From: Bhogi on 8 Feb 2007 18:40 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.
From: Bhogi on 8 Feb 2007 19:28 M-M wrote: > In article <1170978037.570690.285910(a)q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Bhogi" <bhogi(a)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.
From: Rudy Benner on 8 Feb 2007 21:34 "M-M" <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote in message news:nospam.m-m-5EDC78.21294808022007(a)newsread.uslec.net... > In article <h0mns29eq7kads0b1369ti4qpcenqc8ggg(a)4ax.com>, > "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2(a)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.
From: Martin Brown on 9 Feb 2007 03:32 On Feb 9, 2:29 am, M-M <nospam....(a)ny.more> wrote: > In article <h0mns29eq7kads0b1369ti4qpcenqc8...(a)4ax.com>, > "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usen...(a)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. 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
From: Rudy Benner on 12 Feb 2007 14:58 "M-M" <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote in message news:nospam.m-m-25AFD5.14173612022007(a)newsread.uslec.net... > In article <b941t2htu5mui41h2496pol8v7nsuc0bdf(a)4ax.com>, > Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2(a)cox.net>> > 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.
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: New photo metadata tool Next: Wholesale dog clothes ,dog collars,dog chothing |