Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Rubinar Lenses (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t432598-rubinar-lenses.html)

M-M 02-08-2007 11:08 PM

Rubinar Lenses
 
I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of the Russian-made
Rubinar lenses. I'm particularly interested in the 1000mm supertelephoto
range.

I have seen some images of the moons craters and they look very sharp. I
know you have to do a lot of finageling to get them to fit andeven more
to get them to expose properly, but it looks like a good fun/dollar
ratio.

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/r..._1000_lens.htm

thanks,

--
m-m

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) 02-08-2007 11:21 PM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:08:35 -0500, in rec.photo.digital M-M
<nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:

>I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of the Russian-made
>Rubinar lenses. I'm particularly interested in the 1000mm supertelephoto
>range.
>
>I have seen some images of the moons craters and they look very sharp. I
>know you have to do a lot of finageling to get them to fit andeven more
>to get them to expose properly, but it looks like a good fun/dollar
>ratio.
>
>http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/r..._1000_lens.htm


What do you want to use it for? Looks like an f/10 manual focus lens.
Remember the moon is a relatively quite bright daylight subject.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

Bhogi 02-08-2007 11:40 PM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
M-M wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of the Russian-made
> Rubinar lenses. I'm particularly interested in the 1000mm supertelephoto
> range.
>
> I have seen some images of the moons craters and they look very sharp. I
> know you have to do a lot of finageling to get them to fit andeven more
> to get them to expose properly, but it looks like a good fun/dollar
> ratio.
>
> http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/r..._1000_lens.htm
>
> thanks,
>
> --
> m-m


I have 1000 f10 and 500 f5.6.
FYI rubinars are supposed to be opticaly superior to MTO maksutovs.
1000 works pretty good, and is supposed to be diffraction limited.
My 500 is a bit decentered and so has less resolution.
Both are pretty heavy (500 is almost as big as 1000) and not very easy
to focus. 500 is fast enough for handheld shots of sunlit scenes, but
you realy can't focus well and quick enough this way.
I plan to use them only for astro photography, for anything else
they're just too inconvenient for me.
If you buy one, don't be tempted to use the UV filter, it's uncoated
and lowers the contrast even further.

Here's a shot of the moon for example.
http://zenit-photo.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=170

I never got good shots using 2x teleconverter.


1000 works realy good as a telescope with this attachment, for 100x
magnification
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/t...attachment.htm

Using a 2x teleconverter for 200x viewing is OK, but diffraction rings
can be seen around bright points of light.


M-M 02-09-2007 12:12 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
In article <t0cns2d8nqjlbro9iv29amo67pt4u6mqff@4ax.com>,
"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote:

> What do you want to use it for? Looks like an f/10 manual focus lens.
> Remember the moon is a relatively quite bright daylight subject.


The moon and planetary photography. I have used a spotting scope with
that equivalent focal length and it comes in quite handy for nature and
wildlife.

For example, sunsets like this are only available @1000mm:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/boatset.jpg

(I know, it's a bit underexposed but sometimes you have to grab the
moment with whatever you have)


--
m-m

M-M 02-09-2007 12:14 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
In article <1170978037.570690.285910@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"Bhogi" <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:

> Here's a shot of the moon for example.
> http://zenit-photo.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=170



dead link

--
m-m

Bhogi 02-09-2007 12:28 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
M-M wrote:
> In article <1170978037.570690.285910@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> "Bhogi" <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's a shot of the moon for example.
> > http://zenit-photo.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=170

>
>
> dead link
>
> --
> m-m


I don't know why the site's down. If you're interested I can email you.


Rudy Benner 02-09-2007 01:48 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 

"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-985144.18083508022007@newsread.uslec.net...
>I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of the Russian-made
> Rubinar lenses. I'm particularly interested in the 1000mm supertelephoto
> range.
>
> I have seen some images of the moons craters and they look very sharp. I
> know you have to do a lot of finageling to get them to fit andeven more
> to get them to expose properly, but it looks like a good fun/dollar
> ratio.
>
> http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/r..._1000_lens.htm
>
> thanks,
>
> --
> m-m


Yes, I have one, the 500mm/5.6, fitted and adjusted for Nikon. (Fits my
D-50 nicely, no mod to camera at all)

I find the fixed aperture to be a pain in the butt. Its almost small enough
to hand hold, a monopod helps lots. Very little depth of field at 5.6.
Perhaps the 1000mm/8 would be better.

The tripod insert was loose, had to fix it, two part epoxy did the trick,
its still holding.
Found the focus very stiff, I also fixed that somewhat.

I have a few posted starting here http://tinyurl.com/347u6m

The EXIF data at the bottom of each frame reveals which lens I was using. If
it says Manual Mode, it was taken with the Rubinar 500mm/5.6 lens.
There is a link to my email address at the bottom in case you want to see
originals.



Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) 02-09-2007 02:13 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:12:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems M-M
<nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:

>In article <t0cns2d8nqjlbro9iv29amo67pt4u6mqff@4ax.com>,
> "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> What do you want to use it for? Looks like an f/10 manual focus lens.
>> Remember the moon is a relatively quite bright daylight subject.

>
>The moon and planetary photography. I have used a spotting scope with
>that equivalent focal length and it comes in quite handy for nature and
>wildlife.
>
>For example, sunsets like this are only available @1000mm:
>
>http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/boatset.jpg
>
>(I know, it's a bit underexposed but sometimes you have to grab the
>moment with whatever you have)


No offense, but why didn't you say so in your OP? This is a pet peeve of
mine in these groups. Almost no one qualifies their questions. Even worse
are "what is the best".....type questions.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

M-M 02-09-2007 02:29 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 
In article <h0mns29eq7kads0b1369ti4qpcenqc8ggg@4ax.com>,
"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote:

> No offense, but why didn't you say so in your OP? This is a pet peeve of
> mine in these groups. Almost no one qualifies their questions. Even worse
> are "what is the best".....type questions.


I thought I stated I was looking for a sharp inexpensive supertelephoto
lens and I didn't care about having to work at manual settings to get it.

--
m-m

Rudy Benner 02-09-2007 02:34 AM

Re: Rubinar Lenses
 

"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-5EDC78.21294808022007@newsread.uslec.net...
> In article <h0mns29eq7kads0b1369ti4qpcenqc8ggg@4ax.com>,
> "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> No offense, but why didn't you say so in your OP? This is a pet peeve of
>> mine in these groups. Almost no one qualifies their questions. Even worse
>> are "what is the best".....type questions.

>
> I thought I stated I was looking for a sharp inexpensive supertelephoto
> lens and I didn't care about having to work at manual settings to get it.
>
> --
> m-m


Don't worry about Ed, he just needs another coffee or something.




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.