|
|
Post by byuphoto on Jun 25, 2006 15:39:58 GMT -5
Just got this from a state govt. auction Canon 400 f2.8L FD mount  I now have 100 f2.8 200 f2.8 300 f2.8 400 f2.8 500 f4.5 |
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 25, 2006 15:54:48 GMT -5
Aha,
I could tell by your signature that you're one of those unobtrusive photographers Rick !!
Regards - John
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 25, 2006 16:56:59 GMT -5
OOH, OOH, I love it Rick. I can feel myself breaking out in hot and cold flushes just looking at the picture!
A fellow collector not far from me has one, but his isn't white it's a neutral grey, and I don't remember it having a handle. I think it's got a cradle or something similar underneath for attaching to a tripod.
About a year ago he wrote a 300mm lens comparison test for the magazine of one of the clubs to which he belongs. He borrowed about six or seven 300mm prime lenses, including a couple from me, a Russian Tair from my Photosniper and a 300mm Optomax . A what? you ask. Yep, I'd never heard of it before I picked this one up very cheaply at a local dealer.
He took them up to the top of a multi-storey car park in town and took pictures of a distant church tower both in the centre of the frame and at the edge. The relevant parts of the negs were blown up by our local pro lab to the equivalent of 20 inch prints and points given for centre and edge definition and contrast by three judges. Guess how the batting order went?
1st, Canon.
2nd, a tie between the Tair and a Tamron SP with absolutely nothing to choose.
3rd, - wait for it - the Optomax!
Some very expensive glass was put rather in the shade, to the chagrin of their owners.
Peter W.
|
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Jun 25, 2006 18:24:25 GMT -5
That is the tripod mount you see. This one is kinda off white putty colored. I still have a 300 f4 Canon and a Sigma 400 f5.8 when needing something light but when usinfg the three big guns I use a Wimberly head on a very stout manfrotto
|
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jun 26, 2006 0:49:11 GMT -5
OOH, OOH, I love it Rick. I can feel myself breaking out in hot and cold flushes just looking at the picture! A fellow collector not far from me has one, but his isn't white it's a neutral grey, and I don't remember it having a handle. I think it's got a cradle or something similar underneath for attaching to a tripod. About a year ago he wrote a 300mm lens comparison test for the magazine of one of the clubs to which he belongs. He borrowed about six or seven 300mm prime lenses, including a couple from me, a Russian Tair from my Photosniper and a 300mm Optomax . A what? you ask. Yep, I'd never heard of it before I picked this one up very cheaply at a local dealer. He took them up to the top of a multi-storey car park in town and took pictures of a distant church tower both in the centre of the frame and at the edge. The relevant parts of the negs were blown up by our local pro lab to the equivalent of 20 inch prints and points given for centre and edge definition and contrast by three judges. Guess how the batting order went? 1st, Canon. 2nd, a tie between the Tair and a Tamron SP with absolutely nothing to choose. 3rd, - wait for it - the Optomax! Some very expensive glass was put rather in the shade, to the chagrin of their owners. Peter W. Peter, that's interesting. I have a few 300mm lenses including a Tair and I plan to do a little comparing when I get the time. Nothing quite so exhaustive as your friend. Rick, that's an impressive list of telephoto lenses. I'd need a pack mule just to carry them. Well, heck..... my wife refuses to carry them so what's a fellow to do? (Just kidding!) Walker |
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 26, 2006 2:40:12 GMT -5
Peter,
I have that Optomax - it's a nice usable lens, with the huge advantage that it's relatively light. I also have a Meyer Orestegor / Pentacon 4/300. In truth, it is a better all round lens but - it weighs in at 2.2 kg. To be honest, my lightweight tripods can't handle it - by the time it's all set up it's precarious enough, then you get the mirror slap of a Praktica on top, and you can see it on the resulting picture. Looking out for an old Bilora to carry the strain!
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 26, 2006 5:33:28 GMT -5
Got to love that big glass, have fun with it.
Bob Hammond
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 26, 2006 8:11:27 GMT -5
John,
IMHO you can't beat a good fairly heavy tripod like a Manfrotto Professional or a Schiansky (I don't think Schiansky make an amateur model). They're not the most convenient tripods to carry around, but they're rock steady with the heaviest of cameras. I've seen them going very reasonably at camera fairs.
Forget any lightweight tripod that needs folding brace pieces at the bottom of the legs to give it any semblance of stability. When the joints wear they wobble and twist.
I got a Manfrotto Pro after my Schiansky got run over by a car at a Vintage Car meeting, fortunately with no camera on it. I repaired it with bolted on aluminium plates but it was never quite the same again.
I use the Manfrotto with a big ball and socket head with a large diameter platform. I like it much more than a pan and tilt head with a long handle sticking out.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jun 26, 2006 10:32:22 GMT -5
Peter, I have that Optomax - it's a nice usable lens, with the huge advantage that it's relatively light. I also have a Meyer Orestegor / Pentacon 4/300. In truth, it is a better all round lens but - it weighs in at 2.2 kg. To be honest, my lightweight tripods can't handle it - by the time it's all set up it's precarious enough, then you get the mirror slap of a Praktica on top, and you can see it on the resulting picture. Looking out for an old Bilora to carry the strain! Regards - John John, one of my 300's is the Orestegor. It's a beast. I have the P-6 and Exakta mounts for it and want to add an M42 mount. Using it on a Kiev-88, I've gotten some very nice pictures. The tripod I use for my heacy gear is an old Slik 410, designed to support up to 25 pounds. I bought it new some 35 years ago or so. It's been a good tripod. Walker |
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 26, 2006 17:33:52 GMT -5
Check out this item.... (US eBay)
7630757838
Bob - stop drooling!!
|
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jun 26, 2006 19:16:19 GMT -5
John
If it wasn't a mirror lens.....you would be right, I would be drooling.
But I never took a good photo with a mirror lens...........I just don't understand them. I don't know how to use them and what it takes to get good results with a Mirror lens.
If anyone can solve this mystery for me, I sure would appreciate it. I do have a 500mm Vivitar in a Minolta MD mount.
Why do they have a covered circle in the middle of the front element? And how is that not supposed to be a problem?
Can anyone help me make sense of this?
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Jun 26, 2006 20:19:22 GMT -5
Bob the circle is the reflecting mirror. It also produses the donut shaped hilights. Tghe light goes in hits a mirror in the back and is reflected to this covered circle and bach to the film. This way a lens is only half as short as one of normal style. A mirror must have good light and hi contrast to work. And even thought they are shorter and lighter they are still a 500-600 mm lens and have to be treated as such. use a remote release or MLU and be very critical with the focus. I tend to focus with the screen and not the split image. Also the Sigma 600 is the best of the ones have tested. The Vivitar/Phoinix/Samyang is very low contrast and not very sharp.
I also hang a 25 pound bag of lead shot from my tripod amd lay a sandbag across the lens when I am really serious
|
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jun 26, 2006 22:14:09 GMT -5
Rick
Thank you so much for the explanation. It's the best I've had.
I will digest it tomorrow when I am fully awake and alert.
And someday soon I'll try it again.........so I should not get a dark circle in the middle of my photo?
thanks again
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 27, 2006 4:18:13 GMT -5
Bob,
Rick is bang on. While I've no experience of a mirror lens, the principle is the same as that of a telescope. (It is a telescope!). The light enters at the front, hits a mirror (which is a section of a sphere) at the back, which concentrates the light on another mirror at the front (the disc you can see) which again reflects it to the hole in the back, where the camera is placed.
You lose some of the light, because the secondary mirror blocks part of the light path, but the light lost is small in comparison with the size of the main mirror. (In early big astronomical telescopes, the observer actually sat where the secondary mirror is placed - in the tube of the telescope!).
The quality of the image depends on the quality and precision of the mirrors, and the precise alignment (collimation) of all the components. If a lens you have is no good, but wasn't cheap originally, you can probably assume the mirrors are OK, so it's worth having it aligned - or having a go yourself on the principle that you have nothing to lose.
In fact, the glass at the front of the big Hexanon is probably also a lens to compensate for the shape of the main mirror, but if you want to know about that you'll have to look up Maksutov, Schmidt and Cassegrain on the internet!
If I had one of those I would make sure it was lined up, but I wouldn't pay that sort of price even if I was loaded. The prices for their other items are also massively inflated - surprised they haven't gone bust.
Regards - John
|
|
