 Delivers as Promised |
| Review Date: October 14, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Thomas Wyckoff, Springfield, VA United States |
Received the lens last week and tested it out this weekend. It's smaller and more portable than I expected. In my opinion, it is well-made. The instructions were easy to understand. Note, it requires manual focus (which was not difficult). I've bought and used 500mm lenses for both Canon and Nikon 35mm cameras so that's what I'm comparing the Opteka to. As I expected, the lens works best on a bright day. You can improve shutter speed by going to a higher ISO setting - I tested it using ISO 800 which is what I used to routinely use with big lenses on my 35mm cameras. It's not digitally stabilized so you need to brace yourself or use a tripod to get really sharp photos. That said, I got a number of good shots without bracing myself. I tested it using the fully automatic setting and also on the P #program) seting. On a bright day at ISO 800, most shots were at 1/30 or 1/6o of a second. Pictures were clear, with bright colors. I took some shots of a rotating kite and it shot fast enough to freeze the kite. It's about what you should expect in a $90 lens. You can spend a lot more and get a better lens but for most users this lens ought to be fine.
|
Great cheak 500mm lens
|
| Review Date: September 21, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Ronald Cobbs, New York |
This is a cheap way to get a 500mm telephoto lens for my Canon T1i. Nice compromise until I can get a nice stabilized zoom lens that goes up to 500mm.
|
Good Lens But Not For What It's Advertised.
|
| Review Date: August 3, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Eric Carson, COB Speicher, Iraq |
The Skinny:
This lens is cheap. It is well built, feels smooth, but is really a telescope adapted to a camera. This is BAD JUJU (With a twist, read on!)
The Long:
When I first opened the box I was really impressed by the build quality. The machining of the barrel was perfect, as was the paint job. The objective lens was beautiful, and the secondary mirror mounting element was perfectly centered and machined. Everything reeked of professionalism and excellent quality control. The second thing to strike me is that the thing is really massive. It has an extremely large front element, and that strangeness is exacerbated by the secondary mirror mount smack dab in the middle. Upon investigating further I discovered 3 tiny screw in filters that were a .2 and .6 neutral density with a Skylight filter (color warming) These tiny filters screw into the back of the lens where it mounts to the camera, which can make it a real pain if you choose to change or remove one because you have to take off the T adapter first in order fit your fingers in there.
Why all these talk of primary and secondary mirrors? This lens is a Cassegrain reflector telescope. The light enters the front where it is bounced off a concave primary mirror at the rear to a secondary convex mirror at the front, which then travels through the hole in the center of the primary mirror in the rear into the cameras mirror box. Sounds fantastic right? Depends on your application. This configuration yields an incredibly small depth of field when dealing with things inside the hyperfocal distance. Basically anything inside the "infinity" setting has a small depth of field. Were talking almost macro small. 1 to 3 inches maximum. Very depressing unless you consider its true design, a telescope. More on that later.
My first "wildlife" trial shots were taken on a nice steady tripod with the 2 second shutter delay on. I consistently got blurred images due to "Mirror Slap" (The vibration of the mirror raising to expose the shutter) and this was only alleviated by using the mirror lock up and Live View, which is a pain for shooting wildlife to say the least. Secondly the tiny depth of field ruined all shots as the farther part of the subject rapidly blurred in a very unpleasant manner. So wildlife and sports photography are out for this lens.
However considering this lenses telescope construction prompted me to wait for nightfall and try taking some astronomical photos. I was incredibly pleased! At 500mm the moon fills most of the frame, and being beyond the hyperfocal distance the entire thing stayed crisp and sharp, again provided I used the mirror lock up.
Pros: Cheap, Well Constructed, Lightweight for 500mm, Short for 500mm
Cons: Limited Uses, f/8, Tripod (Must), Cable Release (Optional)
Notes: I would give it 2 stars were it not for its incredible build quality. I wish all my lenses were built to this standard! |
Not super, but good given the price
|
| Review Date: April 26, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Jeremy Miles, Los Angeles |
If you want a 500mm lens, you can spend 4 figures on a Canon lens, or you can buy one of these for less than 1/10 the price. Obviously, you're going to get better results from the Canon, and if you want to sell your photos this is going to be useless. It hasn't got any bells or whistles, no autofocus, no image stabilization, so you're going to need a tripod too.
I would characterize the results from this lens as 'barely acceptable, sometimes'. But still, if you wanted to take professional style photos, you weren't going to get that from a $90 500mm lens.
|
Cheap 500 mm lens
|
| Review Date: March 31, 2009 |
| Reviewer: J. Gilbert, Milwaukee, WI USA |
I bought this lens when I first bought the camera. I did not know any better. It is a shame that good lens are so expensive, but after a year of using the camera, I think, it is best to wait until you can aford a better lense.
I am a beginner at photography, but without a stablizer built into the lens I cannot get a clearly focused photo without a tripod. Also without auto focus it is only good for still shots.
JMHO |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
Recent Comments