Seriously though, don't even begin to contemplate this thing. There is a reason that Pros spend thousands of dollars on lenses. Quality. I don't know the technical reasons behind why this lens would be a apoor investment, but I'm sure others here would be glad to help enlighten both of us further!
The Opteka lenses are perfect examples of "you get what you pay for." The really amazing thing about these is that they form a recognizable image at all.
For the quality thing, how many really good mirror lenses have you ever seen? It's a shortcut way to get the long focal length in a short, cheap package. Optics are not very good at all; soft, distortion-filled images. My grandparents had a 500mm Vivitar lens for their Pentax SLRs back in the '70's. Blech! This Opteka is cheaper in 2007 dollars than that Vivitar in 1970'2 dollars. You do the math.:puke1
This has come up before and all above is true but you can get some "fun" images from these lenses.
I think of them as creative tool like a LensBaby.
Check out this thread
Quantaray 500mm /f8...20 to 25 years old...maybe older
This has come up before and all above is true but you can get some "fun" images from these lenses.
I think of them as creative tool like a LensBaby.
Very true. Kind of like an expensive Holga. As long as you know what you're getting into no worries. But just don't get one of these thinking you found a shortcut to a Canon 500/4L IS, because they aren't. I know at least three guys at POTN went and got the Opteka 650-1300/8-16 lens for grins, just to see what it could do--and with low expectations. Here's a shot of it mounted: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=857458&postcount=230 note the sag.
An amusing quote I found in the POTN threads:
Opteka lenses are just organized coke bottle bottoms.
So, yeah, think big expensive Holga and you won't be disappointed.
Very true. Kind of like an expensive Holga. As long as you know what you're getting into no worries. But just don't get one of these thinking you found a shortcut to a Canon 500/4L IS, because they aren't. I know at least three guys at POTN went and got the Opteka 650-1300/8-16 lens for grins, just to see what it could do--and with low expectations. Here's a shot of it mounted: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=857458&postcount=230 note the sag.
An amusing quote I found in the POTN threads:
So, yeah, think big expensive Holga and you won't be disappointed.
Comments
Can't really say much else..
Seriously though, don't even begin to contemplate this thing. There is a reason that Pros spend thousands of dollars on lenses. Quality. I don't know the technical reasons behind why this lens would be a apoor investment, but I'm sure others here would be glad to help enlighten both of us further!
For the quality thing, how many really good mirror lenses have you ever seen? It's a shortcut way to get the long focal length in a short, cheap package. Optics are not very good at all; soft, distortion-filled images. My grandparents had a 500mm Vivitar lens for their Pentax SLRs back in the '70's. Blech! This Opteka is cheaper in 2007 dollars than that Vivitar in 1970'2 dollars. You do the math.:puke1
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I think of them as creative tool like a LensBaby.
Check out this thread
Quantaray 500mm /f8...20 to 25 years old...maybe older
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
Very true. Kind of like an expensive Holga. As long as you know what you're getting into no worries. But just don't get one of these thinking you found a shortcut to a Canon 500/4L IS, because they aren't. I know at least three guys at POTN went and got the Opteka 650-1300/8-16 lens for grins, just to see what it could do--and with low expectations. Here's a shot of it mounted: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=857458&postcount=230 note the sag.
An amusing quote I found in the POTN threads:
So, yeah, think big expensive Holga and you won't be disappointed.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos