Should I return the 1000mm lens? (long on graphics)

[Deja Q]

There's no light falloff, amazingly.

However, the image is a little dark.

I also had to use a little faux focusing effect in the computer to make it look this sharp (at 1000mm @ f16, 1/90 shutter speed at 100ISO, I suppose I will end up with some softness... ISO 200 or high grain 400 only for now on...). The actual photo is a little soft, due to using a poor quality tripod where the whole lens/camera assembly vibrated when I clicked the remote shutter release. I now have a sturdier tripod but for best results, I need to get a camera with a mirror-lock function that will suspend the mirror a couple of seconds before the shutter releases, improving stability concerns even more... I have yet to test the tripod out in the field, but my tests in the apartment have shown visible signs of improvement when using the lens on the new heavy-duty tripod.

Other recent photos I had taken out of boredom and utter lonliness include:






(I've more...)






(I did this one on acid, you should see the full size version... :evilgrin: )

Bonus question: Which one(s) was/were taken by a digital camera?

[rfranklin]

1. What brand?

You should have a rock solid tripod with a cable release if you're using a 1000mm lens at 1/90. Even then I think it would be little iffy.

Better that you use a f/stop around f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/1000 to eliminate blurring due to camera shake. If the lens can't pull a sharp image then, get rid of it.

I am a professional photographer, though not a nature photographer.

[Deja Q]

2. Quantaray 600-1000mm telephoto lens

I had used a cable release, though the tripod was a piece of junk.

I did just upgrade my tripod to something respectable ($100 price, anything below $50 just won't cut it for outdoor work...)

A 1000mm lens with f4 capability would cost a ton of money. Though I could get a 135-400 lens at f4-5.6 and use a 2x teleconverter, and end up with 800mm at f10 - which is slightly better than the lens I had purchased (which, at 800mm, is at about f13.)

Of course, the only way to achieve 1/1000 is by using a faster film on a moderately-lit day: ISO400. And ISO400 is known for being grainy, though Kodak's new HD film is reasonably good. (I could probably do ISO 200 with 1/500 in fairly bright light, but that could pose trouble too...

Thanks for the advice. I might just return it and put the money to new software. The lens is a real bugger to aim properly and I prefer landscape photography over taking pics of tiny animals anyway, particularly when having low-grain film means more to me... Now I love tiny animals, but it just doesn't seem feasable. :-(

[MercutioATC]

4. I have a Canon 100-400 IS lens and I love it.

The image stabilization works wonders....gives you at least 2 stops...

It's not a 1000mmm lens, but with my digital camera it's essentially a 160-600.

Good glass is worth every penny.

[jmowreader]

5. He'd need one of these to haul around a 1000mm f/4 lens

The M-274 Mechanical Mule is a pallet with an engine and four wheels. It weighs 900 pounds and has cargo capacity of 1000 pounds--that's correct, it hauls more than it weighs. You can buy these on the Internet, all restored and ready for service. They're cheaper than a John Deere Gator and more fun.

Take a Mechanical Mule, put a big-ass tripod like a Gitzo Studex in the middle of it, and make sure you mount the lens on the tripod head if you don't use a two-headed tripod top.

[many a good man]

3. Great photos

I like 'em!

[exJW]

6. Return it

Can one even see thru 1000mm of Quantary plastic? }(

Nice pictures though. As long as the tripod is rock solid, and you do a mirror lockup, you should not have even a hint of lens movement at 1/90 or even 1/30 for that matter (but that "rock solid-ness" is difficult to achieve with a 1k mm lens).

I can't tell you how much money you'll save if you invest 1500.00 in a good mid-range semi-professional digital camera. (cuz I don't know, lol. But it's a lot, dammit!). Look at canon rebel digital, Nikon d-70, or canon 10d if you want to splurge.

Seriously, with digital, you can shoot enough to really learn photography, and you can shoot enough to play the percentages, when getting a great pic is a game of percentages. Saves gas too.

[Deja Q]

7. Well, apart from one thing I'd love to go digital

The lens is glass, single-coated though (the sheen is blue/yellow, not greed/red).

But as the zoom level goes up, the image gets darker. Shadows get darker and details lost.

The lens may be useful for shooting waterfalls from 50 feet away, but that's about it.

I have a digital 5 megapixel camera that's point'n'shoot (Sony Mavica CD500), but I've never been quite able to do photography of waterfalls with a a higher aperture (22+ ) with the lens open for x amount of seconds. It gets completely overexposed all the time. Only film, from my experience, can do the trite waterfall effect just right...

My current 35mm setup will capture waterfalls with the trite effect (I've done it, it's overrated, but it looks cool), but I don't rather need the lens.. I should return this lens and save up for the upcoming Minolta digital SLR - I can exchange lenses and save money there while getting the benefit of digital (oh, in many ways I vastly prefer digital...) My 300mm lens with the 2x teleconverter would give decent zooms, without affecting light too much (it's f8 at 600mm, which is great because I typically use f8 or f11 to capture deeper colors... I hate using <f8 unless it's in a low light situation... I can't get a bird from a far distance, but detail would still be a problem.)

Thanks y'all!! :loveya:

I did do a quick tally on cost savings with digital: After 100 rolls, I'd be equal in cost. $5 per roll of Fuji Reala 100 = $500. Add in $10 per developing and that's $1000. A digital camera (worth using) today is $1500. By the time the Minolta comes out (which will be 6.1MP, yippie!), I'll have the cash... And given how often I use my digital camera, I'd make up the cost in no time. :D

[exJW]

8. The Canon rebel digital

is around 900 bucks today (with a fairly decent lens). It has the same (wonderful) cmos chip as my canon 10d.

It's the best value going right now. As an SLR, it will give you the trite waterfall look you so desire (film and digital are really no different, for most intents and purposes, they're both just recording media, one is just many times more practical than the other).

I'm not familier with the minolta. If it's an SLR, and will allow you to use your current lenses, perhaps that's the way to go. Otherwise, check out the difference between the 6mpxl of the canon cmos chip (bigger physically) compared to amatuer 6 mpxl cameras.

ps. don't forget the gas and the fact that you should probably be shooting way more pictures than you currently shoot with film because of cost :D

[exJW]

9. ps..

try using a ND (nuetral density) filter or two for the trite water action. Wasn't that some famous Clinton scandal? Polarizers make pretty good ND's in a pinch, they take away almost 2 stops. That'll keep you from having to rely on stopping the lens down so much to tritalize the water.