Rokinon Lens

TRWhiteTRWhite Registered Users Posts: 30 Big grins
edited February 1, 2011 in Cameras
Hello All
Does anyone have any thoughts on the Rokinon Lens. I.E. why are they so cheap and do they take good quality pictures.:dunno

Want to get a high power lens to capture wildlife, (the Redtailed Hawk that has been hanging out in my back yard) I am not a pro and would like a little advice.:scratch

The following lens is listed on Amazon for $269.95
Rokinon 800mm Multi-Coated Mirror Lens with 2x Teleconverter (=1600mm) + Tripod + Nikon Case + Accessory Kit for Nikon D40, D40x, D60, D80, D90, D200, D300, D3, D700 Digital SLR Cameras
Sold by Cameta Camera

Thank-you

Tim
PPA
SWPPA
TPPA
NAPP Member

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited January 28, 2009
    This is a cheaply made mirror (reflex) lens, rated at f8 but probably really only an f11. The images will be low contrast and with poor sharpness. Once you add the telextender it will just reduce the sharpness even more and drop at least 2 more stops to f22 or so.

    While you might find some use for the lens for shots of the moon, it will be very poor for any other types of photography. Birding, for example, requires very high resolution to accurately depict feathers. This lens just won't cut it.

    Additionally, out-of-focus background elements will have a "donut" bokeh which most people find objectionable.

    If you really want to try the lens keep an eye out for one on e-bay or some such and at least you may not have to pay full price.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • TRWhiteTRWhite Registered Users Posts: 30 Big grins
    edited January 28, 2009
    Thank you for your reply Ziggy.

    What is your thoughts about a Teleconverter for my current lens?
    PPA
    SWPPA
    TPPA
    NAPP Member
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited January 28, 2009
    TRWhite wrote:
    Thank you for your reply Ziggy.

    What is your thoughts about a Teleconverter for my current lens?

    If you mean your Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm, f4-f5.6G ED, I don't think the Nikon teleconverters will fit because of a potential conflict with the rear element of the lens. Possibly the Kenko AF 2x Teleplus will fit but it will impact image quality in ways that I doubt you would appreciate. Specifically the AF will no longer work at the longer focal lengths because the teleconverter loses 2 stops of light efficiency. The corners would probably get soft very quickly too.

    I don't believe Nikon recommends that lens to be used with a teleconverter.

    You might try using either bait and/or a "hunter's blind" to get birds closer to your position and avoid using a teleconverter altogether.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • capitoljayhawkcapitoljayhawk Registered Users Posts: 121 Major grins
    edited January 29, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    If you mean your Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm, f4-f5.6G ED, I don't think the Nikon teleconverters will fit because of a potential conflict with the rear element of the lens. Possibly the Kenko AF 2x Teleplus will fit but it will impact image quality in ways that I doubt you would appreciate. Specifically the AF will no longer work at the longer focal lengths because the teleconverter loses 2 stops of light efficiency. The corners would probably get soft very quickly too.

    I don't believe Nikon recommends that lens to be used with a teleconverter.

    You might try using either bait and/or a "hunter's blind" to get birds closer to your position and avoid using a teleconverter altogether.


    I'd ike some more views on this lens:

    http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Rokinon-650-2600mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-for-Nikon/3864796/product.html

    I just want to understand whether it's no good. At $250, I almost don't care if it is a hassle. But if it only gives me terrible shots, then I might as well hold onto the $250. Thoughts on this lens at this price? It's gotten good reviews on Amazon and overstock, for what it's worth.

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
    ____________________

    http://www.gaslightphoto.com

    Beginning smugmugger.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited January 29, 2011
    It's a cheaply made, manual focus, very small aperture zoom lens. You get no automation and it only works in very bright light. Add the teleconverter and you may be talking time exposure or very, very high ISOs.

    Granted you won't find anything comparable in this price range from the major manufacturers, but you might take that as a hint.

    It does work reasonably well for moon shots if that is your intent.

    I would much rather recommend the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm, f4-6.3 EX DG HSM APO, which you can often find used for around $900USD. Yes, it's a lot more money, but you gain AF and exposure automation. It's not perfect either but it's a very usable zoom lens and a lot more versatile to boot.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • capitoljayhawkcapitoljayhawk Registered Users Posts: 121 Major grins
    edited January 29, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    It's a cheaply made, manual focus, very small aperture zoom lens. You get no automation and it only works in very bright light. Add the teleconverter and you may be talking time exposure or very, very high ISOs.

    Granted you won't find anything comparable in this price range from the major manufacturers, but you might take that as a hint.

    It does work reasonably well for moon shots if that is your intent.

    I would much rather recommend the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm, f4-6.3 EX DG HSM APO, which you can often find used for around $900USD. Yes, it's a lot more money, but you gain AF and exposure automation. It's not perfect either but it's a very usable zoom lens and a lot more versatile to boot.

    Thanks for the feedback. So this is fully manual, including exposure? Interesting. I am having a hard time avoiding this $250 experiment . . .
    ____________________

    http://www.gaslightphoto.com

    Beginning smugmugger.
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    capitoljayhawk wrote: »
    Thanks for the feedback. So this is fully manual, including exposure? Interesting. I am having a hard time avoiding this $250 experiment . . .


    Hey, @ $250 it's a Cheap lesson....go for it.

    I will mention that we have a Wildlife forum here on DGRIN and it is full of folks posting photos and talking about what lenses they used. A very helpful and informative Thread! I don't think I ever read of someone using a Mirror lens to talk about their lovely photo.
    tom wise
  • capitoljayhawkcapitoljayhawk Registered Users Posts: 121 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    angevin1 wrote: »
    Hey, @ $250 it's a Cheap lesson....go for it.

    I will mention that we have a Wildlife forum here on DGRIN and it is full of folks posting photos and talking about what lenses they used. A very helpful and informative Thread! I don't think I ever read of someone using a Mirror lens to talk about their lovely photo.

    Thanks. Love that thread and have added to it to my subscriptions.
    ____________________

    http://www.gaslightphoto.com

    Beginning smugmugger.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    If anyone thinks $250 is cheap then get a 300 f4 w/ a TC. That's $1500, give or take a few hundred. 250 is cheap in photo terms, but it can go a long way. Buying that cheapo lens will NOT take your money a long way. It'll take you straight to your back yard, where you will take one (ok, maybe two) photos and decide that it's not worth 10 bucks.
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    $250 cheap????!!!!eek7.gifdunno

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    In real life, no.

    In photography, yes. :D
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    Personally, I'd suggest you're letting yourself in for a lot of hassle / disappointment etc if you want to take half decent pics of birds with a (slow) manual focus lens.
    They tend not to sit still - and even when they are (sitting still) ... they're not :)
    Small movements from either what they're perched on - or parts of themselves are almost always on the move - as they're on the lookout for predators / food etc.

    So - to accurately manually focus a (long, hi- mag) lens with a relatively dim image, using a cam that (I presume) doesn't have a focussing screen designed for the job, on a subject that's unlikely to stay still for long ...

    Trying to get the birds closer to you - as previously suggested - is a very good option - provided you don't endanger them in the process.

    I did something similar (with a wired remote) for this ... and I know it's not a hawk :)
    (note focal length used)

    http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7654&highlight=spider

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    In real life, no.

    In photography, yes. :D

    ??????????

    You can get a proper quality lens for a fraction more, or some really useful accessories, batteries etc etc.

    So, unless you have unlimited quanta of $250s....eek7.gifdunno

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    << You can get a proper quality lens for a fraction more >>

    Indeed - but less likely for this particular task, methinks ...

    pp


    sigma 150 -500 here on dg
    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1547162#post1547162
    Website

    Flickr
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    puzzledpaul wrote: »
    << You can get a proper quality lens for a fraction more >>

    Indeed - but less likely for this particular task, methinks ...

    pp


    sigma 150 -500 here on dg
    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1547162#post1547162


    ???????????

    $250 is the first of only 6 steps to the Siggy 150-500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Really, I just can't fathom throwing away that much money as worthless!

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2011
    No, I meant to say that in real life $250 is a lot of money, but in photography terms it's not much. It's the first of 20 steps to a 300 2.8 Mark I mwink.gif
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    No, I meant to say that in real life $250 is a lot of money, but in photography terms it's not much. It's the first of 20 steps to a 300 2.8 Mark I mwink.gif

    Every great journey begins with one first step!

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • capitoljayhawkcapitoljayhawk Registered Users Posts: 121 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    ???????????

    $250 is the first of only 6 steps to the Siggy 150-500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Really, I just can't fathom throwing away that much money as worthless!

    Neil

    I'm really thinking in terms of photography. Seems like good lenses are all tremendously expensive. I'm willing to sink money into my hobby, but am not prepared to part with the kind of money that gets me the great lenses (70-200 2.8 vr2, etc.).
    ____________________

    http://www.gaslightphoto.com

    Beginning smugmugger.
  • triangulartriangular Registered Users Posts: 27 Big grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    It's not a cheaply made lens. Rokinon is one of the brand names made by Samyang. The Samyang lenses are really well made and viable alternatives. But its a MIRROR lens, and that's why its cheap. Mirror lenses do not work the same. Contrast and bokeh are always an issue, but under optimal conditions you can clean it up in post.

    For an explanation about how a mirror lens works (and some examples of birds with a 500mm mirror), this article will help:
    http://www.photozone.de/mirror-lenses
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited February 1, 2011
    triangular wrote: »
    It's not a cheaply made lens. Rokinon is one of the brand names made by Samyang. The Samyang lenses are really well made and viable alternatives. But its a MIRROR lens, and that's why its cheap. Mirror lenses do not work the same. Contrast and bokeh are always an issue, but under optimal conditions you can clean it up in post.

    For an explanation about how a mirror lens works (and some examples of birds with a 500mm mirror), this article will help:
    http://www.photozone.de/mirror-lenses

    The particular lens linked in the original post "is" cheaply made. It is cheap in both coatings and in general construction. It would be in the same class of lenses as a Vivitar mirror lens with the same general specifications.

    These inexpensive mirror lenses use aluminum as the mirror coating and have both low reflectance and low contrast. A good quality mirror lens uses silver coatings and then gets overcoated with a protective layer. An example of an affordable silvered mirror lens is the older Tamron 500mm, f8 SP (55B and 55BB).

    I have a simple comparison of a couple of catadioptric/mirror lenses along with a couple of refractor lenses here:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1126808&postcount=16
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    Mirror lenses are sometimes a cheap option, but they give a wierd bokeh...
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited February 1, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Mirror lenses are sometimes a cheap option, but they give a wierd bokeh...

    That's very true and a crop 1.5x/1.6x camera exaggerates the effect. You can use strategies to reduce the appearance like actually choosing backgrounds close to the subject (when possible) and use color or texture to help with visual separation. Of course a plain sky background is best.

    If you can select the subject digitally in software you can also use techniques similar to background removal to blur the background to the point that the "donut" bokeh is no longer a problem.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.