2600mm canon!

Tim KirkwoodTim Kirkwood Registered Users Posts: 900 Major grins
edited September 13, 2006 in Cameras

Comments

  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2006
  • andymillsonandymillson Registered Users Posts: 147 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    rolleyes1.gifi like how no where in there it tells you your aperature

    They are listed further down in the listing

    f/8.0 @ 650mm – f/16 @ 1300mm [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    With 2x Teleconverter: f/16 @ 1300mm – f/32 @ 3200mm[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
    Looks like a real deal, gottta get me one of these babies rolleyes1.gif
    A Brit among the HAWKEYES
    Canon 5D Mk III
    Canon 24-105L IS USM; Canon 16-35 f/2.8L USM; Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II
    Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM; Bigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM
    My Galleries
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2006
    The add has a picture of a group shot against a bright sky. I wonder how much work went into eliminating the CA? Pheonix lenses all have CA problems. I know someone who bought a much short (and narrower range) tele-zoom. Wow, talk about CA!

    Just took another look at the example shots. They were taken from two different locations! Nothing like truth in advertising!
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2006
    rolleyes1.gif That'll make a nice, bright viewfinder image to set focus--which will probably have to be manual. Thanks, I'll just foot zoom.
  • gtcgtc Registered Users Posts: 916 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2006
    the other problem is..
    even if you can keep it steady eg not a puff of wind, you have the problems that all lenses have over 1000 mm, and that is AIR and everything floating about it in it.worse through cheap glass.

    2X teleconverters,by and large, suck ,too.murkiness converters.good paper weights.

    a zeiss 800 mm cat lens would be a better buy for some specific purposes,but not sport,maybe some really long nature shots and abstract stuff that i like.

    yes ,i want an 800mm zeiss cat,but would not waste my money on what looks like this heavy,murky rubbish.no CA with cat lenses either.
    Latitude: 37° 52'South
    Longitude: 145° 08'East

    Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
  • hgernhardtjrhgernhardtjr Registered Users Posts: 417 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2006
    — Henry —
    Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
  • herionherion Registered Users Posts: 149 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2006
    Cameta is one of the *worst* places I've ever dealt with. Even if they were the only ones selling the lens, I'd suffer without it. umph.gif
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited September 12, 2006
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2006
    Not that you'd expect 300/2.8 results from this thing, but dang! For what it is those are actually some decent results--how can you complain for 1300mm at $300? The softness & CA in the examples are no surprise. I especially like the sag in the lens zoomed out to 1300mm. eek7.gif

    From B&H's site it sounds like a fixed-aperture, manual focus lens. That's one way to cut costs.

    BTW, Herion, my one experience with Cameta was actually quite good. Won one of their auctions a few years ago to make my jump into digital. Sent the wrong memory card & made it right with no troubles.
  • herionherion Registered Users Posts: 149 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2006
    Not that you'd expect 300/2.8 results from this thing, but dang! For what it is those are actually some decent results--how can you complain for 1300mm at $300? The softness & CA in the examples are no surprise. I especially like the sag in the lens zoomed out to 1300mm. eek7.gif

    From B&H's site it sounds like a fixed-aperture, manual focus lens. That's one way to cut costs.

    BTW, Herion, my one experience with Cameta was actually quite good. Won one of their auctions a few years ago to make my jump into digital. Sent the wrong memory card & made it right with no troubles.

    I would say you were extremely fortunate. I won an ebay auction for a Canon flash, they sent a Phoenix one instead, refused to exchange it and made me pay 15% restocking. I sicc'ed Amex on them for the 15%. Never dealt with them again - I use Beach or Allen's Camera for almost everything now...
  • morrisphotography2003morrisphotography2003 Registered Users Posts: 208 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2006
    gtc wrote:
    even if you can keep it steady eg not a puff of wind, you have the problems that all lenses have over 1000 mm, and that is AIR and everything floating about it in it.worse through cheap glass.

    2X teleconverters,by and large, suck ,too.murkiness converters.good paper weights.

    a zeiss 800 mm cat lens would be a better buy for some specific purposes,but not sport,maybe some really long nature shots and abstract stuff that i like.

    yes ,i want an 800mm zeiss cat,but would not waste my money on what looks like this heavy,murky rubbish.no CA with cat lenses either.
    Just shot this one with the same lens on friday night, no monopod or tripod from about 70yards.94521413-L.jpg
  • gtcgtc Registered Users Posts: 916 Major grins
    edited September 13, 2006
    how about..
    thats not bad -how about a 100% crop pre-photoshop,an infinity shot and the piece of newspaper taped to a wall.
    Latitude: 37° 52'South
    Longitude: 145° 08'East

    Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
Sign In or Register to comment.