Flying Rats...
Don Sanderson wrote:
AKA: City Chickens! ;-)
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500mm Zooms
Thanks David!
Umm - for full disclosure, "Rock Doves" are common, garden variety (city
variety) pigeons. :-)
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: 500mm Zooms
G'day Mark,
Those are all excellent shots. I really like the colours in "Blue
Jay", But I love "Rock Dove". That shot is way cool (no pun intended).
Dave S
On 5/11/05, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
