the 500/8 'C' TeleTessar lens. It is not
> pronounced, but it's there, on a couple of shots where the blue sky is
> included. It seems to not happen on other colors/subjects. I assume
> it's some kind of optical phenomenon, not to do with lens coverage of
> the film. Any more thoughts?

Lens-vignetting. Quite normal. Hasselblad's solution is buying another lens, like the 300 mm Superachromat or 350 mm CFE Superachromat plus 1.7x and 1.4x converter.

Date: 22 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A couple of 500mm lens questions

(David Meiland) wrote

> I've been using 500mm lenses for Hasselblad recently, both the C and
> CF versions, and have noticed a couple of things:
>
> First is minor vignetting of the corners of the image on the film.

Are you sure it's on the film, and not just in the finder? (Are you by chance using a Kiev finder?) But a little fall-off at the edge of the finder is acceptable. It's not going to the film.

> The second is a slightly hazy quality to some images.

Totally normal, and it is not the optics. Haze is not as visible to the eye as it is to film. When you use a long lens you are usually framing an area with a great deal of atmosphere between the lens and the film, thus great deal of haze is likely.

Now you see where the virtue of filters come in. For black and white, a good orange or yellow/orange filter helps. And good luck finding filters for the Hasselblad 500mm lens! I've had just rotten luck, and I've checked everywhere people here have suggested.

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: David Grandy [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A couple of 500mm lens questions

With the 250 mm lens and one of the older Hasselblads (500CM for example) there was significant vignetteing - or fall off - caused by the short size of the mirror. Perhaps with the newer Hasselblad bodies there is still some trace of this defect if longer lenses are used. As others have pointed out though this should only be a viewing problem. You should be getting a full and even exposure on the negative.

As for the haze this is probably just the way it is. However I used to have a Nikkor 300 mm f4.5 and was getting a lot less contrast with it than with my 180 mm f2.8 ED Nikkor. I just assumed that it was the difference in the quality of the glass. Then for what ever reasons I took a few shots without the UV filter mounted. Presto, the negatives with the 300 sans filter, were every bit as good any I shot with my 180. I had a closer look at the filter and to the eye it looked fine. I replaced it with another UV filter and kept the same, much improved results as with no filter at all. That first filter then went into the garbage.

[Ed. note: even Zeiss lenses for hasselblad telephotos had falloff...]
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More on the 500mm lens question
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001

David Meiland [email protected] wrote

> Thanks for the responses. It seems everyone thinks I am talking about
> vignetting in the viewfinder, which I am well aware of, but I'm
> not--it's on the film. I just looked through some recent shots and I
> see a couple of examples of this, slightly darkened corners on
> transparencies shot with the 500/8 'C' TeleTessar lens. It is not
> pronounced, but it's there, on a couple of shots where the blue sky is
> included. It seems to not happen on other colors/subjects. I assume
> it's some kind of optical phenomenon, not to do with lens coverage of
> the film. Any more thoughts?

The old (1972-73) 500 mm I used a couple of times had some light fall-off at f/8 but it was gone by f/16. the "darkened corners" were barely visible on test shots, but I was using the lens mostly for "compressed" portraits, so there was no sky in the frame. What f/stop are you using?

Anything funky with the lens you are using (visible fungus, "spider web", "milky" stains, etc..?) Take a strong flashlight, shine it through the lens and look carefully...

Michael

From Camera Fixing mailing list:
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001
From: Frank Earl [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Lens Mount Coversions

At the kind of money he wants, I would be tempted to get a Celestron C-90 telescope and use it with a t-mount adapter on my camera. The C-90 is only 1000mm/f11 but they price around $250 on ebay depending on extras. They use the same Maksutov design and there may be a larger model that would meet the same specs as this lens.

Date: 28 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens focuses past infinity?

Not sure about the Pentax lens, but this is quite common with long lenses in the Nikon family. The reason I heard is the special glass used (ED) is more prone to expand and contract due to temperature so the extra focus distance is there to make sure you can focus to infinity (using the reflex finder) under severe conditions.

-G
http://spyra.com

Jim [email protected] wrote:

> I am looking at a 300mm Pentax lens for the 645.  The focusing ring  allows
> the lens to focus past infinity.  As I shoot aerials this is less than
> desirable as just holding the lens over at infinity certainly eases  focusing
> tasks.  Is this normal?  It does not seem to be the case with my other
> lenses but the seller explains that this is a result of the ED coatings.   Is
> this just a story to sell the lens or should this be the case?
> If it is not normal, is it easy to fix this?
> Any comments would be appreciated.  Thanks,
> Jim





Date: 2 Aug 2001 

From: [email protected] (Mark)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc

Subject: Re: Explain image compression from telephoto




Gary:


I believe that what I am about to explain is what you are talking
about.



Compression with a telephoto lens can be explained by the following
examples.  (Put on your math hat.)



Let say that you are taking a photograph of a person 100 feet away
from you.  And lets also say that 50 feet behind that person is a
tree.  (Using a little addition, you can see that the tree is 100 + 50
= 150 feet from you.)



Now if you use a "normal" lens (50 mm lens for a 35 mm camera), the
picture should appear normal.  However, let's say that you decide to
use a 100 mm lens instead.  A 100 mm lens make everything appear 2
times closer (or, in other words, only half the actual distance).  So
now your subject appears to be not 100 feet away, but only 100 / 2 =
50 feet away(half of 100).  In the same photograph, how far away do
you think the tree appears to be?




Well, it also is 2 times closer (or only half the distance).  So it
appears to be 150 / 2 = 75 feet away (half of 150).  Now here is where
the compression comes in.  How far behind the person does the tree
appear?  (Remember, the person appears 50 feet away and the tree
appears 75 feet away.)  So 75 - 50 = 25 feet.



So in the picture with the "normal" lens, the tree is 50 feet behind
the person.  But with a telephoto lens with 2 times magnification, the
tree is only 25 feet behind the person.  The distance is compressed.
The greater your magnification, the more the compression.  So if you
use a 300 mm lens (6 times magnification), the distance between the
person and the tree would appear to be only 8.33 feet (8 ft. 4 in.)
behind the subject.



With a wide angle lens, you cannot get compression because you get no
magnification.  In fact, you get the opposite of compression.  (I
guess we could call that expansion.)  So if you have a 25 mm lens,
everything would appear a distance 2 time greater than the real
distance.  So in our original example, the person would appear 100 x 2
= 200 ft away and the tree would appear 150 x 2 = 300 feet away.  So
the tree would appear to be 300 - 200 = 100 feet behind the person
instead of the real 50 feet.



Hope this helped.  Believe me; it's much better when I can draw it on
the chalk board.  I guess a picture is worth a thousand words.





Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 

From: [email protected] (Stephen M. Dunn)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc

Subject: Re: Explain image compression from telephoto



kalle003@*nospam*tc.umn.edu (Kalendar) writes:



Can you explain what image compression is (from the use of a telephoto 
lens)?



   It's not from the use of a telephoto lens, actually; it's simply
perspective.



   Arrange a few objects on a table, with some of them closer to you
than others.  Look at them from near the table; notice the perspective
of objects in relation to each other.  Now walk away from the table and
notice how the perspective changes.  The distances between them appear
to become compressed.



   Why?  When you were up close, the distances between the objects
were significant fractions of the distance between you and the objects.
For example, the farthest might have been twice as far from you as the
nearest.  When you're farther away, though, the farthest might only be
10% or 5% or 1% farther away than the closest.  The angle of view
also changes.



   You also asked if the same effect could be obtained with a
wide-angle lens.  Yes, but ...



   Try this:  using a telephoto zoom (or two lenses of different focal
lengths), take two pictures of the same scene from the same spot, but
at different focal lengths.  Now crop the picture from the wider lens
so that it contains the same field of view as the picture from the longer
lens, and enlarge it so that it's the same size (for example, if the
two lenses were 100mm and 300mm, take the middle one-ninth - 1/3
vertically and 1/3 horizontally - of the 100mm picture and enlarge
it to the same size as the 300mm picture).



   Your two pictures will look the same (other than differences in
sharpness and grain caused by the extra enlargement, and possibly
also differences in sharpness/contrast/etc. between the two lenses)
because you took them from the same spot.



   People often think that the effect comes from using different
lenses, because they are comparing (using the same two example
lenses) a picture taken with a 100mm lens to a picture taken with a
300mm lens from three times as far away, and yes, the 300mm
picture shows more compression.  But the reason isn't because of
the lens - it's because they were standing three times as far
away.



--

Stephen M. Dunn
                    
[email protected]

http://www.stevedunn.ca/





Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001

From: zeitgeist [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc

Subject: Re: Explain image compression from telephoto



> Can you explain what image compression is (from the use of a telephoto  lens)?
>
> Can this compression be achieved by a wide angle lens?  If not why?




yes if you took a wide angle shot and cropped it so the image of the
subject was the same size as the long lens image, (from the same spot
for both subject and camera)  then the perspective of the background
should be identical.



I remember reading about a guy who loved 'grainy' pictures and would
shoot with a super wide lens and copy the image with a microscope to
pick out an extremely small portion that was extremely grainy and soft,
and it looked like a telephoto image.











                

                

                

                

                

From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Telescope as a long lens
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 


"Minna" [email protected]> wrote 
> Does anyone have any information to share about using telescopes as long
> lenses? I'm a beginner wildlife photographer and I'm also getting into bird
> watching so I thought about bying a telescope (25x) to replace the old
> binos. The telescope that I am considering has a camera adapter as an extra
> and used thus it would double as a 1000mm zoom. My longest lens currently is
> the Sigma 170-500 but with F6.7 at the long end and less than pin sharp
> pictures, I'm not considering a teleconverter. Now, the biggest reason I'm
> asking is that the telescope kit will only cost a fraction of what a
> dedicated 1000mm lens does, so I'm sure there is a catch somewhere. Lack of
> sharpness? Worse f-stops than 6.7 w/ x2 converter? ...?


    I looked at options like this when I first started getting into
telephoto photography, and found out some interesting things that stopped it
in its tracks.

    Telescopes are designed for what's called a small 'exit pupil'. Since
they're designed for your eye, they only have to produce an image relative
in size, like 10mm or so focused just beyond the eyepiece with the help of
your own eye's lens. This translates to pretty poor coverage of a film
frame. A camera converter often corrects this to some extent, not always
completely, and usually does so at the cost of magnifying power and light.
It depends on the telescope, but chances are you'll definitely be dealing
with a worse f-stop than the 170-500 and a 2x converter, probably dealing
with less magnification, and will have no option to adjust aperture.

    Additionally, telescopes are frequently not as sharp as lenses, and can
be affected by the same vibrations from the camera as a telephoto lens, if
not more. This will also affect sharpness.

    I would recommend actually trying out the combo you're looking at before
you buy. There's a very good reason people stick with the much more
expensive tele lenses.

    I use the Sigma 170-500 fairly frequently, and with a 2x converter as
well. I also use a stabilizing arm from the tripod to the camera for
vibration control, back off slightly to 450mm, use a remote release, and
shoot at f11 or 16. My shots come out pretty sharp, and I'll forward
examples if you want to see them.

    - Al.

--
- Remove 'less' from address for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.ipass.net/~denelsbeck


Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Max Warwick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Hullo Clayton

What a lot of really useful info.

The www.bird-shots.com site suggested by Ron is excellent and goes to great
lengths to layout the details for DIYers.

However, if your ham fisted and have loads of money, you might like to try
Luksa Instruments from Ontario, Canada, who make three heights at 30', 45'
and 60' - I can't find the price details though! - www.luksa.com

I have an old 5 legged extension (10') Gilux and some Manfrotto boom arm
sections so believe there is the basis for getting up to 20' with limited
engineering. I need to get the extra height on open shorelines etc and
unable to get a car/truck near.

Max Warwick
www.360vrtours.co.uk


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Tume" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 
Subject: giant monopods


> Hi all
>
> anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre (9
> feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>
> The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's right in
> the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need to
> get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just wont
> reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc. that the
> camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to give a
> bit more height.
>
> I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you stand on
> to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod anymore),
> you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>
> Clayton

From: Paul Rubin [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Unbelievable...new DO lenses
Date: 18 Dec 2001 

"Tony Spadaro" [email protected]> writes:
> > 500/2.8??  These Canon guys are really something else.  What next?  LCD
> > shutters?  Levitating camera bodies?  f1.4 telephoto pancake lenses that
> > refract light by bending the space-time continuum?!

How about a 680mm f/2.2 mirror lens for 6x7 medium format film? 

http://meade.com/catalog/meade_lx/meade12_lx200sc.htm   :-)



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: MTO's

Tom wrote:
>I've got one of those, in zm39 was it also made in M42?
>
>I haven't had a chance to try mine yet. I got just the
>lens. No filters of any kind and no leather tube.
>Heavy lens, but optics should be superb, thats what
>I've heard.

Here be the tale of the MTO's:

8/500
6.3/500
5.6/500
10.5/1050


There are variations of all sorts:  for instance, most of the 1050 MTO's
are listed as '10/1000', and there are "micro" (close-focusing) versions of
at least some of these lenses, as well as terrestrial and astronomical
versions of the 1050.  Finally, a 5.6/300 appeared about ten years ago
which is not easily found in the West (I have never seen one of these).

The early 8/500 and 10.5/1050 MTO's were from KMZ, later ones are from
Lytkarino.  The first were in ZTM, the later ones in M42;  there were also
a run made for sale in the US by Spiratone which came in T-Mount.  The ones
from KMZ came in nifty wooden cases with a really skimpy one-page Passport
and the customary filter pack and caps.  The ones from Lytkarino are in
leather cases and have a much fuller Passport.  I believe all of the 6.3/
and 5.6/500's are from Lytkarino or, at least, I have no hard proof that
any of these were ever made at KMZ.


The Lytkarino passport is common, mutatis mutandis, to all versions of the
MTO's.  I made an English translation which I can e-Mail those interested.

These are phenomenal lenses.

Marc

[email protected] 


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 
   From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO's



> From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [russiancamera] MTO's
>
> Finally, a 5.6/300 appeared about ten years ago
> which is not easily found in the West (I have never seen one of these).
>


When I visited Z�rkend�rfer a few years back at his office in Munich he
showed me one of these 300 lenses that he had modified to fit Mamiya 645.
Shots he showed me looked really good, with no severe falloff from being
moved to the larger format.  He told me he could also adapt the 500.  This
was more than just installing an adapter mount, he was actually
repositioning the optics.

> The early 8/500 and 10.5/1050 MTO's were from KMZ, later ones are from
> Lytkarino.  The first were in ZTM, the later ones in M42;  there were also
> a run made for sale in the US by Spiratone which came in T-Mount.  The ones
> from KMZ came in nifty wooden cases with a really skimpy one-page Passport
> and the customary filter pack and caps.  The ones from Lytkarino are in
> leather cases and have a much fuller Passport.  I believe all of the 6.3/
> and 5.6/500's are from Lytkarino or, at least, I have no hard proof that
> any of these were ever made at KMZ.


Alas, Marc, the leather case is a thing of the past.  Current production
Lytkarino lenses come in gray nylon zipper cases.  I just bought a 500/5.6
last month.

Bob


From: A1 Shooter [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: mirror lenses
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 

I had a Canon FD 500mm Reflex for a while.  At the risk of being
told otherwise, I'll say that it is probably one of the best mirror
lenses you'll ever find.  

So what did I like?

Small, lightweight.  Easy to handle.  The lens I had was terrifically
sharp.   I never had a problem viewing and focusing, despite the 
slow speed of the lens (lense?) ;o)  

What didn't I like?  

The damn bokeh.  Canon makes a point of the wierd bokeh of
this lens in the promo materials of the time, telling us that we can
use this feature creatively.  Maybe, but most of the time it just
intrudes into the picture.  In case you don't know, mirror lenses
produce out-of-focus points as little donuts.  Linear objects such
as blades of grass will be doubled when not in focus.

Vignetting.  With the exception of a few extremely expensive
lenses, ALL photographic lenses have some dropoff of intensity
as you go from the center to the edge of the frame.  Mirror lenses
are a bit worse than average.  I guess it's because the mirror
gets vignetted by the barrel of the lens forward of the mirror's
location.  To illustrate, I've posted a picture I took when 
experimenting with the bokeh.  The surprising result is at
http://home.attbi.com/~w7apd/temp/mirrorbokeh.jpg
Note the nice round donut at the center of the frame, then
see how one side of the donuts is flattened as they get
nearer the edge of the frame.  FWIW.  Anyhow, there's
more light falloff in mirror lenses than in comparable
refractive optics.

Speed.  (Lack thereof.)  The Canon lens I had was an f/8.
That number is correct based on the dimensions of the lens
and correctly describes the depth of field you get, but it
doesn't take into account the central obstruction (the
front mirror that reflects the image back to the film.)  The
actual light gathering ability of a mirror lens is always less
than the published number.  In the case of the common
f/8 lenses, it's actually only f/9.5, which means you'll
be using even longer shutter speeds.  

Fixed f/stop.  Not satisfied with giving you a slow
maximum aperture, a mirror lens compounds the injury
by not letting you stop down.  Very frustrating.

Ultimately, I got rid of the mirror lens and save my money
for a better telephoto.  If budget is an issue, I think mirror
lenses are worth considering, but know that they have
some serious limitations.

"The Dave(c)" [email protected] wrote:

>I keep seeing 500mm mirror lenses for sale on eBay.  Alot of them.  They
>seem to be inexpensive, which I suppose is their main selling point.
>Personally, I don't care for the effect they produce and have no desire to
>get one.  But I am wondering, does anyone here use them?  If so, what do you
>like or dislike about them?


From: Paul Rubin [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: mirror lens differences
Date: 31 Dec 2001 

"Joseph Shark" [email protected]> writes:
> ? I want to get a telephoto lens, one of 300mm or more. I have to go mirror
> lens(budget wise). After checking out a few different models and specs, I
> have a ? I need help with. Would I be correct to assume that a 300mm f5.6
> would be a better optical quality lens overall than a 500mm f8 ?

If you get a mirror lens, get a good one (e.g. Nikon).  They are not
so cheap, though.

Cheap mirror lenses like the Vivitar 500mm you mentioned are absolute
garbage.  You'll get better results shooting with a cheap 80-300 zoom
and cropping.

Actually there's one excellent deal out there, if you want an extreme
telephoto: the Meade ETX-90RA astro telescope is being closed out at
$180 or so various places.  With a $40 T-mount adapter you can use it
as a 1250mm f/15 mirror lens (with some vignetting) or about 1600mm
f/18 supposedly without vignetting.  Sharpness is excellent if you can
damp out vibrations somehow.  Note that this is strictly for use on
a very solid tripod.  You really can't handhold it and you're asking
for lousy results if you use a flimsy tripod.


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mirror reflex lenses

This donut effect is a basic property of every reflex lens: a normal
lens shows every point, that is out of focus, as a spot, an unsharp
circle, a reflex lens shows this as a "donut". That is because of the
center hole in the first mirror.

You can avoid this only, if your background has no structure (eg. a
bird against the sky), or the background is so far away, that the
"donuts" totaly dissolve.

Manfred 


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 
From: "Ze'ev Kantor" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Mirror reflex lenses

I have a MINOLTA 250mm f/5.6 RF MIRROR lens. I tested / played with a 500 /f8.

The advantage of the mirror lenses are:
A. Compact and light-weight.
B. Very good for "candid" photography (street or people) where a normal
(long) lens immediately draws attention. The size of the 250 f/5.6
Minolta, is comparable to that of Minolta 85mm f/1.7.
C. Very reasonable performance.

Disadvantages:
A. Slow: the 250/300 are typically f/5.6, the 500/600 are f/8 and beyond
that (800/1000) are neither compact neither fast - f/8 to f/11.
B. Slightly inferior in performance to a top-range normal tele (Minolta
MD 300 f/4 or similar).
C. Single aperture - no control over the depth of focus.
D. Although my 250mm uses 62mm diameter front filter, the 500 and beyond
require rear mounted or drop-in special filters. A basic set of filters
is generally supplied with each lens.

To conclude - I like this lens because I can take it with me for just in
case I will need it, without sacrificing my back. If you plan to use a
tele extensively (nature or wild life photography) - I would recommend a
"normal" tele photo.

Ze'ev Kantor
[email protected]


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 
From: "bigplanetexec" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mirror lenses

That's where the term "bokeh" came from (its Japanese). It concerns the
esthetics of the out of focus images. In that realm mirror lenses are at
the low end of having fine bokeh. From there the effect is at its best
with a perfectly round aperture. 5-8 blade apertures are not the best for
this.  The best tend to be the older manual and preset lenses with
apertures having 10 blades or more. The old Spotmatic manual preset
200/3.5 Takumar with its 13 blade diaphragm was considered one of the
best. This was an effect that motion picture companies tried to make sure
they had. As a result most lenses for movie cameras tended to have large
number of blades. I made a wonderful steal on eBay the other day of a
poorly described 500mm F5.6 lens in Pentax K mount for around $80. Turned
out when it arrived to be an excellent condition US made Century Optics
Tele-Athenar II manual lens in T-mount. These were made mainly for the
16-35mm movie industry. However in the 60's wildlife shooters were looking
around for some excellent long glass and they discovered these. As a
result Century made a line specifically contructed to be used on 35mm
cameras (this is one, which sold for $950 new). Has a continuous
no-clickstop aperture ring with an 18 blade diaphragm. Best bokeh you can
get. Which is important for long glass with short DOF ranges. I've
used/owned mirror lenses several times throughout my career and frankly,
except for some particular kinds of shots, the effect sucks. It tends to
cause the eye to wander away from the subject from my experience.

Kent Gittings





from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Telescopes versus Telephotos

Well I have a Meade 152APOED in my collection (6" 152mm x 1370mm, F9). A
little too big and heavy for telephoto use. The Meades are a Buchroeder
design, meaning one element of flint glass and one element which is an SLD
glass called flouro-crown. While this design is by definition of the term
an APO I would not say it is in the same class correction wise when
compared to an Astro-Physics or Takahashi. And while the build quality is
very good they do have some quality control in the assembly side (mostly
lens cell screws that might be torqued too tight). Especially the 102APO
and the 178APO (7").

The reason I got the 6" over the 5" was that based on tests from the
Cloudy Night and Ed Ting websites and some owners reports, nobody had ever
seen a badly put together 6". By the way I could get you an optical tube
only (called OTA) in 4" or 5" if you wanted one new at a good price, as I
work part time for a Meade/Celestron dealer.

The best deal for the money in a 4" would be the Vixen 102ED. It is
optimized for photography, and is a fast F6.5 (665mm). However the OTA is
about $1499 new. There is a focal reducer to shorten it to 405mm F4
available also. They also make a 114ED F5.3 (600mm). You could even stick
a 1.4x TC on that for 840mm F7.4 (dedicated focal reducer makes this one
500mm F4.4).

If you want a Meade 102APO I suggest either you or whoever you buy it from
does some star testing to make sure the performance equals what it should
be.

Kent Gittings



From Minolta Mailing List:
From: Duncan Staples [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 
Subject: [Minolta] Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos

Bill:

I have used both scopes that you are considering.  Both are excellent
but I would personally choose the 102 as it is quite a bit smaller
and you will probably use it more often.  Both scopes can be
purchased OTA - without a tripod or mount.  If you are looking for a
good used scope you might want to try the APML (Astro-Photography
Mailing List) news server.  The website is located at:


http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/

A 5" APO Refractor is one heck of a lot of scope to be carting around
and requires a pretty good sized tripod for stability.  From viewing
your posts it sounds like the 4" would be a better choice for you.

One final note is that you might want to consider a used 600mm F4 APO
with 1.4x TC.  It will give you about the same focal length (almost)
as a 4" refractor, it will be faster and will probably cost about the
same give or take a few hundred bucks.  From what I can see you are
going to spend in the high $2K range for the Meade 4" APO - OTA.  I
purchased my 600mm F4 APO for just over $3K.

Duncan
....




from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 
From: "Duncan Staples" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos

Guy:

First of all MAKs suffer from the same problems all other mirror
based scopes do:

1.  They are not Apochromatic
2.  They are soft around the edges
3.  They are fairly slow
4.  They suffer from decreased contrast
5.  They are affected quite a bit by what is called mirror flop on
longer exposures (not as bad as a Newtonian) but can be a problem
from time to time.
6.  They are affected by the elements (much more than a Refractor)

They are generally considered to be a compromise between a Refractor
and a true reflecting telescope.

Regards,
Duncan
....



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos

To fill a medium format frame you need a scope with a minimum of a 2.7"
and preferably a 4" focuser. No Maks or Schmidts have these. Only high end
refractors like APOs from A-P and Meade.

And in those cases the images won't be right side up. To get the film
plane of the camera to be filled up and correct you need the camera to be
much closer to the objective than all of the telescopes I know can do
without some tube surgery. That's why, for instance, that the 600/4 for
the Pentax 67 is only about 2/3rds of the length of a 35mm 600/4 lens (not
to mention that the Pentax has 800/4 and 800/6.7 lenses that would smoke
just about any telescope, if you can afford them).

Kent Gittings


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos


Let me answer a few of those.

1. Both Maks and Schmidts can be apochromatic if designed right.

2. Some are and some aren't. Its basically the phenomenon of a non-flat
focal plane. Can be fixed with a field flattener/focal reducer. Refractors
have the same problem also by the way, especially the expensive fast APO
scopes.

3. Most Maks are in the F12-F15 range, which is slow. However the 3 main
companies in the former USSR (Intes, Intes-Micro, and Lomo) all produce ack
sharp, zero color Maks in the range of F10 also. Schmidts are either f6-6.3
or F10-11. However the penalty for F6 is a much bigger obstruction. The
Celestron 9.25 SCT is a little different (partially urban legend and
partially fact). It is reputedly the only SCT with a parabolic primary
instead of a spherical one. This means the corrector plate has less of a
curve and the longer tube means the multiplication of the secondary mirror
is less, making it a little smaller. Too big for a telephoto lens though.

4. Definitely, although the amount when comparing a good Mak to a similar
size refractor is not that easy to see actually.

5. You should try a Russian Mak with a fixed mirror and Crayford focuser
(mirror can't move). I've tested several of their conventional sliding
mirror focuser types (same as a Schmidt) and several models I've tested show
no mirror slop or shift in and out of focus with a laser collimator. Not to
mention several of the ex-Iron Curtain Maks uses primary mirrors of low
expansion Sitall. As a result they need less cooling down time than even
some major brand APO refractors.

6. If you mean they can get out of adjustment, possibly. At least the ones
with non-silvered spot type secondaries (all the F10 Maks have separate
secondary mirrors, unlike the original design by Maksutov). If you mean real
elements like water or rain possibly. But they won't suffer any fungus
related problems that cemented refractor lenses will down the road either.
But since the front corrector is a negative meniscus lens it sticks out less
than the convex front element of a refractor, which can get exposed more.
Soviet Maks come with full metal dewshields made of the same material and
thickness as the tube itself, like refractors so they are pretty well
protected.

Kent Gittings
....



From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 
From: "Duncan Staples" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos

Kent:

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most of the high end Russian MAKs
about as expensive as a good APO refractor (not talking about the
Astro-Physics prices)?  I have shot with the Takahashi 6" MAK and if
memory serves me correctly it was in the mid-high $2K range.  I have
never owned one personally but have shot with them from time to time
at star parties.  I'm a deep space kind of guy and use the Vixen
R200SS 8" F4 short tube Newt on a Losmandy G11.

Duncan
...


From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos


Schmidt's don't suffer from any detectable chromatic errors because the
corrector plate is too thin. In the case of Meade SCTs only the 12" and
16" have high grade BK-7 corrector plate glass. The rest of theirs have
some kind of cheaper glass. Maksutovs have a thick meniscus (means that
outer side is concave and the inner side is convex in parallel to it)
corrector plate that supposedly can cause chromatic errors, according to
the SCT makers. However I have yet to see any in a good one. Standard
Maksutov design has the inner curve of the corrector plate to be exactly
the curve needed for the secondary mirror, so it just has a mirror coated
spot on the inner center. This makes the scope as rugged as a refractor
because it needs no real adjustments. However the original design is
limited by this to a speed of about F13-F16. To go any faster and shorter
the needed curve of the corrector and the secondary's multiplication
factor diverge in optical curvature. So the choices are cement a secondary
mirror with a different optical curve on the corrector's spot location or
put a hole in the corrector like an SCT and mount an adjustable secondary
holder. All US built Maks use the classis design and have f-ratios of
between F13.3 to F15. Of the ex-Soviet companies Lomo uses both the
classis design in their F12.3 scopes and a cemented secondary in their
F10.14 scopes. Intes and Intes-Micro use the SCT design of a separate
secondary mirror and holder in all their models regardless of F-ratio. It
sacrifices not needing adjustments for more precise correcting of the
optics and less design constraints. Besides it was the design of one of
their countrymen so they can improve it if they want.

Kent Gittings
...




from minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Telescopes versus Telephotos


 I have 5 OTAs and 2 mounts myself. A portable rig using a Sinta EQ2 (CG3)
and drive controller and a Celestron CI-700 w/DSC and a dual Losmandy
cradle. Scopes are:

60/700mm Tasco guidescope
90/1000mm Orion (Sinta) guidescope
127/750mm Celestron C-5 astrograph + Focal reducer (475mm F3.78)
133.5/1352mm Lomo Maksutov
152/1370mm Meade ED/APO refractor

I got the Lomo after doing some testing and because the focal length of it
is so close to the 6" that all my eyepieces have the same power on both
scopes. The Lomo is less than $1K and can hold it's own against any 5" or
smaller APO scope. I haven't compared it to a Tak Mak but it out performs
any Mak 6" or under I've tried except for planetary views with an Intes
5-6" Mak-Newt which costs considerably more (Intes MN-67 Deluxe and MN-56
Deluxe). The Lomo 95 will blow away a Televue Pronto or Ranger for a lot
less money, but the optical system is much slower as it a classical design
Mak.

They make them really small also. They have 70mm astro models, 60mm
spotting scopes and even pocket 30mm Maks. And more expensive 6" and 8"
Maks for the bigger money. I think the 6" is less than $1600 with no
mount.

Kent Gittings





From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 19 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1 600/8 and 800/11 Solid Cats

>>Yes, I'm familiar with the doughnuts - {g}.  I am mostly interested in one of
these for a "throw-in-the-car-trunk-(in-its-case-of-course) sort of lens.  I'd
like a rugged, compact, and not overly valuable lens to keep handy in the car.
(My Pentax A* 600/5.6 [IF] ED lens just doesn't get thrown into the car - {g}.)


An absolute steal in super long lenses these days is the Meade EXT 90
telescope. Yes, it's only a f 13 lens but it's also only $180 with mount and
two eyepieces. It's a 1,200mm lens.



From: [email protected] (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Telephoto Lenses - what are my options for 6x9?
Date: 7 Feb 2002


"Joe Lacy" [email protected] wrote 
> Well, the 47mm works great now ( a long story with something to do with f18
> fighter planes and 20 trips to Home Depot) but I still only have 8" of
> bellows. Now, I would like to keep the current setup but need something
> longer for head and shoulder shots.
>
> I don't "think" the 203 with only 8" would work but could be wrong. So I was
> thinking about a teletype.  I won't be using movements for portraits in 6x9
> so coverage is of less of a concern as long as it covers 2x3. Sharpness
> is...I want it VERY VERY sharp and be able to fill the frame.
>
> I can't deal with the "big nose" syndrome. I need to be able to shoot VERY
> tight on her without her looking like Carl Malden.
>
> Anyone think something in the 180-210 in a teletype might work on 8" of
> bellows? I don't need infinity but I do need it to fill the frame on my
> current bellows. Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe


I've had a 180mm f:4 Tele-Arton for years.  It cost $200 and the only problem
I've had is that some folks find it too sharp.  I got another (for about $100).
It is a Linhof model in an electronic shutter and is just a little sharper (I
measured about 60 lp/mm on Technical Pan at f:16).   YMMV.


From: "Lew" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 500mm Mirror Lens vs Standard 500mm Telephoto
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 


I use a Celestron 500mm f5.6 mirror, and a Sigma 600mm f8 mirror. I bought
them because I cannot afford the non-mirror lenses of these lengths and
apertures. The Celestron is heavy, but I think it makes good pictures. See
http://lewbar.tripod.com/bears/bear2.html for some of my pictures with it. I
recently obtained the Sigma. It too is heavy, but it too makes good
pictures. See http://lewbar.tripod.com/2002/darling/darling.htm for some
pictures made with it. The do-nut circles for out of focus spots with a
mirror lens is seldom a concern. The limited depth of field is more of a
problem, but almost all my shots are handheld requiring fast film and a fast
shutter. With both my lenses, you support the lens with hand or tripod, with
the camera supported by the lens. If you can use a tripod, and slow shutter,
then an adjustable aperture would be good.

The usual knock on the 500mm f8 mirror lenses is lack of uniform lighting
and focus from center to corners. I have looked at a couple, and their light
weight and small size is very attractive. If  I intended to carry camera and
lens very far away from my vehicle, I would buy one of the 500mm f8 mirror
lenses and accept the possible limitations. My pictures are for my
enjoyment, and perfection is not a requirement. I have not seen the
inexpensive 500mm non-mirror lenses, but they will be long and therefore
cumbersome compared to a mirror lens.

Lewie
http://lewbar.tripod.com
"kbremn71" [email protected] wrote 
> I have a Nikon EM (I'm an amateur who loves his camera...) and I'm
> looking into purchasing a 500mm or greater lens.  I do a lot of
> outdoor/hiking photographs so I'm impressed with the lightweight and
> size that the mirror lens would offer and the price is nice at around
> $200 as well.  I'm a bit skeptical of its quality at that price,
> however, since I've seen some long range lenses for much, much more.  I
> have also found a 500mm telephoto for under $150 new and again am
> skeptical based on price.  Does anyone use the 500mm mirror lens that
> might have some helpful advise?



From: [email protected] (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 20 Feb 2002 00:11:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Any downside to telephoto lenses?

The problems with swings and tilts is primarily when using them on the front
standard. Using them on the rear, generally preferably anyway since these
lenses have a small image circle anyway, does not really present any problems

The Fuji lenses - the 400 and 600T, and the Nikon series (360/500/720) for the
4x5 and 600/800/1200 for the 8x10 are quite good. The older teleZenars and
teleRotelars are not so good.

steve simmons





From: [email protected] (Michael Reichmann)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Pentax 67 400mm f/4 ED(IF) Test & Comparison
Date: 3 Mar 2002


I have just published a test of the Pentax 67's 400mm f/4 ED(IF),
including some examples from a wildlife shoot in Yellowstone National
Park.
The report includes a comparison with the 600mm f/4 and also with the
new 300mm f/4 ED(IF) used with a 1.4X Extender.

The lens review is found at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/p400ed.htm and the comparison test
at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/3-4-6-comp.htm

Michael



From: Paul Rubin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 500mm Mirror Lens vs Standard 500mm Telephoto
Date: 22 Feb 2002 


x.x.com [email protected] writes:
> I dont have one , BUT  I would suggest
> at that length you also consider a medium quality
> telescope / spoting scope with the proper acc.
>
> Such as the meade ATX line.
>
> These are 500+ dollars, but are substantially better than
> a 150 dollar cheapy.
>
> ALSO and IMPORTANT, mirror or lens outstanding, 500mm require
> FAST film or mono pods to steady them. Mirrors in particular are
> often f10 or slower

Actually, you can get a Meade ETX-90RA for under $200 on closeout.
It's the same optical tube as the new computerized version, but
it doesn't have the automatic positioning capabilities.  It's
a great bargain.

However, it is NOT a 500mm lens.  On a T adapter, it's a 1250mm f/14
that doesn't cover the entire film frame, or with an extension link
it's a 1600 f/18 that covers the frame.  In either setup, it's
difficult to focus, may have more magnification than you want, and is
impractical to use without a solid tripod.  A monopod is not enough.



[Ed. note: the Russian/Soviet 500mm f/8 rubinar is a mirror lens that covers 6x6cm!]
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Mar 2002 
Subject: Re: 500mm f/8 glass lens from 35mm to MF Re: 500mm mirror on med fmt


On the Kiev Report/Delphi Group, it is Leonard Flanagan who has a link to his
website on how he converted the 500MM Rubinar to 6x6cm format.

Years before Cambridge discovered converting the long 500MM non-mirror lens to
6x6cm format, I had successfully done so. My lens ends in a 39MM screw mount
(short mount) which allows me to use basic Kilfitt adapters for a variety of
6x6cm reflexes.

What I further discovered - to get sharp photos with this rig-
you must use a steady tripod, have a camera who focusing screen is exactly
aligned to the film plane focus - and focus carefully on
the plain groundglass area of the finder screen.

- Sam Sherman


From: "L. Aslan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: M645 astro telescope mounting help pls
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001


Lots of vignetting will result. The rear opening diameter of the 8" SCT is
only 38mm, which is barely enough to cover most of a 35mm frame (some corner
cutoff).. To use a MF camera you will need a scope with larger
focuser/opening such a 2.7" or 4" found on AP and other refractors.

Best of luck,
Leo

> I have an M6545 which I would like to attach to a Meade 8" SCT scope, does
> anyone have or know how to get a suitable attachement tube?    Anyone have
> any info/thoughts on vignetting problems?      Is "sacrificing" an extension
> tube a possibility?
> thanks
> Kieran


From: "Jason Lewis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: M645 astro telescope mounting help pls
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 


It's not something that I would recommend for an 8" SCT.  Lumicon makes an
adapter for a few medium format cameras, but I think that they are only for
the Lumicon Giant Easy Guider which is not compatible with 8" scopes.  Both
the Meade and Celestron 8" SCTs do not have a removable rear flange, so
there will be lots of vignetting.  Even if you were able to solve the
vignetting problem, there will be lots of coma and aberrations in the
off-axis stars.  The usuable portion of the negative (regardless to
vignetting) would be about the same as from a 35mm negative.  I can see some
aberrations on the edge of my 35mm negatives.  Small and medium sized SCTs
just aren't very good for medium format.

On the other hand, you might get some wonderful photos riding piggyback!

Jason
See Astrophotos at http://www.nomoon.org


Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 
From: John Stanley [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mirror-tele-lenses

Just discovered your excellent site while looking for info on my two quite
antique (60s-70s) mirror telephotos;

1. I found your reference to Sigma's f4 Ultratel 500mm. A bucket of a lens if
ever there was! Mine performs reasonably well with a camera but I sometimes add
an eyepiece and use it as a spotting 'scope. OK in the day but it suffers from
some peripheral coma if used on stars in a night sky (yes, we did once see the
stars from the UK ! ). Sadly, I haven't Sigma's X2 adaptor. Were many
Ultratel's made? I've never seen one other than my own which I bought second
hand from a previous owner who used it to photograph Apollo lift offs (lift
offs or lifts off?). I suspect that it was "overhauled" by somebody once upon a
time and I have never been sure if was reassembled to original condition.

2. I found only a brief mention of my old Russian MTO 1000mm f10 Maksutov, and
that in yhe correspondence section. This is optically superior but a bit slow.
Again, used as a 'scope with an eyepiece it comes close if not equal to an ETX
in performance while having been engineered, I suspect, in a Russian tank
factory. Lens coatings in the days it was made were, perhaps, a bit primitive
compared with today (?). Pity that focusing needs so much muscle but, at least,
once there there's no risk of it drifting out! If you have any info on these
lenses (the MTOs) I'd be interested. Not that it'd make any difference to the
performance of mine but I'd be interested to know if there are many about and
how they are generally regarded by their users and how they are considered to
rate amongst the opposition..

3. What amazes me about lenses of this size is the relatively feeble tripod
bush/plate. Certainly, the MTO needs a beefy cradle to avoid strain on the
optic tube at the back end (although I suspect it's 1/4 inch wall thickness
brass!) . Of course, they were probably designed to be counterbalanced by a
Zenit camera I suppose!

Again, thanks for a very interesting and useful site,

John Stanley
Crewe, Cheshire,
UK


From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: lens # projections kowa from hassy was Re: kowa
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 02

...
 [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
....
>the 500mm lenses seem endangered species; hasselblad just dropped their
>500mm lens from the catalogs; not enough sales presumably. I think the
>superiority of low cost focal plane shutter systems for these longer
>lenses explains their rarity and high cost in leaf shutter med fmt setups?
>
>IIRC, there were only a few copies made for 1,000mm zeiss leaf shutter
>lenses for the rolleiflex 6x6cm SLRs, at tens of K$ apiece ;-)

The Zeiss Jena Mirotar 1000/5.6 isn't all that expensive btw....;))

>on the other hand, thanks to USENET, I've just learned that the rubinar
>500mm mirrors evidently also cover 6x6cm, so I have another project there
>;-)

Have the various 1000mm versions been ruled out for this purpose btw?
They can be changed in a 700/7 and something longer I believe (also
something focusing closer).
-
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]


[Ed. note: adapting Swift binoculars (wide) to Twin Lens Reflex cameras..]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Swift Binocular Adapter Report


I received the Swift 7x35 Neptune II binoculars today necessitated by my
ownership of this Swift BA-1 Binocular Adapter for TLR's.  Well, I rigged
it up, and it does work, sorta-kinda.

The downside is that Swift has no memory of this piece and I have no clue
as to how to adjust it to provide a complete alignment of the upper
binocular with the viewing lens while still maintaining alignment of the
bottom binocular with the taking lens.


The upside is that the Neptune II is a wide-angle glass and, thus, seems to
provide full-frame illumination without any vignetting.  It is still a
vicious f/15 wide-open;  there are aperture rings which can reduce this to
f/21, f/31, or even to a princely f/42.  Shades of Waterhouse Stops!

The image in the VF seems sharp enough but I've not run any film by this
one on my Automat, Type III, though this seems to be the camera shown in
the instruction book.  I might sacrifice a time-expired roll of Ilford PanF
or so to check it all out at some point.

These binoculars are touted as being "multi-coated", whatever that meant a
decade before Asahi and Zeiss introduced the world to the art.

Marc
[email protected] 


From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: long telephotos
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 02

 [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>
>I haven't seen any reports of modifying and using the 1,000mm (or 700mm..)
>range mirrors to MF,

It's a well known modification in German astro groups, which I assume must
have trickled down to English groups as well....

>it would be quite interesting to know if they have
>the coverage for MF without excessive coma or vignetting etc. Most of the
>compact scopes seem to barely have 7mm pupilary coverage, let alone MF ;-)
>
>I was interested in the successful 500mm rubinar mirror conversion to MF
>(delphi forum..) since very few of the cheapy 35mm 500mm f/8 mirrors seem
>to work for MF coverage - most barely handle 35mm ;-).
>
>Very few astro mirrors have coverage for med fmt which are portable, and
>even with a folded optical pathway (mirrors in Z shape) you end up with a
>pretty ungainly setup at larger than 1 meter focal lengths (equiv to about
>600mm on 35mm SLRs). Feininger has some project shots from 5 miles outside
>New York City using a LF long telephoto and old barrel lens, but they're
>hard to find, and even the 4" new chinese APO 'scope lenses are ~kilobuck

Must have one too one day anyway, for the 3d following mechanism (found a
cheap Canon L1 videocam, which can be adapted to EOS quite nicely (even saw
a night vision unit that could bolt inbetween, and retain full control of
the factory lens (including EOS tele's of course; I am just not sure
whether AF could still work....can't see an AF-prism inside the camera
itself, but I do sea the typical spherical bubbles if you look into the
lens at a specific angle)....that's one thing I've always wanted to do with
my Rollei RF-100 night vision unit....T2 on both ends is a bit boring, but
EOS-AF could never be retained that way....but IS and
Electro-Mechanical-Focus on higher grade tele's would(should)....:))

>I am pretty happy that we can use the low cost long focus (2 element
>achromatic) lenses in the 300, 400, 500 and 600mm range from 35mm low cost
>lenses (Spiratone "sharpshooter"..). I haven't heard of any of the new
>"APO" long zooms working on Med fmt either, having asked here in postings
>etc., but that would be an ideal option for low cost telephoto work if the
>lenses have the coverage, and the only 35mm zoom likely to work on Med
>Fmt. A few folks have converted slide projector zoom lenses for use as
>med fmt zooms with surprisingly good results, but had help of mfger (ISCO)
>to install stop mechanics and remount.

Would that be for 35mm slide or 6x6?
The Rollei 110-160mm would be a tempting candidate....quite common &
relatively cheap, on the P11's.

Isco also makes worlds largest fisheye, for the Omnimax theatres....:))
(there's a link on my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm (do a search for isco or
fisheye)

>I am sort of considering the older
>plate slide projectors, and wondering if their lenses might be used in a
>pinch as a low cost telephoto experimenters lens too?

Just don't destroy a complete projector....I am mentally still not
recovered from those 3 scrapped huge Epidiaskop IIIs'es....sad sad sad....

>Another option I'd like to see if anyone has explored is a teleconverter
>and mount converter, using the light spread from a TC (Kiev low cost
>optics?) to spread coverage over 6x6/6x7cm? Some folks have reported so-so
>results from using a 3X TC for 35mm as the optics, but I think that less
>TC effects and more coverage would work better. But if you start with 50
>lpmm and spread it out over twice the area, you don't have very high
>resolution left - darn! ;-)

Btw TC's: I just got an email from someone, asking whether I knew the rank
& order/orientation of the 4 lenses in his 3x converter, after he had
cleaned it out....sad sad sad....8-))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]


From Nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 
From: "Dale Ireland" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Astro photography

Hi

Don't get a mirror lens, especially for astrophotography. They are slow,
they have a fixed f/stop that can not be adjusted. They have a terrible hot
spot, meaning they produce an image that is bright in the center and gets
dimmer at the edges. Anything that is out of focus looks like a doughnut.
I used to own a Nikon 600 f/4, it was great for astro and normal telephoto,
now I have a 500 f/4. I also have a Televue Pronto telescope 480mm f/6.8.
The Nikon lenses cost thousands and thousands of dollars but the Pronto is
about $800. I have used it more for astro photos than the Nikons. It is
lite, sharp and bright to the edge and designed for photography with photo
accessories. There are also other astro scopes in this size range of equal
and better quality that make better telephotos and astro lenses than the
dedicated system lenses. The only negatives are, no f/stop adjustment and
the image is upside down in the viewfinder.

dale


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: "skipcashwell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Astro photography

A quality 200mm can produce some truly amazing images: go
see Robert Vanderbie's work at

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/images/

Rob uses CCD imaging with a 200mm vivitar! He also uses his
Questar 3.5" Standard.

Good luck, and clear skies!

>   The biggest lens I currently have is
> a 200mm f 4.0 and it is not  nearly big enought for this purpose.
> Thanks, Jay S.



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Sigma 500mm APO f7.2  vs. Minolta 500mm AF Reflex

Actually, the modern Sigma 400/5.6 APO Tele-Macro (77mm filter) can be had
used for 300-400. I saw one just like mine on KEH the other day.

The difference between the old Sigma 400/5.6 and the new Macro version is
night and day. Buy the macro version when one becomes available.

-Mike
...


from minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: "schwerpunkt1" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sigma 500mm APO f7.2  vs. Minolta 500mm AF Reflex

I totally agree with Mike.  I have been keeping my eye on 400mm
lenses for the past year and he�s right - you can�t go past a Sigma
400 f5.6 tele macro (actually just close-focus) for affordability and
sharpness amongst the 3rd party manufacturers.

I would like a Minolta 300 f2.8 as well but my wallet isn�t that well-
stocked at the moment.  Maybe next year.....

schwerpunkt


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror lenses adapted to Kiev60 or other FP-shuttered MF
cameras like Bronica, Pentax 67, etc?
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002


Q.G. de Bakker [email protected] wrote:
> Now please tell us how much these beasts did cost... ;-)

A lot. Around 10,000 DEM for the Oberkochen 1000 mm Mirotar at a time
when 7,000 DEM bought you a new Volvo sedan.

While the 500 mm is extremely rare from both sides of the wall, the Jena
1000 mm mirror lens does occasionally appear on ebay.de. The going rate
is 2000 EUR for a clean one complete with filters and the original
wooden case. Weight (lens only): about 27 kg.

A few books on the Pentacon system show it mounted to a tiny little
Pentacon Six TL body.... :-)

Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses



rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "jriegle" [email protected]
[1] Vivitar 400 f/5.6 goes to the zoo... 
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002

I packed up the Vivitar 400mm 'junky' lens for some zoo shooting...

http://home.att.net/~jriegle/vivitar4002.htm

Not bad for budget photography!

John


From: "Axel Farr" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror lenses adapted to Kiev60 or other FP-shuttered MF
cameras like Bronica, Pentax 67, etc?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 


Hello Wayne,

"W. Catalano" [email protected] schrieb 
> In my limited experience, I've never seen anyone commercially offer
> 35mm-format 500mm mirror teles  (they would be equivalent to approximately a
> 270mm lens on a '35') that have been modified so that they would work as
> interchangeable lenses on focal-plane shuttered MF cameras.

You generally can't fit any 35mm lenses to MF, becaus the image circle of
most 35mm lenses is so limited that they would produce a circular image on
the 6x6 neg. Even a 6x4.5 neg would only be lighted up to the rims of the
4.5cm short base. Only at very short distances, it is possible to use 35mm
macro lenses for MF macro work.

> I've seen the Cambron(sp?)-brand all glass 500mm teles offered, but not the
> inherently shorter and lighter mirror-type lens.  I'll bet no one could
> hand-hold those glass monsters, but a short, light mirror optic might be
> what the doctor ordered.

There also exist 5.6/500mm glass lenses from Arsat in Kiew and 5.6/500 glass
lenses from Pentacon (not Zeiss, the longest they made is the 4/300mm
Sonnar, this optics was made by Meyer G�rlitz and they lack the automatic
aperture). There are also mirror lenses with 500 (rare) and 1000mm from
Zeiss. The Zeiss lens has an opening of 5.6 at 1000mm and is quite rare,
because most lenses are nowadays used by astrophotographers. On eBay
Germany, once or twice a year such a lens appears, at costs of about ~2000
to 4000 Euro (I did not see any lens be sold, I suppose they get sold after
the auction for something less). But the size of such a barrel is impressive
(1000mm/5.6 is ~ 200mm diameter, the lens must be nearly half a meter or 1,5
ft long), a Pentacon Six at the end of such a lens looks like having a smal
compact camera fixed at the end of a 5.6/500mm Meyer G�rlitz.

Foto Wiese in Hamburg/Germany has a 10/1200mm mirror tele lens noted on his
homepage, but I do not know anything more about it:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/fotowiese/

(look for the lenses of the Pentasix 636).
...


From: "Leen Koper" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax close-up attachment lenses
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002
...

I always use a B+W  +.25 close up lens on my 150 mm to be able to move in a
little closer in studio portraiture. When I 'm doing pack shots (for
catalogues etc.) of relatively small objects I use a B+W +2 lens.

Leen Koper
www.fotografieleenkoper.nl


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: MTO's

Tom wrote:
>I've identified my MTO 500a being a Lytkarino
>I still have to make some shots with it.
>Mount is zm39 and it dwarfs my Zenit 3m. :-)

Now, that is interesting.  I don't recall ever seeing a Lytkarino MTO with
the Zenit TM.  Thanks for increasing my knowledge!

Marc
[email protected]




from minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: Gary Bourbonais [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photos of 1600mm

Hey Red.....

I just had to comment.....

Absolutely *AWESOME*, Man....

That poor little XD-7 looks like it's hangin' on for dear life and
sanity....{G}...

red93miata wrote:
>
> For size comparison purposes, the camera is an XD-7
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ajkirch/minolta/1600-1.jpg
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ajkirch/minolta/1600-2.jpg
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ajkirch/minolta/1600-3.jpg
>

--
Gary W. Bourbonais


From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: MTO's And Their Adaptation

One trick which works on most, but not all, MTO's is to change the
camera mount.

On most of these lenses, the  camera mount is simply the inner part of a
T-adapter.  Loosen three screws around the perimeter of the camera mount
and the part with the camera's bayonet or thread mount will come out.  Then
do the same with a T-adapter for your system, and install the inner part of
that T-mount onto the lens, tighten the screws, and voila!  The MTO know
will work on the camera of your choice.

The early MTO's were actual t-mount lenses, so they are even more easily
adapted to any camera system.

Marc
[email protected]


From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 
From: "iggymo" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was MTO 500/8 - solved Matsukov's puzzle!

Kevin,

I saw a modification somewhere on the web to adapt a 1000mm MTO lens
to a Pentacon six body. It involved removing the focus stop screw,
and allowing the lens to focus farther past infinity than normal.
Would this work for your longer extension tube? Just a thought...

Steve K. (Iggymo)


From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was MTO 500/8 - solved Matsukov's puzzle!

BTW, it's Maksutov.

Bob




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does the 1/focal length rule hold for MF?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002


Mxsmanic wrote:

> Looks great ... certainly for a full-frame shot I don't see any sign of
> softness at all.  Of course, if you enlarge it to wall size and view it from
> a foot away, maybe you'd see something, but I don't really know.
>
> Was this 250mm one of those fancy superachromatic lenses or what?  (I'm not
> familiar with the longer focal lengths available, except that I heard that
> some were truly superachromatic, i.e., fully corrected at all wavelengths.)

It says so in the "photo information" part.

The Superachromat advantage is definitely lost when using the lens handheld.
Since i know you won't believe it when i say that, here's what Zeiss' very
own Kornelius J. Fleischer has to say about it:


"Utilizing the image quality potential of this lens fully requires adequate
technique: high resolution films like Velvia and Portra 160 VC, very sturdy
tripod and mirror-lock-up, meticulous focussing, maybe even focus bracketing
to compensate for film flatness errors, thermal expansion, alignment
deviations of focussing screen, mirror, and the like."

;-)



From: [email protected] (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 1000 mm lens
Date: 25 May 2002


"William E. Graham" [email protected] wrote...
> I have been trying to adapt a 1000 mm Schmidt cassegrain
> telescope to my Nikon F5. I have the adapters, and it seems
> to focus OK, but my problem is steadiness.....It isn't. I
> can't push the trigger button on my camera without the whole
> thing shaking for several seconds. I think I need a better
> tripod, and some way of triggering the camera without
> touching it. Does anyone out there in cameraland have
> experience shooting through a lens this long? - What
> equipment do you suggest? The telescope is f 10, 102 mm in
> diameter, and weighs about as much as the camera, which is a
> boat anchor if there ever was one.....It does have a 1/4"
> threaded hole that allows me to mount it on the tripod,
> however.


I use a 1000/11 Nikon reflex, and I find that even when using a very
massive Gitzo tripod I get tons of camera shake when I release the
shutter manually.  I normally use a timed release or an IR trigger.
Some people also resort to placing large "sandbags" on top of the lens
above the tripod socket.

Brian


From: Hans-Georg Michna [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.travel.africa
Subject: Re: Practicality of 400-500mm zooms in Africa
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002


[email protected] (Captain Spaulding) wrote:

>My question goes out to those of you who have done organized safaris (as
>opposed to self-drives) in Africa.. the Land-Rover/bus with the open roof
>ones.
>
>Inyour opinion, how practical has the 400-500mm end of a zoom lens been,
>when used in conjunction with a beanbag, in terms of getting sharp
>pictures (good for atleast 8x12, or maybe one size larger)?
>
>I'm trying to decide between a 400mm Sigma prime or the 50-500/170-500
>zooms.  I'd like to get the 500mm range, but I am a little concerned about
>whether or not it will yield sharp pictures when used with a beanbag.

Vandit,

to give a dissenting view, I used a 500 mm mirror lens (Canon)
for some time, even with a x2 converter for bird photography,
but I gave up on it and sold it, for a whole number of reasons
(among them strange ring structures in unsharp backgrounds, no
aperture, difficult to use filters, very expensive or totally
unavailable polarizing filters).

I am now using a 70-300 mm zoom, but I pondered the thought of
getting a 400 mm fixed lens or a 100-400 mm zoom (Canon, with
Image Stabilizer). Zooms are never really sharp, so if you want
really sharp pictures, get a 400 mm lens. A good one most likely
yields more information (more useful pixels, a sharper image)
than any 500 mm zoom, provided the film is sharp enough.

Currently I've stopped thinking along these lines because I'll
go digital before next year, and that's a whole different story
again.


The general problem is that somewhere around 400 mm lies the
limit of usability without a tripod. In a full tourist minibus
it is usually impossible to get everybody to sit still, so your
only really interesting way out is the image stabilizer.

>Also, if you did get sharp prints, what speed films did you use and
>in what ratios?  I am currently packing 50% 100 ASA, and 50% 400 ASA film
>- should I throw in some 800 as well?  IF so, is 40-40-20 a good split?

Again a somewhat dissenting view. I take slides only, and 400
ASA slide films have poor colors.

I still used them for a while for shots at night, but I have now
fully given up on them and use 100 ASA Ektachrome film only. One
of the current variants of this is called "Elite". I carry a
medium strong flash with me for night photography. I also have a
clamp-on tripod (actually not a tripod at all), which I can use
at night, but that wouldn't be in a car, more likely on a
viewpoint inside a lodge.

I hear though that negative film is much better at 400 ASA, so
my opinion may not matter to you. The question arises, why then
use 100 ASA at all?

Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.


From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.travel.africa
Subject: Re: Practicality of 400-500mm zooms in Africa
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002

Captain Spaulding wrote
>Also, nothing I have read convinces me that as far as pictures go, the
>170-500 is much worse than the 50-500... so it is a cheaper alternative.
>I just need to convince myself that the lack of HSM on the 170-500 will
>not be a problem.

    I've used the 170-500 in varying circumstances, and never felt the
autofocus was particularly noisy or slow. It has a slight edge in Canon (and
Sigma) mounts, in that it's a wider aperature than advertised. This can only
help autofocus.

    I used it at a dog agility trial, tracking some fast-moving animals, and
had few AF problems or hunting. Granted, light was very good, but I was
closer to subjects (and thus seeing more relative movement) than you're
likely to be.


    I've also used it at 430mm with a 2x teleconverter, and got shots of
better-than-expected quality. But I took care to use it on a firm tripod, on
a calm day, stopped down to f-11, with mirror-lockup and an additional
stabilizing arm to the camera. But I can send some example jpegs along,
full-frame and blown up, to see how it rendered detail. Just drop me a line
at [email protected].

    I found that 500mm was slightly soft, and backing down to 430 makes
little difference in framing, but a lot in sharpness. Stopping down helps a
lot too. Also, either don't use a filter, or spring for a really good one.
My Tiffen 86C UV was way too soft.

    About beanbags - stick with a generic one, and not the kind that has a
tripod screw. Extending the 170-500 changes the center of gravity
significantly, and can make it nose heavy. You'll want to adjust placement
for focal length/balance.

    - Al
--
New online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net




From: "Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.travel.africa
Subject: Re: Practicality of 400-500mm zooms in Africa
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002


I used to have a Sigma 400/5.6 lens and now have a Sigma 50-500 lens.

I have compared many slides shot with both lenses and the Sigma 50-500 is
sharper than the Sigma 400/5.6, at least with the two lenses I had.  I can
see absolutly no reason you would choose the 400 if you could take the
50-500 instead.

You have been given some mis-information.  Firstly, I am aware of two 10x
zooms that produce good results, the Canon 35-350 and the Sigma 50-500.  Of
the two, I think the 50-500 is slightly better, although I haven't compared
them directly.

Secondly, you cannot compare the 50-500 to any 70-300 zoom I have ever
tried.  In no way is the image quality at 300 mm with either a Canon 75-300
or a Sigma 70-300 anywhere near as good as the 50-500.  They are not
interchangeable.


On safari, a zoom can be very useful.  You are prepared for the distant shot
and the vehicle stops close to an elephant.  With a fixed lens you can take
a picture of the eye, then try to change to a shorter lens before the animal
turns away.  With the 50-500 you take the eye shot and zoom out for a nice
environmental shot as well.  The zoom range is very convenient.

For shooting from a vehicle where there are other people moving around, a
Canon 100-400 IS or a Nikon 80-400 VR might be better.  You have a better
chance of getting a sharp picture in some circumstances.  I chose the 50-500
over the 100-400 IS because I wanted the longer focal length.  Then again, I
am using a private vehicle so I can use a window pod and ask the other
person to hold still.

Unless you need the slightly better image quality of heavy, expensive lenses
like the big 300/2.8, 400/2.4, 500/4 or 600/4, in my opinion your choice for
best quality at a reasonable price comes down to the 50-500, 100-400 IS or
80-400 VR


Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot
...


From contax mailing list:
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 
From: Bernard Cousineau [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Contax] Are the legendary Zeiss lenses sharper or not
  than those of Leica lenses?

>> Surely, with all the rules of optics open to everyone, and accessible
>> via CAD, it leaves much to innovation?
> The Canon 400/4 IS DF should be a very good lens but I have yet tried it
> nor I know any of my friends owned or tried it. Anyone know the quality
> compares to other prime f/4 lenses?

One of the rules of optics is that a fantastic design is useless if it can't be
manufactured within tolerances. All things being equal, a design with fewer
elements will require much tighter build tolerances to achieve its design
performance, which entails more expensive hand assembly and much higher-grade
mechanicals (so that the lens elements stay within specs over time).
The availability of CAD/CAM helps with the math, but it does not make
fundamental design and manufacturing (and marketing) choices for you.

As for the new DO4/400, Cdi tested it and found it to be not as good (by a
noticeable margin) than more conventional designs. After this test caused a lot
of "internet hassle," they tested an other production sample and came to the
same conclusion. They claim that the only party who did not contest their
findings was Canon Japan. The lens does have obvious secondary advantages for
its intended use, which is for press (digital) use.

Bernard


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 13 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?


>Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?
>From: [email protected]  (Robert Monaghan)
>Date: 7/12/02

>I'd suggest if you want to do portraits, skip the 80mm lens and go direct
>to 150mm-ish lenses; note that hassy backs as 120 or 220 (A12 or A24) but
>not both, which can be an issue if you need both film formats etc.

Don't be so hasty.  Arnold Newman uses wide angles for his great portraits. And
the great Henry Cartier Bresson used a normal lens. The use of a long lens for
portraits has become a cliche of questionable validity.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From: [email protected] (john chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Tests of Long Tele Lenses
Date: 3 Aug 2002


In response to a suggestion that I do so, I have posted on this web
site the resulting images of lens resolution tests for the lenses for
the specified focal lengths at the bottom of the page.  Of course I
also tested at other focal lengths, but due to web space limitations I
am only posting comparable focal lengths.

"http://members.cox.net/lenstestr2/longtele.htm"

Nikon 400/3.5 at 3.5
Nikon 400/3.5 at 5.6
Nikon 400/3.5 at 8.0
Nikon 80-200/2.8 shot at 200mm with 2x Kenko Pro 300 at 2.8
Nikon 80-200/2.8 shot at 200mm with 2x Kenko Pro 300 at 4.0
Nikon 500/8 reflex
Nikon 1000/11 reflex
Sigma 50-500 at 400mm at widest aperture
Sigma 50-500 at 400mm at widest+1 apertures
Sigma 50-500 at 500mm at widest only aperture
Nikon 80-400VR at 400mm at widest aperture
Nikon 80-400VR at 400mm at widest+1 aperture
Sigma 170-500 at 500mm at widest aperture
Sigma 170-500 at 500mm at widest+1 aperture
Sigma 400/5.6 MF at widest aperture
Tamron 200-400 at 400mm at widest aperture
Tamron 200-400 at 400mm at widest aperture+1

Questions/comments/suggestions to [email protected].  For more
information on testing
lenses go to http://members.cox.net/lenstestr1/lenstest.htm .



[ed. note: proof that medium format can be used for telephoto photojournalism and sports work!]
Subject: Re: Rollei or Hassy
From: Bob [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 

Mxsmanic at [email protected] wrote 

> How many MF cameras are being used for that?
Possibly not many,

Other then Sports Illustrated and some of the shooters at the Indy 500 but
then they are probably exceptions.

SI had (as of 1998) 13 odd 6008 outfits.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com


From: Louis Boyd [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Effective length of a photo lens looking through binoculars.
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 


Roman Tolesnikov wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I made a setup where a 90mm f/5.6 photo lens is looking through a
> standard 10x50 binoculars (one half, of course.) I have trouble
> understanding how to figure out the effective focal length of this new
> "lens." Can you please help me with this? The more explanation, the
> better.
>
> I hope this is enough information to define the problem, but just in
> case it's significant, the front element of the photo lens is about
> 25mm from the ocular of the binoculars.
>
> The next question, of course, is what is the new effective f/#?
> Probably have to assume perfect quality of the binocular optics, but
> that OK, the ideal number would do just fine.
>
> Thanks in advance.
The effective focal length will be 900mm.  It's simply the magnification
of the binocular times the focal length of the camera lens.  As to F
ratio, it will be 900mm/50mm or f/18.  The camera lens f/ratio doesn't
matter as long as it's a bit larger than the exit pupil of the
binoculars and its positioned correctly so as not to cause vignetting.
The exit pupil of the binocular is 5mm (50mm/10).  The entrance pupil of
the 90mm f/5.6 is 16mm. The larger aperture of the camera lens just
makes the alignment less critical.  Most important when doing this is to
get a good light seal between the camera lens and the eyepiece eye cup
to exclude stray light which can be considerable. A short piece of black
foam pipe inulation works in a pinch.
--
Lou Boyd


From: "Jean Marc Becker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Effective length of a photo lens looking through binoculars.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002


> I made a setup where a 90mm f/5.6 photo lens is looking through a
> standard 10x50 binoculars (one half, of course.) I have trouble
> understanding how to figure out the effective focal length of this new
> "lens." Can you please help me with this? The more explanation, the
> better.

Binoculars have a primary  focal length. When you take a picture through,
you introduce a magnification, the factor beeing the ratio of photographic
objective focal length / eyepiece focal length.

The simpliest way to know the effective resulting focal length is taking a
picture of the Moon, whose apparent diameter is roughly half a degree. You
measure the effective dimension of the moon's picture on the negative, and a
simple calculation gives the solution.

You need using a relatively long focal on your camera, as to avoid
vignetting.

Pictures of 1999 total solar eclipse taken taht way can be seen at the
following URL:

http://www.lumieresenboite.com

And you can too see the mounting my son achieved for these pictures.

JMB


From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm Russian lens
Date: 19 Aug 2002


Actually, this lens is the Rubinar 500mm F5.6 lens that was designed
for 35mm use but has recently been showing up as converted to work on
several medium format cameras with focal plane shutters.

So, yes, it will work on a 35mm camera.

I began work on converting one to P6 mount myself before they became
easily available on eBay.  I've since used it on my Kiev 88CM a few
times and it produced nice sharp images... but I have not tested it
critically.

Compared to other mirror lenses, I can't really say...  I've used the
autofocus 500mm F8 Minolta lens for their Maxxum line and a 3rd party
500mm F8 mirror lens in older Minolta MD mount.  The 3rd party lens
stank... the AF Minolta lens was not bad.  That was over 10 years ago
so I can't compare them to the Rubinar.

Anyway...  You might look for a plain, unconverted Rubinar which comes
in M42 screw mount (usually with a 2x converter too) and can be used
on various 35mm cameras with adapters.  These can often be had for
around $130... so you can save yourself a bunch if you don't need the
redone mount.

-Kevin


[email protected] (Thom) wrote
> I've noticed on eBay listings for a "MC MACRO f=5.6 / 500mm reflex
> (mirror) tele lens for Kiev 88" and I'm wondering if this lens is
> sharp enough to use on a 35mm (with adapter of course) and get results
> equal to the 500mm F8 mirrows made by various companies for the 35mm
> format???
>
> THOM


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: mirror lens

Because they are cheap to make mostly. Almost all of them are 3rd party
scopes. The doughnut shaped out of focus highlights can ruin a picture
unless you are trying for that effect. So you have to learn to shoot
backgrounds and foregrounds carefully. There are some good ones out there,
the Minolta AF and the Tamron manual 500/8 ones come to mind. Sigma still
makes a 600/8 I think.

Sigma used to make a giant 500/4 one in the old days. However as the focal
ratio of a reflex lens  gets faster, the larger the central obstruction is,
and the lower the contrast gets. Plus for metering purposes a reflex lens
shoots at effectively 1 F-stop slower than the lens due to this light loss.

Kent Gittings


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 
From: "saycheese9" [email protected]
Subject: Re: mirror lens

Think of a lens as a telescope.  The regular lenses you put on your
camera are refracting telescopes.  Then there is the mirror lens
which can be thought of as a Schmit/Cassegrainian type telescope.
They are basically reflecting telescopes with a whole bunch of
mirrors, one of which is smack dab in the center at the end.  That's
what that little round thing is that you see.  It can be considered
an obstruction since it blocks the light path(that's what all those
littled round circles in the unfocused highlights are).  If you were
to attach your camera directly to a Celestron or Mead 8 inch Schmit-
Cassegrain telesope, that would be basically the same thing only much
more expensive.  Refracting telescopes were and are still noted for
their much crisper images.  Schmits, for their light weight.  It
costs much more money to make a larger piece of refracting glass.
First the glass has to be perfect, abolutely free from air bubbles or
other impurities.  Then comes the grinding and polishing.  The larger
you get in aperture on refracting lenses, the more expensive and the
higher degree of difficulty it is to make one.  The huge telescopes
like the 200 incher at Palomar and other observatories are mostly
schmits with a capability of becoming strictly Newtonian reflecting
telescopes.  No one has the technology of making a 200 inch
refracting lens as of yet.

I think that mirror lenses give a softer appearance in general.
However if you are shooting birds or wildlife from a fairly close
distance, you can get very very good images.  Anyway that's why the
cost is so vastly different.  The f8 mirror lens Minolta makes is
pretty good.  You're limited to basically sunny days and faster film,
but that's the trade off.

le


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 
From: "oleglk" [email protected]
Subject: Re: mirror lens

The Russian manufacturer page is www.lzos.ru.

There is no 1000mm f8, only 1000mm f10.

And yes, 500mm f5.6 and 1000mm f10 are 1-stop slower light-wise (notice "geometrical
apperture" inthe specs). Not sure about the 500mm f8.
That's all I know. I saw a comprehensive Russian review once; can try searching
for it again
though.

Oleg.


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: mirror lens

The countries formerly known as the USSR build some pretty good glass.
Remember they shanghaied all the remaining Zeiss engineers the West didn't
get at the end of WWII. I've got some medium format glass that is a knockout
in some models. Still there is also some bad just like everywhere else.

Remember Gregori Maksutov, the father of the Maksutov mirror telescope
design, worked for LOMO the largest optical company in the world (cold war
35,000 employees, now about 7,000). I've seen clones of Zeiss binoculars
that work as good as any Zeiss has made in the modern era even.

I wouldn't count on using one of these as a macro lens. Not because they
might not focus close enough, but because the shallow DOF in close focus
magnifies the reflex out-of-focus highlights problem.

Just my thoughts about this.

Kent Gittings


From MF nikon mailing list:
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 
From: "Dale Ireland" [email protected]
Subject: RE: 500mm Reflex Lens

I had one for a while and dumped it. You can get better images with a 200 or
300 and a doubler. Not only doughnuts and no f/stop adjustment but a
terrible hotspot and low contrast washed out look to the images, the same
effect you get by covering 1/3 of the lens with your thumb, which is what
the central obstruction is. Sure you can cover this up in particular high
contrast shooting situations and with heavy cropping of the image, dodging, etc.

Even with Nikon lenses you generally get what you pay for, but this lens is
over priced. It didn't come out as a cheap alternative to the 500F/4P
because it predated the 500 f/4P.

I can't understand how people who live by the laws of optics will come up
with the most twisted arguments to ignore the drawbacks of this lens design



From MF nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
From: "Dale Ireland" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: 500mm Reflex lens

Hello

There is more than one version of the 500 reflex. Nikon slightly changed the
design, although it is still a Maksutov, for slightly better performance. I
think they reduced the central obstruction a bit. Not sure what year this
happened, maybe someone with a book can find it.

Dale


From MF nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 
From: "Dale Ireland" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: 500mm Reflex lens

Hello

Another big problem that no one has mentioned is that the reflex lens will
shoot 1 or more f/stops slower than it is rated. The lens may be 100mm wide
with a 500mm focal length making it technically f/5 BUT it has a central
obstruction blocking at least 30% of the lens so it will shoot much slower,
so you must use automatic settings until you learn just how slow your lens
really is.
The design has the one advantage of being free of some of the aberrations
found in normal lenses but the Nikon has internal lenses to shorten it's
length and flatten the field and so you lose even this advantage as they
reintroduce those aberrations.

Dale


From MF nikon mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 
From: Randy Holst [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500mm Reflex Lens

Carien Schippers wrote:
>
> I would like to hear from anyone that has experience with the 500mm Reflex
> lens.
[snip]

Hi Carien,

I have used the Reflex Nikkor 500/f8n (latest version) and will share
some observations with you.  This lens (probably the best of the Reflex
Nikkor 500's) is an OK lens, but it's intended as an alternative to the
much more expensive Nikkor 500/f4P, which is a regular refracting lens
and not a reflex (mirror) lens.  To the discerning photographer, reflex
lenses aren't capable of the excellent image quality of the refractors,
but the image quality is fairly good.  It depends on how picky you are
and how much you want to enlarge the photos.   Here are some quirks of
the 500mm Reflex:

1.  It has only one f-stop setting; f8.  Because of this, you can only
control exposure with the shutter speed.

2.  The slow f8 speed can make focusing difficult in dim light and
limits Depth of Field.

3.  This lens requires special sized filters which screw into the back
of the lens, so filter selection is limited.  A set of 4 filters are
provided with the lens when purchased new and are contained in a hidden
compartment in the lens case.

4.  Because of the way a reflex (mirror) lens works, any out-of-focus
highlights in the picture will be rendered as little donuts of light.
You can see them in the viewfinder and in the final picture.  This is a
quirk of all reflex lenses and is mostly unavoidable. (See attached
sample photos taken with the Reflex Nikkor 500/f8n.)  This problem is
particularly annoying to me as I find the rings of light unnatural and
distracting.  They don't appear in all photos; it just depends on the
subject matter.

Advantages of the 500/f8n:

1.  It's compact and lightweight for a 500mm lens.

2.  It has a rotating/locking tripod collar built into the lens.

3.  It's a relatively inexpensive lens, compared to the alternatives.

The longest lens I currently use is the manual focus Nikkor 300/f4.5
EDIF.  The older, non-IF versions of this lens are pretty good also.
Personally, I think that a good 300mm lens is a lot more useful than a
500mm mirror lens.  It's easier to hand-hold, easier to focus, it's
faster and you have full exposure control.  The image quality will also
be better - you just have to get a little closer, which automatically
increases image quality because of less atmosphere to shoot through.

Randy Holst
Boise, Idaho


from sigma lenses mailing list:
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
From: Sharaku [email protected]
Subject:  600mm sigma lens

Hello, Warwick

You can see the lens spec here.
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/600_8.htm
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/lenschart.htm

According to the latest SIGMA brochure in Japan,
Sigma 600mm Mirror lens cannot be attached to the
teleconverters.

If you buy this lens, I'd like to hear your impression.

Regards,


Sharaku
http://isweb45.infoseek.co.jp/photo/e_photo/

>
> I am contemplating purchasing one of the above lenses for wildlife
> bird photography in New Zealand(waders and shorebirds) using an Asahi
> Pentax Z1P Camera Body.
>
> Can anyone give me the physical size and weight details on this lens,
> and cannot locate them on the web.
>
> I would be most grateful, if any one has experience of this lens.
>
> Can the sigma extenders be used behind this lens ?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Warwick



from sigma lenses mailing list:
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
From: "North, Paul" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Sigma 600mm Mirror lens

Hey Warwick,

I would not buy the 600mm mirror lens for bird photos.  This lens uses
mirrors to achieve its focal lengthen, which in return will give you
degraded quality, and any sunlight that might be reflecting off of surfaces
will look like haloes.  If I were you I would get the 500mm F4.5 EX, or if
you want to save some money, get the 100-300 F4 EX and get the 1.4x TC, or
the 2x TC to achieve the 600mm! The quality of photos using the 100-300 + 2X
TC will be much better.  I will attach my web site using the 100-300 + 1.4x
sigma TC and also a lens review web page.  The Sigma 100-300 F4 EX lens beat
out all the other tele zoom lenses hands down, including the Canon lens.

http://www.pbase.com/pnorth/shore_birds

http://www.photozone.de/ 

Hope this helps
Paul....


From sigma lenses mailing list:
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sigma 600mm Mirror lens

I agree the donut bokeh of mirror lenses is really annoying. Another thing to
look at on a budget is the Sigma 400/5.6 APO Tele Macro. It can be had used for
under $300.00... But make sure it's the new version called Tele Macro and has
77mm filter rings. The previous versions with the 72mm filter rings is not a
good lens.

-Mike


From K-cams Kmount camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Well... I have used the MTO 500/8 (non macro) and
the MTO 1000/10 (non macro but focusses from about 5
meters) and both were good value for money. In fact
I consider them incredible cheap. The results are
good but remember that for 500 you must use at least
1/500th to prevent camera shake or use a tripod.

Also because it is a mirror lens you might get
little donuts in the background. Some people hate
them, I personally bought the MTO (brother of the
Rubinar) just because of it. I'm planning to write
about them on my site but I haven't found the time
for it yet allthough all the shots are done...

Personally I love the 500 and the 1000 allthough
the 1000 can be a bit cumbersome in its use.

Quality price wise.... you can't really go wrong.
Usually they come with 3 filters, red, green and UV.
Like Anya pointed out, between 60 and 120 dollars.
Which isn't much for lenses like this, but watch
the shipping costs.

L8tr...Tom
--- In K-Cams@y..., "Karl" m110zoom@y... wrote:
> Is it worth the money? Has anyone ever used it?
> Thanks
> Karl


From K-cams Kmount camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 
From: k b [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Anya,

Thanks. I found one on one of the bookmarks, that our
host has added, for $120 US new. That too much money
for me to spend on ebay. With 800+ speed flim I should
be able to hand hold it. Being heavy will help keep
the image sharp by dampenning the vibartions. How
close do you have to be before the image gets soft? If
I get it I will put it on my K1000 ,it's been beatup
and works fine. And it will go back out into the woods
to live a very hard life.

Karl


From K-cams Kmount camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Hi Karl,

My website is www.tomtiger.net  but I haven't finished
the MTO article yet, I'm still collecting info on the
history of Lzos and Matsutkov, very interesting stuff
but not all will be in the small "article"

L8tr... Tom

PS: 
Oops.... there in the photo area under the Tom Tiger album
Forgot to say that....


From K-cams Kmount camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Hi Karl,

I've uploaded two shots I made with the MTO 1000/10
which is a bit more cumbersome in use than the 500
or the Lzos 550 but you have an idea what to expect.

By the way, there are some pro's who actually use
the Rubinar or the MTO and who are very pleased with
it. Cheaper than canon.... it just hasn't got
autofocus.

L8tr... Tom



To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Reflex Mirror Lenses

Tony asked:
>Has anyone some experience and/or recommendations about
>using either the Nikkor 500mm f8 Reflex tele or the
>1000mm Reflex that they can share? The 2.8 300mm and
2.8 400mm Nikkor tele's are great lenses but they are
very expensive.  The Reflex's are much more reasonable
in price, and trade off lighter weight for fixed ,
relatively slow apertures.  I'm interested in what users
think about the optical quality of the Reflex's, and how
annoying/problematic they find the 'donut' reflection
pattern I've read about to be.


>I've an F5 an 80-200 F2.8 zoom,  as well as a 70-300mm
>zoom, but I'm feeling the need for a longer lens. The
>application I'm interested in is photographing birds and
animals, and various outdoor scenics like sunsets over
the Pacific  - that sort of thing.  I normally use 200
speed film for slides and regularly shoot 400 speed
color negative film.

Tony, I use the 500 mm f4 AF-S, but still have in my closet an old 500 mm f8
reflex Nikkor. You mentioned that you wanted to be able to photograph birds and
other animals. I primarily photograph birds, so maybe I can help.

The old Reflex Nikkor actually was pretty sharp.  It was handholdable - not like
the all glass AF-S 500 mm.  It was slow, although you mention that you use very
fast film, so that may not be a great issue. It has an advantage over the all
glass as it focuses a lot closer.


But on the negative side, the "donut" reflection can be annoying, and I found
the contrast was lower and and the color saturation lower.  It really can't be
used with teleconverters.  I know Nikon has indicated that it could be, however,
my experience using the one specified for it was very unsatisfactory.  It tended
to yeild a  center hot spot image and resolution dropped a great deal.  For
those of us in bird photography, the TCs are almost a must.  You don't use them
everytime but you use them a lot.

Should you buy a mirror?  Maybe, as long as you understand the limitations and
they seem reasonable, do it.  There is a great deal of cost difference, and I
would never try to stretch some one else's budget.  So if the all glass is not
economically feasible, you may wish to try the reflex nikkor.

Last year I loaned the 500 mm f8 reflex Nikkor to a high school student to use
on her FM-10 and she won first prize in a state school competetion on nature
photography.  Her image was a full frame red-bellied woodpecker.  Proves you
don't have to have the newest and most expensive equipment! Bottom line is buy
what you can afford and learn to use it regardless of its limitations.  Even the
500 AF-S has limitations and it cost more than 10 times my old 500 reflex.

I hope this helps and good luck. However, bear in mind that bird photography can
get addictive and expensive.  When I bought my 500 AF-S, I ended up also buying
a Gitzo 410 tripod, an Arca-Swiss ball head, RRS plates for all my lenses and
cameras, projection flash systems, special flash brackets, TC-14E and TC-20 E,
Kenko AF extension tubes, 4 wheel drive truck to get back into the bird areas, a
land lease for private photography acess, etc., etc.

Richard



From: "Gene Brown" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Reflex Mirror Lenses
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 

I have both the 500mm f8 and the 1000mm f11 and like them both. I use them on
the rare occasions I get to photograph wildlife. I can make 20x30in prints
that are every bit as good as any other Nikon lens I own. Most viewers are
surprised to learn they were not shot on medium format.

Gene



From: "May, Eugene" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] 500 mm reflex lens

Tony Maxey asked about this lens.  I've had one for a number of years, and
like it for a number of things, but not everything.  Background:  All my
experience with this lens has been with a max shutter speed of 1/1000.  (I'm
looking forward to trying it on my new F5 with really fast film and shutter
speeds.)

I'm not really adding much to the other comments I've seen about this lens;
I agree about the slight loss in contrast and the great color.  Both are
consequences of the physics operating here -- lenses with central
obstructions lose contrast because of the increased diffraction caused by
the obstruction, no matter how well made and multi-coated the surfaces may
be.  However, most of what is done to the light is done by mirrors, which do
not cause chromatic aberration as glass refracting lenses will.


The "donuts" I think are a matter of taste -- they stand out, but I don't
mind them.

I agree about the need for careful focusing and the narrow focal plane, but
what do you expect with a 500 mm lens, even when it is F/8?  I've used it a
little for sports with Tri-X or faster, and liked it OK.  Mostly I've used
it for outdoor shots, where the light is bright enough to make the F/8 less
of an issue, for "shots of opportunity", on a tripod.  I like it for this a
lot.  When it's been bright enough, and I've had some fast film loaded, I've
gotten some decent hand-held shots.  Occasionally, the close focusing made
for some neat and fun animal shots (a squirrel as Godzilla).

I think that some of the misgivings I've heard about the lens are a result
of the psychology of using a lens that "feels" like it is a much shorter
focal length than it is, so users don't use a tripod or a fast enough
shutter speed.  Heavier, larger lenses damp out some vibration and shake;
this lens needs a tripod!

Tony, your comments with your questions indicate that you understand what
you would be getting, and so won't be surprised.  I think you'll probably be
happy with one because of that, and will probably find, as I have, that you
use it more than you thought you would.  For a 500 mm lens, it is pretty
handy and I take it when I might not take a faster but much
larger/heavier/costlier lens.  My bottom line is that I've found it to be a
heck of a good price for what I got.

Gene


From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Reflecting Lenses
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 


Gregory L. Hansen [email protected] wrote 
> My brother got a 500mm reflecting lens.  It's small, and cheap.  And the
> aperture is f/8, can't change it.
>
> Is that normal?  Is there some reason reflecting lenses can't have a
> variable aperture?  Seems you'd, well, just stick an aperture in the usual
> place next to the camera body.


    As I understand it, the problem is the path that's taken. If you know
how mirror lenses work, the path does a zigzag path through the lens,
bouncing off the back mirror, then off a front one (the spot in the middle
of the front element), and on into the camera body.

    The point in this path that you would place a aperture, is after the
bounce off the back mirror. The aperture blades would actually be blocking
the path to the back mirror in the first place, intersecting the light
before it reaches the place where an aperture would be effective.

    So, you're stuck with it. The effective aperture of f8 comes from the
barrel dimensions of the lens itself.

    - Al.

--
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net


From: Ram [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Reflecting Lenses
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002

Gregory L. Hansen at [email protected] wrote 
> My brother got a 500mm reflecting lens.  It's small, and cheap.  And the
> aperture is f/8, can't change it.
>
> Is that normal?  Is there some reason reflecting lenses can't have a
> variable aperture?  Seems you'd, well, just stick an aperture in the usual
> place next to the camera body.


Catadioptric lenses, also called mirror lenses or reflective lenses (as
opposed to refractive lenses), have no diaphragm.  Therefore, the aperture
is necessarily fixed.

They rely on both lenses and mirrors, one of the mirrors being the one the
back of which you see smack in the middle on the front element.

The light travels from the object through the lens and around the back of
the front mirror, hits the back mirror and is reflected towards the front
mirror and back.   I suppose you could install a device to further close
down the aperture at the rear (not to open it, obviously), but it's a lot
easier to use a faster shutter speed, slower film, or even neutral density
filters to achieve that.
---


From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Reflecting Lenses
Date: 24 Oct 2002


[email protected] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote 
> My brother got a 500mm reflecting lens.  It's small, and cheap.  And the
> aperture is f/8, can't change it.
>
> Is that normal?  Is there some reason reflecting lenses can't have a
> variable aperture?  Seems you'd, well, just stick an aperture in the usual
> place next to the camera body.


An aperture which won't cause vignetting has to be placed as exactly
as possible in one of the two nodal points of a lens. I don't want to
go much deeper into lens theory, but the nodal point of a 'mirror
lens' is somewhere between the optical elements, and there are quite a
few of them (besides the main and the small mirror) in such a lens. So
first it would be difficult to determine the location of the nodal
point, second the aperture should be placed somewhere inside the lens.
Since the light travels forward and backward in such a lens, even
placing the aperture at the correct nodal point would cause vignetting
in at least one of the parts of light travel.

Many years ago there was a 'mirror lens' with adjustable aperture, but
it was adjustable in the range of 2 or 3 steps only.

Winfried


From: [email protected] (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Reflecting Lenses
Date: 24 Oct 2002 

> Another possibility is to mask off all but a small hole, offset to one
> side of the secondary mirror.  This might give some bizare effects, but
> could be worth a try.
>
> -Tim

Astronomers do this all the time, and it works well for astronomy.
Its often used for solar observation where a small diameter (hence
less expensive) subaperture solar filter is placed in the front. In my
Nikon 500mm f/8 the largest eccentric aperture that I can install is
about 18mm in diameter, which gives a relative aperture of about f/28.
 A bit too much for really sharp images, but the depth of field
becomes reasonable and defocused highlights are no longer donuts.  You
could make an eliptical aperture to let in a bit more light.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com



From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Reflecting Lenses
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002


"Gregory L. Hansen" [email protected] wrote 
> >> Is that normal?  Is there some reason reflecting lenses can't have a
> >> variable aperture?

The lens you are describing is more appropriately called a "mirror lens."
They are all like that.

You adjust your exposure by changing the shutter speed or, in very bright
light situations, by using a neutral density filter.

Mirror lenses are relatively compact, but they are not as versatile as a
standard-type lens.  You can get a decent 400mm or 500mm preset lens for
about $150 new, which does have an adjustable aperture ring.  I have one
that is about 25 years old, a 400mm, and the aperture adjustment is f/6.3 to
f/32.

This is one case where I would recommend a non-OEM lens, especially if you
are not planning to take the bulk of your photos with that lens.  The OEM
lenses are typically very expensive.  As a recreational photographer, I
would not want to spend top dollar for a lens that I used 5% of the time.
Of course, if you are into bird photography, or journalism, you may see
things differently.

You might try a 2x or even a 3x teleconverter on a good medium telephoto
lens, like the Pentax 135mm.  True, the teleconverter will degrade the image
quality, but I suspect that, even then, you might end up with an image at
least as good as the cheaper preset lens.  And, you can use the 145mm lens
in more photo situations.  You can also use the teleconverter on any number
of other lenses, too.  That would probably give you the most bang for the
buck.


From: "Jeffery S. Harrison" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: How to focus accurately with tele lens?
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002


Hi,

What camera were you using before? And how long have you been using the
F100? And how telephoto is your telephoto lens?

This is going to sound odd but you should probably just use the auto focus
of the camera for a while. I have both manual and auto focus cameras and at
the time I got my first auto focus body I felt that I had a lot of trouble
focusing my camera manually. I just seemed to take way too long to get it in
focus. Shortly before getting (it was a gift, I wasn't sure I wanted an auto
focus camera) my first auto focus body I read an editorial in some photo
magazine comparing auto focus and manual focus and discussing the merits of
both. The most surprising thing I read in that editorial was that he felt
that using the auto focus camera had improved his ability to focus manually.
After about a year and a half of using my F5 almost exclusively I went out
and played with my F3. Much to my surprise I realized that I was have much
less difficulty focusing the camera than I had before using the F5. In the
editorial he had speculated that by using the auto focus camera for an
extended period of time he felt that the camera had taught his eye what "in
focus" looked like and now I agree. I found I could focus faster in part
because "in focus" just looked like it was in focus and I was relying much
less on the split screen and more on the ground glass for focusing (my
favorite screen for the F3 now doesn't even have a split image on it) while
at the same time I'm much more confident in my ability to actually judge
when it is in focus -- the overall effect is faster, more accurate focusing.
So if you just rely on the auto focus for a while you may find that your
difficulties go away.

Jeffery S. Harrison


From K-cameras mailing list:
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Hi Karl,

Sure,  http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/index.htm
has them new in the box for about 160 dollars

(direct link
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/rubinar500telelens.htm )

price is good, oddly enough I never hear from them allthough
I've sent several people their way.  Pherhaps there busy.
I'm thinking about their 4.5/300 myself, but I'm a bit
out of cash at the moment.

They come in M42 but they have a lot of adapters to
choose from, otherwise any good camera store can get
you a M42 to Kmount convertor.

Funny enough I'm getting the Kmount adapter allthough
I haven't got a Kmount camera ;-) (still hunting for
a good 212 Zenit)

L8tr... Tom


From K-cameras mailing list:
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 
From: "Misiek" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Are you sure you want to get a Mirror lens? There are some disadvantages with
mirror lenses: Although the biggest advantage is the PRICE

Main Ones are :

-Bad overall sharpness (Usually depends on the conditions)
- You cannot change aperture
- and of course the "donuts" (To overcome this have an even background and and
close focus)
- Contrasts are worse than on normal lenses

Martin
...


From K-cameras mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:07:13 -0800
   From: Kevin Kalsbeek 
Subject: Rubinar 5.6/500 & 4.5/300

Hi Tom, and all,

I did extensive testing some years ago for an article in the now defunct Kiev
Report. All of the mirror lenses currently in production are
VERY sharp, but as you say it can be tough getting it.. The best way to go is
use a camera body that will accept a plain ground glass
focusing screen, and an eyepiece magnifier is also most useful for critical
focus, which is the key. I keep an old Nikon FM2 body set up
this way for use with the 'cat' lenses along with an M-42 adapter. Also, the
Manfrotto telephoto lens support is MOST helpful, allowing the
assembly to be balanced on the tripod head, and supports both camera and lens.
Sold here in the US as Bogen/Manfrotto #3420.
The 4.5/300 Rubinar is a good lens, but it is really too fast. I prefer the f8
lenses. In poor weather, the 4.5 would be ok, otherwise you
need to have a camera with some very fast shutter speeds or use a very slow
film. The 300mm is also the easiest to handhold.
The only really bad thing about the 5.6/500 is the mechanics. The optics are
fine, and is a favorite of mine, though the opld MTO 500/8's a
fine also from recent tests.
Have fun,
Kevin

> I bought mine just for the donut effect, because of the
> price ;-)
>
> I've got two MTO 10/1000 shots up under the photosection
> under the Tom Tiger album. (a swan and some roses)
>
> But I must agree on sharpness, it is not easy getting
> them sharp and there are times I was thinking, I want
> them to be a bit sharper, but I love the 500mm version
> (I've got the Old MTO from the 50/60 ties) which is
> reasonably sharp at a fixed 8.5. It is a very cool
> lens to use. I've never tried the 5.6/500 or the 4.5/300
> though I would like to try the last one.
>
> But my 500 and 1000 are good performers.
>
> L8tr... Tom



From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: M3 vs. SLR focusing teles

This is not designed to be a troll on this subject, but I think that I
understand why Visoflex owners like their plain ground-glasses so much.
I recently picked up a Nikon F3HP and MD-4 with an E screen (no fresnel,
no focusing aids, just a grid) for use with fast teles.

I was really blown away at how easy it is to focus a long lens on a
really finely-ground GG.  Subjectively, at least on that body, the
picture with that screen is brighter and clearer than an M3, which is
pretty close IMO to the best M body for teles.  It makes me curious
about the Visos and how bright they are.  Given their cult, I would have
to imagine pretty bright.  Whether focusing accuracy is the same is an
open question - the M3's "right-or-wrong" focusing system is easier from
a mechanistic standpoint.  I suspect that if you have to shoot in a
clutch (and I am still exploring this), a long-base rangefinder is
faster and/or more accurate.

Maybe the bigger problem with more modern SLRs is that manufacturers
have junked up the viewing area with fresnel brighteners, microprisms,
and other things that introduce finder distortion and prevent you from
focusing on anything other than the center of the VF pictures.  An E
screen is totally flat, and you can do anything you want with the
focus - center, left, right, corner.  And hitting the DOF lever does not
make the finder impossibly dark.  As for the vibration, I also noted
that an F3 is a lot closer call than a lot of cameras I have used.  Not
an M3  (or even Hexar RF for that matter) by any means, but even at 5
fps, you hear it more than you feel it.

Of course, there's no question that M lenses are compact and still
fantastic and that an M3 makes an F3 with MD-4 sound like an M60 machine
gun.  Of course, that 6 pound weight with a 105/1.8 does a pretty good
job of sucking up the minimal force from mirror flip!  But in the end,
Leica definitely wins on pocketability, even with the MR-4.

In sum, I am not going to run and sell my M3, but this was an
interesting and different perspective for me.



[Ed. note: caveat emptor, but for pricing info on long telephotos etc.]
from K-camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 
From: Alexander Fedyachkin [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: MC Rubinar - K5.6/500 Macro

Hello Anya,

Thursday, October 31, 2002, you wrote:

o>    often people ask for special things or new cameras, I can
o> sometimes find them but I can never say when it will be, it depend on
o> what I find each weekend, new things like Zenits I have some in USA,
o> 122 and 212K and photosnipers, Kiev cameras I can get every two
o> weekes new from factory.

Can I make small advertising in this case ;)
We sell new Zenit cameras and lenses (Rubinar, Zenitar, Mir, etc.)
Now we start Christmas Sale action on our site and offer many of
lenses with 10-15% discount. For example:

"Fish Eye" Zenitar-K - $109
Rubinar-K 10/1000    - $159
Rubinar 4.5/300      - $89  (M42 mount)
Rubinar 5.6/500      - $139 (M42 mount)
MTO-11CA 10/1000     - $139 (M42 mount)
Mir-20M 20mm f/3.5   - $109 (M42 mount)
...
also price for Zenit 212K decreased to $72

To my regret now we haven't original adapter from Pentax for mounting
M42 lenses to K-bayonet :(  We have only K-adapters from KMZ (for
mounting to the Zenit-K cameras) and can add it to the M42 lenses as a
gift.

So ... welcome during November and make a Christmas present for
yourself (we send from Russia)

P.S. Anya, can we co-operate ? We want to add Kiev cameras to our
range of products

--
Best regards,
 Alexander Fedyachkin
 RuGift Inc. www.RuGift.com - New Zenit cameras, lenses and other optics
 [email protected]


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 
From: "haefr2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mirror Delay on Maxxum 7

--- In Minolta@y..., "ninelives_cat" ninelives@c... wrote:
> My TC is a cheapskate one, the brand is TelePlus. I am also looking
> for a better one, either Kenko or Minolta.

"TelePlus" IS what Kenko calls their TCs.  They have two ranges:  The
basic TelePlus "SHQ" series for lenses slower than f:2.8, and their
TelePlus "Pro-300" series for lenses faster than f:2.8 and
recommended for prime lens focal lengths exceeding 90-100mm.  If your
cheapskate TC doesn't say "Pro-300", it's the basic version.



Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Could He Be Back??
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Kevin Kalsbeek at [email protected] wrote:

> Tom,
> I have an 8/500 Rubinar that is a fine performer. Beats out an 8/500
> Vivitar which isn't a bad lens.
> Kevin


I have one, too.  It beats out every other 500 mirror I have compared it to.
Mine cost $ 100 new from the factory.

Bob


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 
From: "alsuflair" [email protected]
Subject: "Little lens, Big step"

Hello
        Sometime ago there was a discussion on this group about
the merits of the reflex lenses. There is a new article on the
series "Nikkor -- The Thousand and One Nights" about the 500 f/8
lens at

        http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n13_e.htm

Regards

Pedro


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 
From: RussianCamera.net [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hartblei Mirror Lens

Kiev, Ukraine [30.01.2003]

Hello, Edward Lukacs!

you wrote:

ELecn> Thanks for any infornmation you might be able to supply.

Only  one  catadioptric lens was produced for medium format in exUSSR.
It's  name  -  ZM-3B  600mm 8.0/600 and made in ARSENAL Factory (Kiev,
Ukraine)  for  special  purposes.  Produced  in  very  little quantity
(150-300 pieces) in 1974.

---
Best Regards,
Gevorg Vartanyan,
www.araxfoto.com - Medium format cameras, lenses, accessories



From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $100k lenses etc. ;-) Re: MIRROR LENS Special problems
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003

Dig here for cheap 1000mm lenses:
http://www.sro-optics.com/

Regards,

Marv


J Stafford wrote:
>  [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>>[...] I'd be interested in any large achromats (4"+) with focal lengths
>>in the 1000mm + range, if anybody runs across a surplus source for these
>
> You almost certainly know, but just in case: www.surplusshed.com
> That's where I got this alleged $70,000 lens years (years!) ago.




From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $100k lenses etc. ;-) Re: MIRROR LENS Special problems
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003


It seems as though the supply of 6" Metrogons (aka aerial camera lenses)
is finally drying up. I would imagine that the next mother lode for long
lenses would be the astrophoto sites. I have somewhere, the construction
document for making a long lens using a pair of copy machine lenses and
a length of 3" PVC plumbing pipe. Came from an astro website.

Regards,

Marv

Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Thanks John & Marv for the tips; SRO's offerings look interesting indeed
> ;-) the $400 6" 1000mm f/6.6 looks esp. interesting for future projects
> ;-) about 1% of the cost of the zeiss mirotar ;-) you can't beat that ;-)
>
> I've wanted to try the "big bertha" telephotos since seeing Feininger's
> telephoto shots of New York City with a view camera and super telephoto
> lens he had to homebrew. Only I'd be happy with a MF coverage unit ;-)
>
> grins bobm


From: [email protected] (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $100k lenses etc. ;-) Re: MIRROR LENS Special problems
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003


Bob M and Marv S - and others... Hasselblad's 500mm Tele Tessar really
does go "cheap" compared to their list price. I've seen them go for $600,
with $800 pretty much top for a reasonable (Not E-Bay) deal. But that's
still a lot of money.

I have adapted a couple aerial lenses to my previous Pentax 6x7 and was
generally quite disappointed in how soft they were. Such speaks to the
affordability of the genre, not late model lenses. I'd like to see some
results of late lenses.

A little OT, but I watched an IMAX DVD last night. It's all 70mm work, and
they appear to have great aspirations so I wondered what kind of lenses
they use. I'll surf a bit.



From: "D. Shea" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Reflex Mirror Lenses
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 

Tony,
I use the 300mm f/2.8, the 500mm f/8 and the 1000mm f/11; coincidentally I
had the three lenses out on a shoot last week. With careful setup (a sturdy
tripod -- I use a big Linhof or a Sachtler with these lenses, along with a
sturdy aluminum beam that connects between the lens and camera) and careful
focus the 1000mm and the 500mm are both very sharp. Color rendition is also
excellent. The "doughnuts" can be a problem shooting into the sun, but can
also be used for effect in that manner. The 300mm f/2.8 is great, too, but
that is pretty widely known. My recommendation would be to carefully
consider how you will use the lens and make your decision accordingly. The
mirror reflexes have their limitations (set aperture, no filter drawer) but
I'm pleased with the ones that I have. I use the 300 more for sports (auto
and boat races). Good luck with your decision.

Best regards,

Doug
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 
From: Jim Williams [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] long lens question


 Terrance Young wrote:

> Wow, this is cool stuff to learn!
>
> I thought telephoto simply meant long lens (in my mind beyond 85mm
> with 75mm occupying the borderlands).
> I have a couple of questions. What specifically is the design
> (technical difference?) between a long 'normal' lens and a telephoto
> lens. Something to do with lens elements and groupings?

A 'telephoto' lens (as opposed to a regular "long-focus" lens) is one
designed so that the physical extension it requires is shorter than its
focal length; it's done by using extra negative elements in the optical
design (which is why purist lens designers traditionally have avoided
this type of construction unless absolutely necessary, since it's
always better to use fewer pieces of glass if possible.)

The difference in size isn't very significant when you're talking about
90mm or 135mm lenses -- but when you think about something 500mm or
longer, the size of a conventional long-focus lens gets rather
significant.

For example, it's possible to make a very-good-performing 35mm camera
lens of ultra-long focal length by using a very simple optical type of
optical construction consisting of two cemented elements (sometimes
called a 'telescope objective' as that was its original use); the 400mm
f/6.8 Leitz Telyt was one example. The drawback to this
telescope-objective design is that the lens elements have to be mounted
in a tube equal to the focal length of the lens -- for a 400mm, that's
about 15 inches! Using a telephoto design instead makes the lens
heavier and more complex, but reducing the overall length makes it much
handier.

Although it strays from our RF emphasis, the other place where
telephoto construction is important is in designing long-focus lenses
for view cameras. A "long" lens for a 4x5 camera might have a focal
length of 36 inches, which is a real problem for a non-telephoto design
-- not only do you need to get three feet of bellows between the front
and rear standards, you also have to keep the bellows from sagging into
the light path. A true telephoto design lets you get the same image
size with less bellows extension.



From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 35mm mirror on MF? Re: Questions about old Lenco 500mm F8 mirror
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003


Leonard Flanagan wrote/posted a short article on the use of an MTO
1,000mm Matsukov lens on his Kiev 60. He had to fabricate an adapter no
more than 14mm thick. The MTO usually sells for (new) in the $125 - $150
range.  I tried the same trick on adapting a Rubinar 300mm Matsukov for
my Mamiya 645, but I could not get the adapter thin enough without some
very hairy machining.  The Rubinar was $60 on eBay.  The Russian mirror
lenses are very nice, very affordable.

Regards,

Marv

Robert Monaghan wrote:
> followup re: use of mirrors on MF; other than some of the MTO russian
> lenses, I don't know of any mirrors for 35mm that will cover MF, due to
> baffling and design issues. The MF mirrors are biggies for a reason.
> Even worse, many mirror telescopes won't deliver much beyond 35mm camera
> sized imagery, and only a few refractors natively cover a larger MF sized
> area too, at least in the sub-$1,000 range AFAIk...
>
> on the other hand, lots of long focus (not telephoto compressed designs)
> lenses for 35mm will cover 6x6cm, esp. beyond 300mm range. examples
> include 400mm and 500mm T-mount lenses (see sam sherman's notes on
> converting these to 6x6cm focal plane camera use bronica s2a at
> http://medfmt.8k.com/bronica.html links).
>
> this is fairly good news, if you have a focal plane camera, IMHO. the
> 500mm f/8 lens weighs about 1 to 1 1/2 pounds with an adapter, it i
> light. the handheld aspect of 500mm lenses is overblown; with most films
> you will want to use a tripod, and then, the benefits of smaller size are
> not so great. Moreover, the 500mm f/8 glass lenses unscrew to pack
> smaller, so that isn't the issue it might appear (see bronhb.html on 500mm
> f/8 unscrewed...).
>
> this is one of the big advantages of focal plane cameras in MF - ease of
> adapting longer telephoto and other optics (e.g. closeup lenses..)...
>
> bobm


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 
From: "Edward Lukacs [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hartblie Mirror

--- In [email protected], "Olivier Auverlau" firefly@u... wrote:
> send us a picture of theses lens please !!!!
>
> olivier (2400mm )

Olivier,

There are many surplus optical houses, and some general surplus houses
also, who have interesting lenses.  They are well worth wasting a
little time on.  You can never tell what will show up!

Here is the one that I was quoting, but I mad an error working from
memory. They have 24 inch f/6 and 48 inch f6.3 lenses.  It was the
latter that I was referring to in error.  The lens cell weighs 51lb,
and the lens cone weighs 180 lb!
It ought to have a hell of a centreal "sweet spot", though, since it
was originally designed to cover 9x18 inches! (228x457 mm)

The URL for this stuff is below:

http://www.aaaim.com/cgi-local/shop991/shop.pl/SID=733270600685/page=OPTS.htm#OL
2101

The site'smain URL is:

http://www.aaaim.com/CandH/index.htm

While you're at it, you might like to have a "Noctilux" for your
Kiev88!  They have some 114mm T/1.0 (probably f/0.9) Projection
TV lenses that are probably sharp enough for a fast night lens,
and only 39 bucks.  Watch it, though, because some projection TV
lenses are designed to have their a rear lens element almost touch the
projection CRT's face.'

Have fun, and don't blame me when you get a hernia trying to lift
whatever you build!

Best regards,
Ed Lukacs LRPS


From: Craig Schroeder [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Spiratone 400/6.3
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 

[email protected] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>I found a Spiratone 400mm f/6.3 lens on eBay.
>I've never even heard of Spiratone, does anyone know anything about that lens?

I had one back in the 1970's. Recently I was projecting some old
slides from a Green Bay Packer/Oakland Raider game taken from up in
the stands. I had forgotten what a decent optic that old cheapy
was.... I even spotted a wedding ring on one of the players and I was
at least 25 rows up. Got some good shots of John Madden and Bart
Starr (coaching in the most incredible plaid pants and white shoes).
These were simple pre-sets with 2 elements. Even the expensive oem
stuff were simple formulas in the standard long telephotos back then.
They were big and clumsy and prone to flare. They needed the big lens
hood that was available for them.


From: "Irving Weisberger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Spiratone 400/6.3
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003
i have owned 2 and still have one. they are 4 element lenses . i took out
the back two of one lens to clean. if you can get an average quality one
that does not have any haze, much dust, or damage to the front elements, or
fungus in it and no mechanical damage, you will have a lens that is capable
of taking very sharp photos . very fast shutter speeds or a tripod is a
necessity.


From: "William Schneider" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Spiratone 400/6.3
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 
I own a Minolta-mount Asanuma 400/6.3 that is a step-up mechanically from
the Spiratone 400. The Asanuma (which became Tokina, I believe) had an auto
aperture like most modern manual lenses. The less expensive Spiratone, which
I considered also when I bought mine, has a pre-set aperture ring. You view
stopped down unless you take advantage of the secondary aperture limit ring.
I went for the faster auto aperture feature of the Asanuma.

I was always impressed with the optics of my 400mm, which sound very much
like the Spiratone. Keep in mind that a stout tripod is necessary for lenses
this long or you will be disappointed with sharpness problems due to camera
shake.

I now use Nikon gear, and I wonder if anyone has any experience switching
mounts from Minolta to Nikon for these kinds of lenses? I'd love to use this
one again for a little more reach than my 300mm Nikon.


From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Spiratone 400/6.3
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 

"Tony Spadaro" [email protected] wrote:
>Spiratone was a wonderful company that sold a lot of really fun photo
>novelties. They have been gone for about 20 years. The 400 f6.3 is a close
>relative to the still available Korean 500 f8 (commonly called The baseball
>bat) which is sold under "house" brand names. I think they even shared a lot
>of parts. It's not a great lens, and the 500 is about 100 dollars today, so
>be aware of that when checking for the price.
> I could be wrong --- they might have produced a 400 mirror, and it could
>be one of those instead. I remember a 300 a 500 and a 1000 mirror lens from
>them but not a 400.

I've had the 400mm f6.3, the 400mm f6.9 and the 500mm f8.
The first two were surprisingly good, but I did not like
the 500 (visible color-fringing, and edges that were not
crisp). All were non-mirrors...

David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Aerial Lenses

Just a heads up for those who do not get the C & H catalog - they have
on offer several aerial lenses perfect for lens bashing (if you are into
that sort of thing).

#OL8660 - f/2.8 6" with between the lens iris (400hz servo motor
driven), multi-coated (all optical elements) $125.00

#OL2056 Bausch & Lomb Type C-3; f/4.0 coverage is 9" x 9" - lens is in
mounting cone, 11" in diameter by 13" high. $100.00

#OL2053 - Bell & Howell f/8.0 36" telephoto, coated, mounted with iris
and shutter. This is the hernia special - weighs 25 pounds $250.00

Just some ideas - contact them at http://www.candhsales.com

Regards,

Marv


Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:14:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin Greggain 
Subject: Re: Samyang 650-1300/8

I tried out one of those lenses.. it's super slow (min
F8 without anything on the glass).. I found all the
photos I took were soft even though I focused to the
best of my ability.

I think this sells for upwards of 289.00 or so.. but
I'm not very convinced is a great lens.. If you are
looking for good telephoto abilities, and are not as
concerned about the optics and sharpness, it probably
be OK..

I personally would look at something like the 50-500
Sigma which is a little better in optic quality (but
only achieves 500mm).. Worst case, you could add a 2x
teleconverter, but you will drop about 2 stops, and of
course once again, soften the image.


--- kelvin [email protected] wrote:
> hi,
>
> I see these advertised a lot. Does anyone have
> experience with them?
>
http://www.phoenixcorp.com/Lenses/Manual_Focus_Lenses/SY_650-1300mm/sy_650-1300mm.html



From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 
From: ARAX [email protected]
Subject: ZM-3B 8.0/600 long-focus

Kiev, Ukraine [27.03.200315:00:29]

Hello!

ZM-3B 8.0/600 long-focus RARE lens was listed on eBay from starting $499 with NO RESERVE!!!
Address: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2919982411

---
Sincerely
Gevorg Vartanyan,
http://araxfoto.com/



Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003
To: [email protected]
From: Colin & Marie Povey [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Stacked TC's

Bob,

What I use for baseball is:

400mm F/3.5
Nikon TC-14 ( the one that fits the 80-200 AF-S)
Nikon TC-16 (hard to find)

This is 896 mm. I have done extensive testing with my arrangement,
and have found acceptable to good sharpness with the lens set from
F/4 to f/5.6 only. Any other f-stops give poor results.

By the way, the TC's only fit one way.

Put this on a DX1. with it's 1.5X magnification, and you get a 1344mm
f/8.5-12 lens. Yes, it'a a little hard to focus, but since the TC-16
provides a LIMITED range AF ability to non-AF lenses, if I get the
lens in approximate focus, the Nikon F5 AF does the rest.

Yes, it actually works, I have the setup described above, and have
shot many rolls of film with it.

Colin

Stacked TCs? WOW, that must be dark! Nikon doesn't guarantee autofocus
operation below f/5.6.

The obvious response is the 600 MM f/4. It is an expensive lens. At B&H the
US version is $9,000, or $7,400 for the gray market import lens.

If this is in your budget, great. If not, consider the same lens in a manual
focus version. For birds, you are going to be at near infinity most of the
time anyway. I find I end up overriding the AF most of the time anyway,
though I don't shoot birds much, and only large ones at that -- Bald Eagles
mostly.

[email protected] writes:

> I own a Nikon DX1 which I use with a 1.4x and 2x converter with
> an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens for photographing birds. The autofocus
> doesn't work, but I assume that is intended. Is that correct? I'm
> looking for an AF lens that will equal the 900mm equivalent I now
> have. What should I consider? What will I have to pay?
>
> Bob Schwartzbauer


From manual nikon mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 
From: "Kevin & Elisa" [email protected]
Subject: Was: Cosina MF zoom 100-500mm, Now Rental Rates

Wow, Markus, 90 Euros a day for a long lens is a lot of money! I've
never rented, but in the San Francisco area, the following daily
rates are available:

AF 300mm �2.8 EDIF $45.00
AF 300mm �4 EDIF $25.00
AF 400mm �2.8 D EDIF.1 $80.00
MF 400mm �3.5 EDIF $50.00
MF 600mm �4.0 EDIF $80.00
MF Vivitar 800 mm F8 T-Mount $20
MF Sigma 600 mm (Nikon) $20

Seems, generally, that shops charge about 2% or less of the retail
price for daily rates, at least in California, and some shops have
weekly rates that are 3 or 4 times the daily rates. Keep in mind,
though, that these shops cater to professionals who need a particular
lens or studio equipment for a limited time, so the stores can count
on spreading their investment costs over a period of time and many
pro rentals. Maybe your shop is consumer-oriented, and has to expect
to recoup its investment over a smaller number of rentals.

Surely (even in a small town like Paris) there are pro shops which
might have better rental rates. Check them out. Or, you could try
to find a dealer with a used lens of the type you want, and offer him
5% of his asking price for a week's rental. It would be money in his
pocket, rather than collecting dust on his shelf, and if someone
wanted to buy it while you're renting, he could tell them he's got
one "coming in next week."

Good luck, and let us know how it turns out (and don't drop the lens).

Kevin


--- In [email protected], Markus Drumm mdrumm@b... wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience (good or bad) with this lens? I know
> that one gets what one pays for, but the price of this lens brand new is
> lower than the renting cost for a super-tele Nikkor for an extended
> weekend here in Paris.
> BTW, does anyone know a source for renting long telephotos for
> occasional birding in Paris or northern Germany? The only dealer I found
> charges 90 Eur/day for everything longer than 300mm, which in my opinion
> is far too expensive.
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Markus


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Long tele lenses

The only experience I have with long, non-mirror lenses is my Sigma 500mm APO
f7.2. It's pretty close to f8, but it is quite a performer. I don't mind
the slow speed too much, since I normally will only use this lens with a
tripod or with fast film. It has it's drawbacks. It is basically an
auto-focus lens with a manual mount, so the focusing is not what you are used
to with a manual lens. The focus ring moves with the slightest touch and
just a little movement changes the distance a lot. Plus the focus ring is in
the reverse direction of the Rokkors, so focusing is awkward. It was only
made for a short period of time and designed for the market that wants a
sharp, long tele, but doesn't want to hock the family car to pay for it. It
didn't sell well, for some reason.

There are plenty of other, long teles that you can look at, but most are not
made anymore, just like my 500mm f7.2. The older ones are the hardest to
find like the Vivitar and Tokina 600mm and 800mm f8. For super-performance
and large apertures, there are the Rokkor 400mm f5.6 APO and Sigma 400mm
f5.6, both APO and non-APO. Sigma made a 500mm f4.5 APO and 1000mm f8.0 APO,
and there is the Rokkor 600mm f6.3 APO. Most of these are VERY expensive. 

There are also lots of tele zooms that you might be interested in from the
Rokkor 100-500mm f8.0, both APO and non-APO. Sigma made a 100-500mm f5.6/8
APO zoom, and a humungous 350-1200mm f11 APO zoom. Tamron had a 200-500mm
f6.9 zoom and Vivitar a 100-500mm f5.6/8. There are a few others as well. 
Keep in mind that most of these are very close to f8.0, and just to add one
f-stop quardruples the price.

I'd plan on an APO, LD or SD lens which is expensive, but decide on the focal
length first.


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 
From: "wsrphoto" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Long tele lenses

--- In [email protected], "Bryan Lundquist"
bryanlundquist@p... wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with any lenses longer than 300mm?

What do you want the lens for? And what focal lengths are you
interested in, 400 to 600mm, longer? Are you interested in zooms
and/or fast telephotos? 

I current own a Minolta RF 800mm f8 lens, and have owned a 1600mm f11
lens, and they're an excellent lenses, but really too long for most
uses. I've owned a Tokina 150-500mm f5.6 and was quite impressed with
it. The problem with slower (f5.6 to f8) long(er) telephoto lenses is
that range of practical use in low light conditions, either before
sunrise or after sunset, on darker winterdays, overcast days, etc.,
it's just often too hard to see.

Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all makes longer, faster telephotos for
Minolta MC/MD mount, such as 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4, 500/600mm
f5.6?, along with "matched" 1.4x and 2x TC's. Sigma and Tokina are
dedicated mounts where Tamron's is an Adaptall II mount, which makes
them easier to find. All in APO glass are excellent lenses. It's
really more a personal choice than any is significantly better.

I personally went to a Tamron 300mm f2.8 lens with both TC to get a
420mm f4 and 600mm f5.6 lens, and haven't regretted it. The shorter
focal length is far more useful and the TC's make the lens versatile.
The 400mm f4 version is equally good and usually only slightly more
expensive, which would give you the 800mm f8 lens.

I found the Tamron in a local pro shop's used lens case. You can find
this lens from just the lens, mine and I added a soft lens case, to
complete with hard and soft case and all. I've added the complete
drop-in filter set, still available new from Tamron, along with used
112mm normal and UV filters. There's even a 112mm polarizing filter
available.

Good luck with your search. Let us know what lenses you're looking at
to, hopefully, provide more information.

--Scott--


From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 
From: "tpeach.geo" [email protected]
Subject: Re:Cosina 100-500mm vs. rental vs. reflex Nikkor

--- In [email protected], Markus Drumm mdrumm@b... wrote:
...
> On the other hand, Ward raised a question I asked myself already. I want
> to get into birding, but I don't really know if I want to invest all the
> money into a decent Nikkor outfit. Though this is not a birding list,
> perhaps anyone could advise me. A (used) reflex Nikkor is well in my
> financial range but has some drawbacks. The same holds true for the
> Cosina zoom with probably even more drawbacks. Renting telephotos is
> good, but not very cheap, doesn't relief NAS and inhibits spontaneous
> excursions. to further complicate things, there seems to be a tendency
> among birdwatchers to use the scopes they've already got along with
> digital cameras.

Len Shepherd had some nice things to say about the Sigma 170-500
recently on our 'sister list', NikonAF:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonAF/message/1998

B&H sells that lens for $610; I don't know if that's within your means
or if you can get it for that price in your country. Might be worth a
look.

-Todd
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
[email protected]
http://www.thepeaches.com/


From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: OT Russian lenses

you wrote:
>After digging around a bit on the web I have found that the 180mm
>f2.8 is a Jupiter 6 and the 1000mm f10 is an older MTO, allegedly
>better than current versions. They are meant for an SLR (39mm thread)
>any ideas for a cheap SLR to play with?

Well, virtually all SLR's have different specifications for the distance
between lens flange to film plane, so there's no simple answer to the
question without knowing what camera the lens was originally intended
for. However, assuming it was designed for a Visoflex housing (most
likely), the only practical solution I know of (short of a Visoflex housing
on a Leica) would be to use an adapter to mount a Visoflex-compatible lens
on a "foreign" SLR body. There are such things, and they will allow
infinity focus in most cases, but "cheap" is the difficult part. Stephen
Gandy sells them for about $175 for Leica M-Mount, then you'd need a Leica
screw to M mount adapter, too. You would also need a bellows if the lens
didn't have a helicoid for focusing. Here's a link:
http://www.cameraquest.com/viso5.htm - Have a look there at the
Summicron 90mm/f2.0 lens head on an FE2. Mmmmm.

Stephen has some other adapter ideas for Visoflex lenses here:
http://www.cameraquest.com/viso4.htm

Here's another page, specifically on the Visoflex and Visoflex compatible
housings: http://elshaw.tripod.com/Visoflex/Visoflex.html, including
several which directly handle 39mm screw mount lenses, without the need of
a screw to M mount adapter.

- Rick Housh -


From manual Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 
From: "peninhal" [email protected]
Subject: :Cosina 100-500mm vs. rental vs. reflex Nikkor

mdrumm,
It depends on whether you have $ and want top of line pics for
publishing or just 8" X 10" prints for your own enjoyment. I have a
80-400VR-AFD lens that takes cystal clear bird shots, BUT I also have a
Vivitar 400mm f5.6 from Ebay for $80 that takes really decent shots. Of
course with the Vivitar I need to haul around a Bogen tripod and use proper
technique to get those decent results. I've used a 500mm reflex and not
been totally happy with the results. If you'd like to see some taken last
week with the Vivitar, of newborn Canadian geese chicks, let me know.

H*



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rubinar 500/5.6
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

Fernando wrote:

> Hello,
> in the helpless strive to find a cheap telephoto lens for my Pentax
> 645, I've seen guys on eBay selling those mirror lenses (Rubinar
> 500/5.6 Makro) for about $180.

I got the f8 version for my P6. First, think about the DOF at f5.6 and given
mirror lenses don't have a diaphram it's what you're stuck with. The f5.6
is twice as heavy and the f8 works pretty good. I got mine (MC f8 500) new
from DVD technic for $125, came with ND and orange filters and a nice case.
For the few times I'll need a lens this long, it looks like a good
solution.
--
Stacey


From kiev88 mailing list
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 
From: -=AraxFoto=- [email protected]
Subject: MC ARAX 5.6/500 catadioptric macro lens

Kiev, Ukraine 
NEWS FROM ARAX
Hello!

I hope you had great wekkend.

I would like to present new MC ARAX 5.6/500 catadioptric macro lens
for medium format cameras with P-six mount for $259

http://araxfoto.com/lenses/arax-500/

Perfect multicoated catadioptric macro lens produced for ARAX in
Russia (Lytkarino). Has multi-layer anti-reflecting coating on optical
surfaces.

ATTENTION! It is not a Rubinar, it cover full 6x6 frame!

They are ideal for photographic hunting, for taking pictures of
distant objects, inaccessible places on the landscape, architectural
details and sportive competitions. You can use it for black-and-white
and colour photographs. It has a macro-limit, the minimal distance is
2,2 m. Tripod mounting special ring makes it possible to arrange the
frames by turning the lens with the camera.

This price is for brand new, factory sealed, newer used lens. Comes
with 3 light filters: Neutral-4x, Orange-4x, Ultra Violet-1.4x; front
metallic and rear plastic cap; special ARAX protective bag with strap,
metallic hood.

---
Sincerely
Gevorg Vartanyan,
http://araxfoto.com/

You can unsubscribe from ARAX Mailing List anytime here http://araxfoto.com/news/
� www.AraxFoto.com All rights reserved



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: The most expensive photo item I have ever seen
To: Russian Camera Users [email protected]


Marc James Small wrote:
> The 1000mm Mirotar is still available at around $US 125,000 and the 500mm
> at around $US 75,000. They don't sell all that many but, man, selling one
> makes a salesman's day!

Have they skyrocketed in price again? Damn. Just when I was saving up
for a matched set!!!

Outside of the samples Kyocera USA keeps for trade shows and occasional
loan to photographers, the only ones I've encountered belonged to
National Geographic (adapted for Nikon). Mead Kibbey used to have one
of each, but I think he donated them with the rest of his collection. 
He once shot a newspaper page at some amazing distance with the 1000
and you could read every word in the print he made.

Bob


[Ed. note: some good reminders about benefits of digital 35mm DSLRs used
with smaller sensors and telephotos...]
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hybrid use query about equipment purchase
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 

"Bob Monaghan" [email protected] wrote:
> I also recommend the "mix and match" approach, using 35mm for what it does
> well, e.g., ultrawides, long telephotos, macro zooms, and using MF for the
> more common portraiture and general scenic etc. shots which are within the
> abilities of a fixed lens kit (TLR..) and which can provide the ease of
> enlarging of MF for many photo situations.

Yes. One thing here, though, is that the 6MP dSLRs, with their "crop
factor", mean that telephoto work is a lot easier than it is with MF. MF
quality is still way ahead of digital, of course, but if 6MP digital is good
enough, the difference in formats means that your lenses are about 2.5 times
longer. Also, most 6MP digital cameras are very good at ISO 400 (better than
35mm film, IMHO), and thus the advantage is multiplied even further. So a
Canon 300D with the 70-200/4 is a US$2000 or so camera that you'd need a
500mm lens in medium format to equal.

And if you've got the tripod and the money, Canon makes a 200/1.8. If you
don't need the zoom, the 200/2.8 is about the same price as the f/4 zoom.
These are all the same FOV as 500mm in 645, but with 2.5 times the DOF,
which is very much appreciated in telephoto work.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




End of Page