Rubinar Lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by M-M, Feb 8, 2007.

  1. M-M

    M-M Guest

    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/rubinar_1000_lens.htm

    thanks,

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Feb 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:08:35 -0500, in rec.photo.digital 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/rubinar_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 ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. M-M

    Bhogi Guest

    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/rubinar_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/tourist-fl-eyepiece-attachment.htm

    Using a 2x teleconverter for 200x viewing is OK, but diffraction rings
    can be seen around bright points of light.
    Bhogi, Feb 8, 2007
    #3
  4. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> 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, Feb 9, 2007
    #4
  5. M-M

    M-M Guest

    M-M, Feb 9, 2007
    #5
  6. M-M

    Bhogi Guest

    Bhogi, Feb 9, 2007
    #6
  7. M-M

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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/rubinar_1000_lens.htm
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > --
    > m-m


    Yes, I have one, the 500mm/ƒ5.6, 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 ƒ5.6.
    Perhaps the 1000mm/ƒ8 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/ƒ5.6 lens.
    There is a link to my email address at the bottom in case you want to see
    originals.
    Rudy Benner, Feb 9, 2007
    #7
  8. On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:12:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems M-M
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> 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 ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 9, 2007
    #8
  9. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> 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
    M-M, Feb 9, 2007
    #9
  10. M-M

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> 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.
    Rudy Benner, Feb 9, 2007
    #10
  11. M-M

    Martin Brown Guest

    On Feb 9, 2:29 am, M-M <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> 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.


    I have an old MTO 1000 f10 (selected specimen) which predates the
    Rubinars. The good ones are very good - in the old days batch
    variability was noticeable. The main problem is that at f10 exposure
    times always require a very sturdy tripod and cable release to avoid
    vibration blur. It will stand a 1.4x converter too if your tripod is
    up to it and you can persuade the target stand still enough.

    Several camera makers and bespoke fittings do eyepiece adapters that
    will turn it into a x40 spotting scope. A good one will show the
    phases of venus, rings of saturn and detail on the moon (in somewhat
    better than you can photograph).

    If you want it for astronomy or as a spotting telescope you should
    perhaps also consider the Meade ETX or the Japanese Borg kit too (more
    expensive).

    The only caveat is that with an obstructed aperture for the central
    mirror in the folded optics you get a bokeh that is donut shaped on
    any out of focus highlights. This may be irritating distraction or an
    interesting feature in some wildlife shots.

    A quick query on http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.php with fl
    400-600 f 4-10 will get the 500mm Nikkor Reflex lens showing a
    slightly extreme example of the worst that can happen when specular
    highlights are out of focus. Despite this minor irritation these long
    focus reflex lenses do provide an affordable way to photograph
    wildlife that you cannot otherwise get close enough to.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Feb 9, 2007
    #11
  12. M-M

    JSF Guest

    The only good thing in Russia is their Women if your lucky.


    "Rudy Benner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "M-M" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>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/rubinar_1000_lens.htm
    >>
    >> thanks,
    >>
    >> --
    >> m-m

    >
    > Yes, I have one, the 500mm/ƒ5.6, 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
    > ƒ5.6. Perhaps the 1000mm/ƒ8 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/ƒ5.6 lens.
    > There is a link to my email address at the bottom in case you want to see
    > originals.
    >
    JSF, Feb 9, 2007
    #12
  13. M-M

    Just D Guest

    You forgot about Vodka and Caviar :) ...and bears on the streets.

    "JSF" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The only good thing in Russia is their Women if your lucky.
    >
    >
    > "Rudy Benner" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "M-M" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>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/rubinar_1000_lens.htm
    >>>
    >>> thanks,
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> m-m

    >>
    >> Yes, I have one, the 500mm/ƒ5.6, 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
    >> ƒ5.6. Perhaps the 1000mm/ƒ8 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/ƒ5.6 lens.
    >> There is a link to my email address at the bottom in case you want to see
    >> originals.
    >>

    >
    >
    Just D, Feb 9, 2007
    #13
  14. M-M

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:08:35 -0500, in rec.photo.digital 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.


    Nikon doesn't appear to have the manual for the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
    ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor available online. If it is compatible with a
    TC have you given any consideration into trying out a 2x instead?
    -
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf, Feb 12, 2007
    #14
  15. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <>>
    wrote:

    > Nikon doesn't appear to have the manual for the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
    > ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor available online. If it is compatible with a
    > TC have you given any consideration into trying out a 2x instead?


    Nikon states that lens is not compatible with teleconverters. I went and
    tried one out anyhow but it will not fit.

    However I did try a Tamron 1.4X (or some other aftermarket TC) with that
    lens and it fit but the results were not good. I took it outside the
    shop and gave it a go. First, the focus hunted a lot and the image
    quality suffered a great deal from all the glass.

    The VR was of no use since at those focal lengths, you need a tripod no
    matter what.

    The 1000mm Rubinar still looks very interesting, especially since I can
    use it as an astronomical telescope:
    http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescopes.htm


    --
    m-m
    M-M, Feb 12, 2007
    #15
  16. M-M

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <>>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Nikon doesn't appear to have the manual for the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
    >> ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor available online. If it is compatible with a
    >> TC have you given any consideration into trying out a 2x instead?

    >
    > Nikon states that lens is not compatible with teleconverters. I went and
    > tried one out anyhow but it will not fit.
    >
    > However I did try a Tamron 1.4X (or some other aftermarket TC) with that
    > lens and it fit but the results were not good. I took it outside the
    > shop and gave it a go. First, the focus hunted a lot and the image
    > quality suffered a great deal from all the glass.
    >
    > The VR was of no use since at those focal lengths, you need a tripod no
    > matter what.
    >
    > The 1000mm Rubinar still looks very interesting, especially since I can
    > use it as an astronomical telescope:
    > http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescopes.htm
    >
    >
    > --
    > m-m


    You will need a M42/Nikon converter. The infinity stop will need to be
    recalibrated since you will also need an extension ring (about 7 mm will do
    it). They do not recommend recalibraing the infinity stop on the 1000mm
    lens.
    Rudy Benner, Feb 12, 2007
    #16
  17. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Rudy Benner" <> wrote:

    > > The 1000mm Rubinar still looks very interesting, especially since I can
    > > use it as an astronomical telescope:
    > > http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescopes.htm
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > m-m

    >
    > You will need a M42/Nikon converter. The infinity stop will need to be
    > recalibrated since you will also need an extension ring (about 7 mm will do
    > it). They do not recommend recalibraing the infinity stop on the 1000mm
    > lens.



    I did read that.

    There is available a M42/Nikon converter with a lens that may allow
    focus to infinity. Are you familiar with this?:

    http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/nikon_lens_adapter_with_lens.htm

    Otherwise I am forced to use a 2x TC to get infinity focus. I think.
    --
    m-m
    M-M, Feb 12, 2007
    #17
  18. M-M

    Bhogi Guest

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "Rudy Benner" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > The 1000mm Rubinar still looks very interesting, especially since I can
    > > > use it as an astronomical telescope:
    > > > http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescopes.htm
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > m-m

    > >
    > > You will need a M42/Nikon converter. The infinity stop will need to be
    > > recalibrated since you will also need an extension ring (about 7 mm will do
    > > it). They do not recommend recalibraing the infinity stop on the 1000mm
    > > lens.

    >
    >
    > I did read that.


    That's not a problem at all.
    I think they put that up after I nagged about suggestions not applying
    to 1000. Instead of putting some additional info on the page they
    effectively discourage buyers from buying it at all.
    Those ball bearings can't fall out just like that. I know because I
    completely took apart the lens and lubricated those same dreaded
    ballbearings.
    The rotating tripod collar is realy bad on 1000 while it's very good
    on 500 f5.6. If you buy 1000 you might consider epoxying the collar to
    the lens because it keeps unscrewing itself and rotating feature is
    not nearly rigid enough.
    Bhogi, Feb 13, 2007
    #18
  19. M-M

    Bhogi Guest

    Bhogi wrote:
    > M-M wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > "Rudy Benner" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > > The 1000mm Rubinar still looks very interesting, especially since I can
    > > > > use it as an astronomical telescope:
    > > > > http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescopes.htm
    > > >
    > > > it). They do not recommend recalibraing the infinity stop on the 1000mm
    > > > lens.

    > >
    > > I did read that.

    >
    > That's not a problem at all.


    Here's a working link to the shot of the moon with the 1000.
    http://www.ejarm.com/photo/images/moon1000big.jpg
    Bhogi, Feb 13, 2007
    #19
  20. On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:17:36 -0500, in rec.photo.digital M-M
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <>>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Nikon doesn't appear to have the manual for the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
    >> ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor available online. If it is compatible with a
    >> TC have you given any consideration into trying out a 2x instead?

    >
    >Nikon states that lens is not compatible with teleconverters. I went and
    >tried one out anyhow but it will not fit.


    OK, that means you don't want to use one. If you could scan or shoot that
    part of the manual and post it or e-mail me I'd be appreciative. I'm just
    curious.

    >However I did try a Tamron 1.4X (or some other aftermarket TC) with that
    >lens and it fit but the results were not good. I took it outside the
    >shop and gave it a go. First, the focus hunted a lot and the image
    >quality suffered a great deal from all the glass.


    That would lead to 3 possible scenarios. First, there is some design
    element that makes it in compatible that doesn't allow for good images.
    Second the Tamaron TC was a percent of junk. Or the Nikon lens can't even
    stand up to 1.4 magnification. I'm guessing 1, but have no idea how good
    the Tamaron TC is. As far as AF, of course you will lose it over most of
    the FL as you need f/5.6 or wider for the AF to work properly.

    >The VR was of no use since at those focal lengths, you need a tripod no
    >matter what.


    Actually it still will. help on a tripod. Just doesn't get you to a shutter
    speed you can still hand hold easily.

    You were talking about a full manual mirror lens and I was postulating this
    as a possible alternative.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 13, 2007
    #20
    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. jonathan

    stabilizing lenses (what lenses to get w/10D)

    jonathan, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    421
    Ken Alverson
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    320
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    659
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. measekite

    Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

    measekite, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    640
    Mueen Nawaz
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. Rudy Benner

    Rubinar 500/5.6 - lubrication and other stuff.

    Rudy Benner, Dec 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,127
Loading...

Share This Page