Hi Mark Could you please give me a your view on third party lenses in that range 300-500mm, fixed lenses or zooms. Since I can not afford a Pentax one and need something not to heavy, what would you recommend. Others told me about a Tamron SP 300, what about mirror lenses, useful or crap? I see some very cheap Makinon 500mm mirror lenses here, but for their cheap prices, it can not be true, right? ;-)
Wondeful bird shots, I would love to have a lens (and your eyes/skills) like that..... thanks alot in advance Markus >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:19 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: 500mm Zooms >> >> >>I used to own a Takumar 500 f 4.5. Not the SMC version. It was a unique >>lens in that someone had modified it by gluing part of a screwmount to K >>adapter to the lens - making it more or less a K mount lens (it >>would only >>mate to K mounts, but it would not lock into place.) >> >>Some sample shots taken with it (these are old photos) - >> >>The extraordinarily rare and elusive Rock Dove (har!) - >> >>http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b35.htm >> >>red bellied woodpecker - >> >>http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b36.htm >> >>Blue Jay - >> >>http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b52.htm >> >>Another Jay - >> >>http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b50.htm >> >>Chickadee - >> >>http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b56.htm >> >>The latter is a crop from a Kodachrome 64 slide - it really does >>not hold up >>at bigger sizes. the others are all printable at Super-B size with no >>problems, lots of detail. >> >>I shot lots with this lens but replaced it with the A* 400 f2.8, >>which with >>teleconverters is much sharper, though it can burn you in the >>Bokeh dept. It >>should be noted than the A*400 cost a whole order of magnitude >>more than the >>Takumar 500 f4.5! >> >>The stop down aperture was not a major issue once you got used to it. >> >>This was a very high resolution lens, capable of producing great >>results on >>film, but it has a major degree of chromatic aberration. I don't >>know how it >>would do on digital bodies. One plus for APS sized digitals - >>this lens has >>a minimum focusing distance of 10 meters, so you need to use tubes >>(sometimes lots of them) for smaller birds. That would cause >>vignetting on >>film -probably would not be a problem on *ist-D / DS's. >> >>There was a thread on photo.net where this lens was panned by numerous >>people who never used it, based on their 'understanding' of the laws of >>physics and how pronounced the CA would be. In real life the >>lens is quite >>good - not on par with the best of the best but probably the best >>bang for >>the buck for big glass. As for the photo.net thread - it underscored the >>validity of the saying "Those who know it all have the most to learn." >> >>- MCC >> >>(who knows it all and is busy learning.... :-) >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>Mark Cassino Photography >>Kalamazoo, MI >>www.markcassino.com >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[email protected]> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:56 PM >>Subject: Re: 500mm Zooms >> >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:51 PM >>> >>>> I find it a little annoying, but not $400 -$500 so... >>>> >>> >>> Cool. I was always curious about that lens and the Takumar equivelent. >>> Please post some pictures taken with it when you can so we can >>see how it >>> performs. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >> >>
