Long Glass
- Thread starter aguia
- Start date
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
I tried a Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS (800mm effective on the AF100), and could get decent, slow pans with it. Haven't tried it with the 1.4X and 2X TCs, which work great and well (respectively) for stills on Canon bodies.
aguia
Active member
Which tripod/head?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
"The Howitzer" Nikon 50-300mm is an excellent, sharp, kick-ass glass.
Gives you 600mm FOV on the AF-100.
Any more than that and you should be thinking about hooking the Hubble Space Telescope up to your camera.
Gives you 600mm FOV on the AF-100.
Any more than that and you should be thinking about hooking the Hubble Space Telescope up to your camera.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Had it on the Sachtler FSB-6
(don't try this at home, I'm a professional clown, read my signature to remove lingering doubt, may cause drowsiness, etc.)
Footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT-XIxDBlT8
Last edited:
aguia
Active member
Ah, EF version, quite as bit lighter than the FD but (of course) no aperture control.
I'm currently using a Leica Telyt-R 250mm F4, which is relatively compact and makes gorgeous imagery but I need more reach and the 250 is incompatible with teleconvertors. I'm also working with about a 20lb. limit for the tripod-head combination I use. I'm looking at a few options:
350mm f4.8 Leica Telyt-R
Canon 300mm F2.8 FD + 1.4x FD teleconvertor
Canon 400mm F4.5 FD
Nikon 400mm F3.5 ED
The Nikon would be the most expensive of the bunch and the heaviest.
Jarrett P. Morgan
Well-known member
I would look at the Tamron 300 2.8 sp if lens. You should be able to find one for under 1000. I had one for awhile (i very much regret selling it) and it was sharp and fast. Came with a specially matched 1.4x converter too
aguia
Active member
Is yours the ED version? Have you ever tried a nikon teleconvertor on it?
Rolf Silber
Veteran
We had some good results using the Nikon 400 2.8 (even with a 2x teleconverter) - few shots here. Will have better graded material up soon.
http://www.vimeo.com/23108389
But this lens is maddeningly expensive to buy. We rented.
Had some rather good results with an old Vivitar 100 - 500 Series 1 Zoom. But that one is 5.6 to 8.0 and you would have to search for one that is in really good condition - this thingies are a bit wobbly in built. But you can get one fairly cheap.
If you are mad enough, search for an old 600 - 1000 Vivitar - picture below. It's not really good but definitely very, very long.... ;-)
http://www.vimeo.com/23108389
But this lens is maddeningly expensive to buy. We rented.
Had some rather good results with an old Vivitar 100 - 500 Series 1 Zoom. But that one is 5.6 to 8.0 and you would have to search for one that is in really good condition - this thingies are a bit wobbly in built. But you can get one fairly cheap.
If you are mad enough, search for an old 600 - 1000 Vivitar - picture below. It's not really good but definitely very, very long.... ;-)
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Many really long and affordable lenses are mirror lenses and are not nearly as good as long lenses with more traditional design. Tele-extenders are great, but you lose two stops on a 2x. So it doubles your FoV but cuts your exposure down.
Canon 400mm is effectively a 400mm on the AF100. It confuses people when you do a conversion. People who know the AF100 will know what lenses look like on it, no need to tell them what the equivalent would be on a full frame photography camera.
Again. Why are we talking about 5D's? It's a 300mm lens. I know you know Matt, but for others, it's a 300mm lens. It gives a 300mm FoV on a AF100. If someone said, "what lens would I use on a 5DmII in order to get that same FoV?"... then you say 600mm. But a 300mm on a AF100 gives a 300mm FoV on that camera. If we can't say a 300mm lens on an AF100 is a 300mm lens, what is the point of even naming it 300mm?
Call me grumpy, but as a person who has never shot on a 5DmII, it's disheartening to have lenses being renamed and compared to just a single camera, not even a professional video camera at that. Maybe I just need some sleep.
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I really want this one - but the price.... 3000ish
NIKON 3,5/400 ED 400mm F3,5 AIS MF
NIKON 3,5/400 ED 400mm F3,5 AIS MF
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Panavison Primo Zoom 3:1 T/2.8 135-420mm
Or this bad boy: http://gizmodo.com/353414/massive-panavision-bazooka-hd-lens-delivers-300x-zoom?tag=big-ass-glass
It's an HD lens, so it's projection circle is not very large (2/3"), but it is a 7-2100mm continuous focal length range at F1.9!!! It's also 3ft long and 85lbs.
Or this bad boy: http://gizmodo.com/353414/massive-panavision-bazooka-hd-lens-delivers-300x-zoom?tag=big-ass-glass
It's an HD lens, so it's projection circle is not very large (2/3"), but it is a 7-2100mm continuous focal length range at F1.9!!! It's also 3ft long and 85lbs.
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Sorry doubblepost..
aguia
Active member
Good Nikon ED MF stuff holds it value, I like Canon L glass but I definitely run into more mechanical issues with them.
Greg Smith
Veteran
It could be largely the YouTube compression at work, but to be honest, for all its weight, bulk and undoubtedly astronomical price, that Panavision 300X lens doesn't look all that sharp.
There definitely ain't no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to lenses.
- Greg
There definitely ain't no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to lenses.
- Greg
groveChuck
U-matic Member
I'm waiting (and waiting...) for the Birger to use our Canon 300 2.8 L IS (+ a 2X extender).
It's a beautiful piece of glass...
I would say it would give me an effective 1200mm on a full frame stills camera but Ryan would yell at me.
So even though it will, I won't...:happy:
It's a beautiful piece of glass...
I would say it would give me an effective 1200mm on a full frame stills camera but Ryan would yell at me.
So even though it will, I won't...:happy:
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
At those distances, it's not just optics, atmospheric distortion becomes a real issue. No fixing that, except maaaaybe shooting in very cold (dense) air.
LOL
No kidding... my 85 f/1.2 (electronic focus! aaargh!), 200 f/2 L IS, and 400 f/2.8 L IS, amongst others, are all pretty useless right now...
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Yup! That isn't the lens not being sharp... that's what happens when you zoom a couple miles through hot atmosphere. I would like to see that optical zoom be taken to outer-space for a photo-shoot (where there is not any atmosphere)... but with the demise of the space shuttle, I doubt that will happen. I would really love to see how far in space that bad-boy could see. Especially at a T/1.9.