Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Too good to be true? Very cheap lens! 
Author Message
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:55 am
Posts: 7935
Location: Manchester.
Reply with quote
I was looking for something completely different but this lens caught my eye on Amazon.

It's a "Opteka 500-1000mm High Definition Mirror Telephoto Lens for Nikon D700, D300, D200, D100, D90, D80, D70, D60, D50, D40, D40X, D2HS, D2XS, & D3 Digital SLR Camera's " and is prices at £139.

Am I missing something, or does this seem too good to be true...?

Amazon Link

_________________
okenobi wrote:
John's hot. No denying it. But he's hardly Karen now, is he ;)

John Vella BSc (Hons), PGCE - Still the official forum prankster and crude remarker :P
Sorry :roll:
I'll behave now.
Promise ;)


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:31 am
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
ƒ/8 is slllllllloooooooooowwwwwww.

You'd need to be in bright light most of the time to be able to use it effectively, I'd have thought. Not sure I'd want to risk my money, to be honest.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:35 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
Mirror reflector lenses can also suffer from a slightly softer area in the centre of the image. Don't expect it to be comparable in quality to the Nikon lenses either.
Might be fun on those really sunny days, if you don't mind the limitations of the design. :)

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:38 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
It starts at f/8, John, and it's mirror, which means the light's bouncing about the inside before it hits the sensor (which probably explains the aperture).
Personally I'd not touch it, but that's just me.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:38 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
f8 at 500mm and I guess f16 at 1000mm if using the converter. As is mentioned you will need a tripod, be using manual settings etc.

However with mirror lenses you get annular (think doughnuts) bokeh.

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:40 am
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
However with mirror lenses you get annular (think doughnuts) bokeh.


Mmm. Donuts and bokeh...

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:43 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
HeatherKay wrote:
Mmm. Donuts and bokeh...


American English?!?! :shock:

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:45 am
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
HeatherKay wrote:
Mmm. Donuts and bokeh...


American English?!?! :shock:


I was going to add </Homer> but I felt the reference was obvious already. ;)

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:51 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:55 am
Posts: 7935
Location: Manchester.
Reply with quote
Being honest I wasn't giving any serious consideration to buying it, as I had noticed the speed and that set some alarm bells ringing. I didn't know anything much about mirrored lenses, but I figured that asking the opinions of people I actually trust rather than searching the net seemed like a good idea... and it was!

I've done some test shots with my manual 2x teleconverter, (which I will post when I get a chance!) but those shots, (which for a first test I am actually quite pleased with, although they will improve with practice) have made me think about getting... Teleconverter from Jessops Link

Does anybody have any teleconverter experience?

Thanks again.

:D

PS. Having read the posts which were submitted before I finished this one all i can say is... DOH! :lol:

_________________
okenobi wrote:
John's hot. No denying it. But he's hardly Karen now, is he ;)

John Vella BSc (Hons), PGCE - Still the official forum prankster and crude remarker :P
Sorry :roll:
I'll behave now.
Promise ;)


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:52 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
A few months ago I connected a camera to a 600mm reflector telescope. Same principle as this lens but the camera was attached side on, and much more difficult to line up as a result. It could be useful as a cheap way of trying some astronomical stuff, with a tripod of course.

Image

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:59 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:55 am
Posts: 7935
Location: Manchester.
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
A few months ago I connected a camera to a 600mm reflector telescope. Same principle as this lens but the camera was attached side on, and much more difficult to line up as a result. It could be useful as a cheap way of trying some astronomical stuff, with a tripod of course.

Image


Well, now you say that... I got a telescope for my birthday a few years ago, and that is something else I'd always wanted to try, (even with the F65) but never got around to, so that sounds like a good excuse to get it. the price is £79.00 but I'm taking the manual lens back, so that'll be £30 saved. :D

_________________
okenobi wrote:
John's hot. No denying it. But he's hardly Karen now, is he ;)

John Vella BSc (Hons), PGCE - Still the official forum prankster and crude remarker :P
Sorry :roll:
I'll behave now.
Promise ;)


Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:40 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.