From: Bhogi on
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
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

"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
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

"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.