Re: Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm Super Telephoto Zoom Lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by NameHere, Dec 22, 2009.

  1. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:42:24 -0500, M-M <> wrote:

    >In article
    ><>,
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Dec 21, 9:10 am, "Shane" <> wrote:
    >> > Has anyone had any experience with a Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm
    >> > Super
    >> > Telephoto Zoom Lens.  If not, how about any of the other lenses like this
    >> > or
    >> > any of the spotting scope lenses.
    >> >
    >> > Thanks,
    >> > Shane

    >>
    >> Garbage. The f-stops at those focal lengths are about f8-9 and
    >> f16-19. Plus, lots of crappy, likely uncoated internal optics to
    >> facilitate the zoom function. If anyone wants a decent, cheap
    >> facsimile of a telephoto lens, then get a cheap achromatic telescope
    >> optical tube instead. At least you'll have an f5 focal ratio at 400mm
    >> which you can boost with eyepieces to whatever you want. Plus, you'll
    >> get much better results.
    >>
    >> http://www.telescope.com/control/telescopes/refractor-telescopes/orion-shorttu
    >> be-80-a-refractor-telescope

    >
    >
    >I used a similar type scope for a long time until I upgraded to a Nikon
    >Fieldscope. If you have the skill, patience and the right conditions
    >(lots of light), you can get some once-in-a-lifetime shots for real
    >cheap.
    >
    >Yes, it's soft and very small apertures with quite a bit of purple
    >fringing at times. And you need to manually focus with a DOF measured in
    >mm's. But here are some examples:
    >
    >http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/eagle1L.jpg
    >
    >http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/jay1L.jpg
    >
    >http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/snowjL.jpg
    >
    >All taken with a film camera on a Swift spotting scope.


    I've seen better image quality coming from a P&S camera and using two
    stacked 1.7x teleconverters, along with using 1.76x digital-zoom (to take
    advantage of the sensor's RAW resolution in-camera). Creating a full f/3.5
    aperture (with no CA) for hand-held photography, now with an effective
    focal-length of 2197mm (35mm-equivalent). 1249mm - f/3.5 without the
    digital-zoom. All accomplished at 1/5th to 1/10th the price, weight, and
    size of a DSLR + spotting scope. The two teleconverters less than the price
    of that garbage Opteka lens too. The whole kit, two teleconverters plus
    camera, all fitting in one roomy windbreaker pocket.

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg

    1/640s @ f3.5

    Of course to get an image like that at those focal-lengths without a tripod
    you'd better have good hand-held skills and use OIS in your camera. Do any
    of those long zoom lenses or spotting scopes when used with a DSLR come
    with OIS in them? Let alone auto-focusing. The P&S camera with two stacked
    teleconverters provides for both. By looking at that hand-held image above
    it seems to work fairly well.


    Now let's hear it from all the highly insecure DSLR owners and trolls with
    their claims that: the photo is stolen!, the EXIF was edited!, the image
    was taken with a DSLR on a tripod!, the bird wasn't that far away! ...
    yadda yadda yadda ... You know, all the usual childish, ignorant, and
    stupid bullshit they try to claim to justify why they waste so much money
    on their chosen camera gear.

    Or even more funny, how they can't wrap their pea-brains around the fact
    that an 80mm dia. teleconverter's entrance-pupil can't provide enough
    aperture for a 208mm true focal-length, now allowing for a full f/3.5
    aperture (true focal-length x 6 sensor-crop for the 35mm equivalent). When
    in fact that much teleconverter aperture is enough to provide for a full
    f/2.4 on another P&S camera I own that already has that aperture available
    on its own lens at full zoom. (48.5mm true focal-length x 1.7 x 1.7 =
    140mm) With another 1.76 digital-zoom that provides for a full f/2.4
    aperture at an apparent 968mm 35mm-equivalent zoom lens' focal-length.
    (247mm true focal-length x sensor crop of 3.92) Even without the
    digital-zoom on that other P&S camera, that creates an f/2.4 - 549mm
    (35mm-equivalent) lens by optics alone. I'd love to see them carry a DSLR
    lens of that focal-length and aperture in their coat pocket, it'd have to
    be 9 inches in diameter, weigh a ton, and cost a king's ransom.

    C'mon all you whiney DSLR-Trolls, don't disappoint me. Do reveal your
    ignorance and insecurity once again. You have to. It's EXACTLY what you
    are.
     
    NameHere, Dec 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:43:38 -0600, Rich <> wrote:

    >A DSLR can be mounted to a mirror lens of 1350mm focal length.


    What mirror lens? However I found this one at the cost of $1800-$2100 and
    the weight of 5.1 lbs. available ONLY for video cameras and small sensors
    (1/2.5" the same as my P&S cameras), at f/4.0 at that. 2 EV stops smaller
    aperture. Better get your higher noise-filled ISOs ready too. Zero
    tele-macro capability too. Ooops. no optical image stabilization nor
    auto-focus included. Aww... what a shame.

    http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/digi72xs.html
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/article_print.asp?date=0406&article=04062402kowprominartd1


    Oh look! They have to attach it to their cameras with duct-tape! Now isn't
    that a novel solution. LOL!

    http://www.oceanwanderers.com/TD1Scope.6158.jpg

    Here's more example that provide for the same or lesser image quality as
    the two stacked telextenders on an inexpensive P&S camera.

    http://www.oceanwanderers.com/KowaTD1.html

    Whereas the full f/2.4 aperture and focal length can be had for under $200
    and less than 2 lbs for all still frame P&S digital cameras (with video
    included). Not to mention that it is bereft of those gawd-awful doughnut
    shaped bokeh effects from catadioptric mirror lens systems (if you can find
    one like that).

    Sorry, you still lose. Go back to you whiney DSLR-Troll crying-board.
     
    NameHere, Dec 23, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NameHere

    Ray Fischer Guest

    NameHere <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:43:38 -0600, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >>A DSLR can be mounted to a mirror lens of 1350mm focal length.

    >
    >What mirror lens? However I found this one at the cost of $1800-$2100 and
    >the weight of 5.1 lbs. available ONLY for video cameras and small sensors


    The asshole troll is stupid.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 23, 2009
    #3
  4. NameHere

    DanP Guest

    On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:

    > http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg
    >
    > 1/640s @ f3.5


    Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.

    Ever heard of cropping? Or handheld shooting with high ISO?

    Check e-bay for mirror lenses prices.

    How come you know more about photography than the people who make a
    livinig out of it? And they all use SLR cameras with proper lens.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Dec 23, 2009
    #4
  5. NameHere

    DanP Guest

    On Dec 23, 6:21 am, NameHere <> wrote:

    > What mirror lens? However I found this one at the cost of $1800-$2100 and
    > the weight of 5.1 lbs. available ONLY for video cameras and small sensors


    The vast majority of mirror lenses are around $$100-300

    http://tinyurl.com/yf754es

    DanP
     
    DanP, Dec 23, 2009
    #5
  6. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:00:02 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Dec 23, 6:21 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    >
    >> What mirror lens? However I found this one at the cost of $1800-$2100 and
    >> the weight of 5.1 lbs. available ONLY for video cameras and small sensors

    >
    >The vast majority of mirror lenses are around $$100-300
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/yf754es
    >
    >DanP


    Let's see, f/8 at 800mm (or f/16 at 1600mm stacked with a CA inducing
    converter). Versus 3 to 5 full-stops more aperture with a P&S camera at
    f/2.4 or f/3.5 with complete aperture control for all f-stops and having
    access to all intermediate focal-lengths too. Allowing you to do hand-held
    photography at those apertures too because you still get to use the P&S
    camera's built-in optical image stabilization. No tripod required. Yeah,
    that's REALLY equivalent gear, isn't it. LOL And still costing $100 more
    than what can be done with nearly any P&S camera. Let's see you fit
    something that's the size of a 5"x6" box in your pocket too along with your
    camera and required tripod for that fully crippled capability.

    Try again, you loser DSLR-Trolls.

    LOL!!
     
    NameHere, Dec 23, 2009
    #6
  7. NameHere

    Ray Fischer Guest

    NameHere <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:00:02 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Dec 23, 6:21 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> What mirror lens? However I found this one at the cost of $1800-$2100 and
    >>> the weight of 5.1 lbs. available ONLY for video cameras and small sensors

    >>
    >>The vast majority of mirror lenses are around $$100-300
    >>
    >>http://tinyurl.com/yf754es
    >>

    >Let's see, f/8 at 800mm (or f/16 at 1600mm stacked with a CA inducing


    Go away, asshole troll. Nobdoy buys your stupid lies.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 24, 2009
    #7
  8. DanP <> wrote:
    > On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:


    >> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg


    Ah, the photo the slime claims it shot handheld at 30 seconds
    at 2000+mm ... and which it stole from some unsuspecting
    flickr user.

    > Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.


    Not the slime's shot in first place, but it couldn't find a
    worse DSLR photo to pass off as a P&S shot.

    > Ever heard of cropping? Or handheld shooting with high ISO?


    It would have to do it's own shooting instead of ripping off
    other people's photographs to be able to crop properly or to
    change the ISO.

    > How come you know more about photography than the people who make a
    > livinig out of it? And they all use SLR cameras with proper lens.


    It's the slime. It knows best, because it is far removed from
    all reality.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 25, 2009
    #8
  9. NameHere

    ROFLMAO! Guest

    On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:53:20 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >DanP <> wrote:
    >> On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:

    >
    >>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg

    >
    >Ah, the photo the slime claims it shot handheld at 30 seconds
    >at 2000+mm ... and which it stole from some unsuspecting
    >flickr user.
    >
    >> Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.

    >
    >Not the slime's shot in first place, but it couldn't find a
    >worse DSLR photo to pass off as a P&S shot.
    >
    >> Ever heard of cropping? Or handheld shooting with high ISO?

    >
    >It would have to do it's own shooting instead of ripping off
    >other people's photographs to be able to crop properly or to
    >change the ISO.
    >


    Now let's hear it from all the highly insecure DSLR owners and trolls with
    their claims that: the photo is stolen!, the EXIF was edited!, the image
    was taken with a DSLR on a tripod!, the bird wasn't that far away! ...
    yadda yadda yadda ... You know, all the usual childish, ignorant, and
    stupid bullshit they try to claim to justify why they waste so much money
    on their chosen camera gear.

    ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    ROFLMAO!, Dec 25, 2009
    #9
  10. NameHere

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ROFLMAO! <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:53:20 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>DanP <> wrote:
    >>> On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg

    >>
    >>Ah, the photo the slime claims it shot handheld at 30 seconds
    >>at 2000+mm ... and which it stole from some unsuspecting
    >>flickr user.
    >>
    >>> Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.

    >>
    >>Not the slime's shot in first place, but it couldn't find a
    >>worse DSLR photo to pass off as a P&S shot.
    >>
    >>> Ever heard of cropping? Or handheld shooting with high ISO?

    >>
    >>It would have to do it's own shooting instead of ripping off
    >>other people's photographs to be able to crop properly or to
    >>change the ISO.

    >
    >Now let's hear it from all the highly insecure DSLR owners and trolls with


    Go away asshole troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 25, 2009
    #10
  11. ROFLMAO! <> wrote:

    > the photo is stolen!, the EXIF was edited!, the image
    > was taken with a DSLR on a tripod!, the bird wasn't that far away! ...


    Hit a nerve? Even spurned you to invent a new identity,
    slime? Because it's a stolen photo with no EXIF taken by a
    DSLR on a tripod with the stuffed bird glued on the plastic!

    You slime couldn't find the shutter button on a P&S camera.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 25, 2009
    #11
  12. NameHere

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |GG| Re: Opteka High Definition 650-1300mm Super Telephoto ZoomLens

    DanP wrote:
    > On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg
    >>
    >> 1/640s @ f3.5

    >
    > Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.


    He's been posting this shot for at least a year. Apparently hasn't done
    any more photos... last time I looked up some test shots from a similar
    setup that he describes and the full pixels looked strained with just
    one 1.7x converter: http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/S2tele.html
    especially in the corners:
    http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/media/s5s3/tele/IMG_6763_432mm.JPG

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 26, 2009
    #12
  13. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:09:34 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >DanP wrote:
    >> On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg
    >>>
    >>> 1/640s @ f3.5

    >>
    >> Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.

    >
    >He's been posting this shot for at least a year. Apparently hasn't done
    >any more photos... last time I looked up some test shots from a similar
    >setup that he describes and the full pixels looked strained with just
    >one 1.7x converter: http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/S2tele.html
    >especially in the corners:
    >http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/media/s5s3/tele/IMG_6763_432mm.JPG


    Thanks. An excellent example of why I'd NEVER buy anything from overpriced
    and scamming Lensmate Online. None of the converters I've ever bought from
    other resources have ever suffered from CA shit like that. Only Lensmate
    would ever peddle crap optics of that low quality. Not to mention their
    filter adapters they sell at 3-5X's the price you can get from everywhere
    else for better quality.

    Oh? Did you think this was going to help your Lensmate spamming efforts?
    Too bad.
     
    NameHere, Dec 26, 2009
    #13
  14. NameHere

    Paul Furman Guest

    NameHere wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:09:34 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> DanP wrote:
    >>> On Dec 22, 9:07 pm, NameHere <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>> 1/640s @ f3.5
    >>> Wildlife on a plastic box. Hmm.

    >> He's been posting this shot for at least a year. Apparently hasn't done
    >> any more photos... last time I looked up some test shots from a similar
    >> setup that he describes and the full pixels looked strained with just
    >> one 1.7x converter: http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/S2tele.html
    >> especially in the corners:
    >> http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/media/s5s3/tele/IMG_6763_432mm.JPG

    >
    > Thanks. An excellent example of why I'd NEVER buy anything from overpriced
    > and scamming Lensmate Online. None of the converters I've ever bought from
    > other resources have ever suffered from CA shit like that. Only Lensmate
    > would ever peddle crap optics of that low quality. Not to mention their
    > filter adapters they sell at 3-5X's the price you can get from everywhere
    > else for better quality.
    >
    > Oh? Did you think this was going to help your Lensmate spamming efforts?
    > Too bad.


    That was an Olympus converter, which they say they don't sell anyways.
    The Raynox 1.5x is no better and the bare camera isn't much different.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 26, 2009
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    10,570
  2. AK
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    603
  3. Malcolm H

    High Definition Opteka 500mm f/8 Telephoto Mirror Lens

    Malcolm H, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    5,603
    Malcolm H
    Jan 31, 2007
  4. Super telephoto zoom lens (short video):

    , Mar 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    381
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Mar 17, 2007
  5. RichA

    The el cheapo 650-1300mm zoom, for those who care

    RichA, Dec 31, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,522
    Chris Malcolm
    Jan 14, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page