Lens recommendations for extreme distance (~500-800mm)

[cirwin2010]

Equally important is a lock-up mirror, a rock-solid tripod and maybe a lens cradle/mount.

Mirror lockup is a must. I have a tripod that is overkill for even my 4x5 with full extension on my Nikkor 500mm T* ED. I'm not worried about it.

 

[Pieter12]

A celestron or similar telescope with an adapter.

 

[Xylo]

Coming a bit late and from left field, have you thought of the Opteka 650-1300mm f/8 ?
I saw a video make with it a while back and it's pretty insane, especially when used with a 2x teleconverter.

A long time ago, I did take a few photos of a partial eclipse using a Tamron 500mm with a 2x converter, and I must say that (from memory) the results were pretty underwhelming to say the least. Thing is that the sun is much smaller than we think in the sky.

 

[Paul Howell]

I found a 95mm that would fit my Sigma 600mm reflex front thread at Amazon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I considered the 500mm CF with a 2x converter. But, I am not sure it is worth the investment as the tools to repair and service the 350mm and 500mm Hasselblad lenses no longer exist. Most repair shops won't touch those lenses. Figured it wasn't worth risking a $1k paperweight, plus 35mm is lighter with more options for this particular task.

When I got my 500mm C lens from KEH it jammed. They paid for shipping both ways, disassembled the lens to get to the shutter, recollimated the lens, and shipped it back to me at no cost.

 

[xkaes]

I found a 95mm that would fit my Sigma 600mm reflex front thread at Amazon.

That Sigma -- like most CATS -- came with a set of small rear filters. I think on the Sigma 600mm they are 22.5mm. Others are 30.5 or 35.5mm.

Of course this is true for lots of long or big NON-CATS as well. For example, the Yashica 800mm f8 can take 112mm filters on the front or 37mm filters on the rear.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I looked as several forms of reflective lenses many times over the years and always opted for the refractive lenses at the higher cost with image quality being the decision factor.

 

[Arthurwg]

I considered the 500mm CF with a 2x converter. But, I am not sure it is worth the investment as the tools to repair and service the 350mm and 500mm Hasselblad lenses no longer exist. Most repair shops won't touch those lenses. Figured it wasn't worth risking a $1k paperweight, plus 35mm is lighter with more options for this particular task.

Those lenses are pretty robust. Probably outlive both you and your progeny. But life is not without risks.

 

[xkaes]

Zeiss to the rescue -- 1700mm f4 with a Hasselblad -- look closely.

 

[cirwin2010]

Those lenses are pretty robust. Probably outlive both you and your progeny. But life is not without risks.

Hasselblad lenses require servicing every now and then depending on how they are used. It may be many, many years if all is in good shape and stored well.

 

[cirwin2010]

So I didn't realize how well super telephoto refractive lenses hold their value. I was a bit confused by some of the earlier recommendations for mirror/reflex lenses in this thread. I am likely going to avoid such lenses as most have subpar image quality or collimation issues.

I did a little research and if I want to go this route, I may want increase my budget. I was looking at the Nikkor 500mm f/4 P ED IF or Nikkor 600mm F/5.6 ED IF AIS with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. These are manual focus lenses, but I don't use autofocus or shoot moving subjects anyways. I think these are supposed to be pretty high resolving optics, but I don't know how they hold up with the teleconverters. Even modern lenses will lose quality with teleconverters. Anyone have any thoughts on these lenses?

 

[cirwin2010]

A celestron or similar telescope with an adapter.

I was considering a refractor telescope at one point for astro work, but for my wants/needs I think its more cost and trouble than it is worth. A celestron would be difficult to bring around and set up. Petzval telescopes are high quality and you don't need to worry about back focus. But, they are are very expensive, lack aperture control, and typically don't have very long focal lengths (for a telescope). There is also the issue of close focus if you want to use it for anything but extreme distance.

Happy for someone to explain if this is wrong. Telescopes are pretty cool.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Zeiss to the rescue -- 1700mm f4 with a Hasselblad -- look closely.

View attachment 346772

I would buy one if I could find one for sale.

 

[xkaes]

If you can afford one, you can find one.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I have had both the 500/P and the 600mm/5.6 and I went thru a similar thought process of use of gear/cost/quality. I was able to compare them together for a period of time, and while I very much liked the 600, the 500mm f/4P is sharper. The optical designs are essentially the same, except for the 500 having one more ED element while the 600 has one less total elements. I feel the extra ED element gives a modern crispness to the 500 that the 600 doesn't, although the 600 is perfectly sharp for anything I used it for, landscapes, surfing, video time-lapses. The 500 has a much more saturated and crispy nature, nothing obvious but it does work well for the surfing side of my super-telephoto needs with the additional potential for salt-spray to shoot thru.

Both are fine on Tele-converters, I think the inherent higher saturation/contrast of the 500 makes it better than the 600 with the TC-14b, for both images are very slightly degraded but entirely useable quality depending on your needs. The 500 with TC is easier to shoot than the 600 with TC, a full stop of viewing lost in an film SLR is more dire than with a Z6, in my case. The focus peaking of the Z series is an exceptional way to use super-tele's, and I primarily shoot the Z6 for any color or video needs and black and white film exclusively with mostly F4's or F5, sometimes F3P. Screen change is a must, I prefer the U screen in general for both but both the H and G series can be useful when used with both types of converters.

With the 2x TC-301 both work better than most people generally expect, at least if you do things well; extra sturdy tripod, sandbags, a low wind and high clarity atmosphere. I add in a small amount of rigging, a cheese plate with a couple of carbon fiber rods where I can support the rear of the lens. With the longer TC-301 the lens length really gets long for both, and for me it's easier to tamp down vibrations when I rig them this way. The 500 is much easier to use as a sports lens, one stop faster shutter speed available of course, and the size and weight distribution without the hood is better with the 500. Also a plus is the CPU contacts and the useful additional functions that entails.

For color the 600 had a softer feel to it, or in softer light the contrast was delightful, whereas in the same light the 500 would seem to 'punch up the shadows' if that makes sense. Subtle. Black and white film was a toss-up choice with strengths depending on how I was going to use the lens and the day. The 500 seemed slightly harsher in B&W, seemingly less 'kind' to overexposure than the 600.


Either one of these specific two lenses are exceptional optics and both can give you extraordinary images, I went the easy route and kept both (until now, see below). I got the 500 very cheap with good timing and the 600 was offered to me by a good buddy for even less, so it was easy to keep both at the time

I still have the 500/P on another island but I just lost the 600mm f/5.6 in my family house fire in the Lahaina Catastrophe. It was a fine lens. It most probably but not certain at this point has been melted, according to what I've seen from overviews of the rubble.

 

[cirwin2010]

I have had both the 500/P and the 600mm/5.6 and I went thru a similar thought process of use of gear/cost/quality. I was able to compare them together for a period of time, and while I very much liked the 600, the 500mm f/4P is sharper. The optical designs are essentially the same, except for the 500 having one more ED element while the 600 has one less total elements. I feel the extra ED element gives a modern crispness to the 500 that the 600 doesn't, although the 600 is perfectly sharp for anything I used it for, landscapes, surfing, video time-lapses. The 500 has a much more saturated and crispy nature, nothing obvious but it does work well for the surfing side of my super-telephoto needs with the additional potential for salt-spray to shoot thru.

Both are fine on Tele-converters, I think the inherent higher saturation/contrast of the 500 makes it better than the 600 with the TC-14b, for both images are very slightly degraded but entirely useable quality depending on your needs. The 500 with TC is easier to shoot than the 600 with TC, a full stop of viewing lost in an film SLR is more dire than with a Z6, in my case. The focus peaking of the Z series is an exceptional way to use super-tele's, and I primarily shoot the Z6 for any color or video needs and black and white film exclusively with mostly F4's or F5, sometimes F3P. Screen change is a must, I prefer the U screen in general for both but both the H and G series can be useful when used with both types of converters.

With the 2x TC-301 both work better than most people generally expect, at least if you do things well; extra sturdy tripod, sandbags, a low wind and high clarity atmosphere. I add in a small amount of rigging, a cheese plate with a couple of carbon fiber rods where I can support the rear of the lens. With the longer TC-301 the lens length really gets long for both, and for me it's easier to tamp down vibrations when I rig them this way. The 500 is much easier to use as a sports lens, one stop faster shutter speed available of course, and the size and weight distribution without the hood is better with the 500. Also a plus is the CPU contacts and the useful additional functions that entails.

For color the 600 had a softer feel to it, or in softer light the contrast was delightful, whereas in the same light the 500 would seem to 'punch up the shadows' if that makes sense. Subtle. Black and white film was a toss-up choice with strengths depending on how I was going to use the lens and the day. The 500 seemed slightly harsher in B&W, seemingly less 'kind' to overexposure than the 600.


Either one of these specific two lenses are exceptional optics and both can give you extraordinary images, I went the easy route and kept both (until now, see below). I got the 500 very cheap with good timing and the 600 was offered to me by a good buddy for even less, so it was easy to keep both at the time

I still have the 500/P on another island but I just lost the 600mm f/5.6 in my family house fire in the Lahaina Catastrophe. It was a fine lens. It most probably but not certain at this point has been melted, according to what I've seen from overviews of the rubble.

I'm very sorry to hear about the loss of your family house. I cannot image what you and the others on Maui are experiencing right now and I hope your family is safe.

Thank you for your reply. I doubt too many folks owned both lenses are were able to compare them both. I saw a vague forum reference elsewhere that suggested the 500mm P was a superior lens. If I go this route, I think the extra sharpness and contrast may be appreciated for how I like to shoot. That also might come in handy if I adapt my Fuji digital aps-c camera to the lens at some point. You also have a good point regarding the extra stop of light. I often shoot landscapes in low light conditions so I will take what I can get.

I'll definitely look into the focusing screens, I didn't know you could replace those on the older Nikon cameras.

I have an extremely sturdy tripod (very similar to the Gitzo 5 series), but it sounds like more is required to steady the camera? I have heard of folks putting bean bags on top of their lens to damped vibrations, is this what you were describing? Is it possible to get steady, long exposures with these lenses or is that a lost cause?

 

[Paul Howell]

That Sigma -- like most CATS -- came with a set of small rear filters. I think on the Sigma 600mm they are 22.5mm. Others are 30.5 or 35.5mm.

Of course this is true for lots of long or big NON-CATS as well. For example, the Yashica 800mm f8 can take 112mm filters on the front or 37mm filters on the rear.

I dont you can find a solar grade filter in those sizes. I have a set of the 22.5 filets that came with the lens, red, yellow, green, UV. Think there is a neutral density in that size, but not polarizer. The closest would be to buy a 12 X 12 sheet of Solar Filter, cutting it would an glueing it to the UV filer, around the rim.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Aloha, and thanks for your thoughts, its been rough on everyone in Hawaii or that has Hawaii connections but we will all make it through this time.

Yes, it is very possible to get steady, long exposures, I do the usual long lens techniques, a center post weight, and I sometimes do drape a less full sandbag over the top of the lens, I also sometimes have to forgo a hood due to the potential of wind buffeting, but only if required.

I've been a long time long glass aficionado, and I think the only way to have a sense of these lenses and differences (especially the different eras of long glass) is to use them or get the opinions of shooters who have shot a few of them. Any relatively modern ED glass type of telephoto will (used properly) give outstanding results on its own, but differences can only be seen in side by side shooting of them. As I mentioned, my own quest that lead me to both these lenses was to have the lighter (yet slower) options than my 400mm/2.8 (seen in my avatar pic, and alas also lost in the flames). I also considered the 400mm f/3.5, but for 1/2 stop the 500/4P gave me more available focal length in nearly the same size. I also very much appreciate the 500/4's longer hood for strong side-light.

Lots of tales, lore and fables about long lenses are insights and conversations that came from pro shooters that had NPS connections, at that time to get NPS status was a very difficult process but it did allow some amount of information interchange with Nikon. My understanding is that the 500/4P was designed as one of the first AF long tele's from Nikon, but Nikon found that the external in-body type screwdriver AF motor used in the 300/2.8 and shorter was perhaps not up to the task, and more crucially, Canon had the first patent rights on the Ultrasonic lens motor, which would take Nikon a solid 5 years to work around. It is not that Nikon didn't want to use 'motor-in-lens' it is the fact that they could not until they dealt with patent issues (I believe there was a certain amount of 'sharing' or exchange of technology, merely my own thoughts).

 

[xkaes]

Pick you poison. I have both 500mm CATS (f6.3 & f8) and APO (f7.2). I like them all. That was once the case with 800mm, but the 800mm f8 Yashica/Tokina was a huge, heavy, two-piece beast, and I could never image lugging around a 1250mm f10.5mm NON-CAT. My Honeywell Lumitar requires a small suitcase, and weighs next to nothing -- and I could afford it.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/mirror-lenses-lightweight-super-telephotos-that-are-affordable

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've had a Canon FD 600/4.5 for years, which is something of a sleeper, because it's not an "L" lens, but it's still a fine lens. Some people care more about the red line on the barrel than actual image quality, so you can sometimes find these at a good price, and FD camera bodies are cheap.

 

[xkaes]

If I spent more than a grand on a lens, I'd say it was the best lens in the world, too! I once ran into a gal with a Leica R3 and Vario Elmar 80-200mm 4.5 zoom. She, of course, said it was the best camera and lens in the world. I never mentioned to her that i had a Minolta XE-7 and a Rokkor-X 80-200mm f4.5 zoom -- which was the exact same thing at about 75% OFF.