Tony Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 If yes what would you use it for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 If yes what would you use it for? It's definitely real. Made by Sigma and came on the market seven or eight years ago. Available in Sigma, Nikon and Canon fittings, the price then was about £25,000 IIRC. It is not a particularly long lens at 500mm max. What makes it so large is the aperture size of f/2.8. I don't know whether it is still on sale. I suppose you could use if for wildlife pictures, but it's a hell of a lump to carry around . . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorps Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 What lense...i cant see one! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 What lense...i cant see one! Stop looking at the blonde! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorps Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 Oohh i thought that thing she was leaning on was a bazooka or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 Eight years ago, so what does the equivalent look like now? One observation i made and don't understand is the camera obviously needs to be at eye level, so why does the lens have the handle on top.... shouldn't that be on the bottom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 Eight years ago, so what does the equivalent look like now? One observation i made and don't understand is the camera obviously needs to be at eye level, so why does the lens have the handle on top.... shouldn't that be on the bottom The handle is to carry it, to actually take photos you'd normally have the lens on a tripod, not really the kind of thing you'd use handheld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 Yep on a tri or monopod...no way you could hold that by hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 I understand now.... Thought it looked wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorps Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 I could hold them in my hands no problem :bananapopcorn: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 You need to lower your sights, your suffering from object fixation or "objects" in this cleverage..... errrr case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 I could hold them in my hands no problem :bananapopcorn: Stop looking at the blonde . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 She is kind of distracting! :bananapopcorn: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 I understand now.... Thought it looked wrong :bananapopcorn: If it wasn't on the ground you would see that it has a large mounting pad on the underside. I will try to find another picture of it. Here you go: sorry about the quality of the pics - whoever took them wasn't very good. Sigma lens I don't think any of my tripods would carry it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooflessdriver Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 Few years ago on a trip to the arctic circle, there was a guy on the ice breaker with me with one of those "Bigma" lenses. He used it a few timez handheld on deck in the icefields but never took it out in the Zodiacs cos it was soooo heavy. Many years ago Canon made a 1200mm lens to order. Cost £65.000+ They put a x2 convertor on it and took a photo of the balcony at buckingham palace from the other end of the Mall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 Couldn't you use a telescope instead...... Serious question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 Couldn't you use a telescope instead...... Serious question. To take pictures or just look at stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 Both...... You can see detail on the moon with a £100 telescope, why does a lens cost 65k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooflessdriver Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 Missed your post about a telescope tony. I have a meade ETX90 telescope and often attach my Canon DSLR to it. It equates to a 1200mm lens and have taken so good moon shots with it in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Missed your post about a telescope tony. I have a meade ETX90 telescope and often attach my Canon DSLR to it. It equates to a 1200mm lens and have taken so good moon shots with it in the past. Interesting. I know a few people who are into digiscoping with relatively inexpensive scopes, but generally with compact cameras with small sensors. They achieve excellent results with moon pictures (much better than I do) and even with distant shots of static birds etc. This is the first chance that I have had to talk directly to someone who has used a DSLR with a telescope so I am very interested in your experience I know nothing about the telescope that you use, but in the context of Tony's question, can you tell us some more about it. For example: what did it cost; what is its minimum focusing distance; it won't auto focus I guess so can you track moving objects with it, a running dog for example; more generally, how quick is it to focus; is the DSLR that you use full frame or one of the 1.6 times jobs and do you need a field flattener in order to cover the whole of the camera sensor; what is the maximum stop size for the telescope; are there other technical features that you would say were important in differentiating between a telescope and a long focus camera lens? Clearly, for truly distant objects, a good telescope is going to knock spots off a camera lens, but is it a question of horses for courses? Would you want your camera on the end of a telescope if you were covering a football match? I would be interested to hear your views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipercar93 Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 What lense...i cant see one! Stop looking at the blonde! There's a blond in the picture?! Never thought of using a telescope, cool to know =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooflessdriver Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 The ETX90 is a computerised autostar go scope and sells for around £450. http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Meade-ETX-90-90mm-Maksutov-Telescope-with-Hard-Case.html The actual scope lens is fixed focal length of f13.8. On top of that, you need a T mount that screws into the back of the scope, (not the eyepiece on the top) http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Meade__64_T_Adaptor.html As my Canon EOS 5D, (full frame) is a heavy old beast, I have had to fit some counter weights on the front of the scope to balance it out. Unfortunately this puts far to much strain on the horizontal/vertical motors, so can't really use them for tracking stars. (I have a philips webcam with an adaptor that I use, with a laptop to stack star images) As the T-mount is a dummy with no EOS contact pins, and the telescope is a fixed prime 1250mm, I have to focus manually using the telescope adjuster. As standard this is a small little thumb screw, but I have added the long flexi focus adjuster that makes it easy to grab in the dark. I wouldn't even attempt to photograph anything fast moving as you just wouldn't be able to keep up with it. I wouldn't rate it over a long focus camera lens, as its far to big and bulky &has to be tripod mounted. Its great for moonshots and long distance static shots, but I have a multitude of other lenses & 2x Convertor so can get upto 800mm with a proper L series lens. Was more a case of already having the ETX90 and buying a few bits to experiment but nothing serious. I have a panasonic TZ10 which I can also use in the eye piece and is much lighter! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted September 3, 2012 Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 Thanks very much for the full reply. It's very interesting and answers Tony's question very well. I think in your first sentence, you must mean a fixed aperture of f/13.8? A major part of the cost of long focus camera lenses lies in increasing their light gathering capacity so that one can take pictures with short exposure times. For action pictures, even on a monopod, I look for a shutter speed somewhat higher than the focal length of the lens. Image stabilisation improves the situation but that too costs extra money. Then of course we want to focus over a wide range of distances up to infinity and this means complicated multi-element construction and various different kinds of glass so that the inherent aberrations are corrected over the whole field of coverage of the lens and as the distances between the elements are altered to achieve focus. We also need auto-focusing and we want it done close to instantaneously, which means adding some kind of computer driven auto focus system and powerful linear motors with sophisticated connections between lens and camera body. It all costs money and the bigger the lens, the more it costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooflessdriver Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 ooops! yes i started typing something else then edited it. fixed aperture indeed. As a major rule of thumb, I also go for shutter speed over the focal length, even though I do have IS lenses. The only time I don't do this is for motion blur. (Props on old planes, or wheels on cars). Some years ago Canon came up with their USM (UltraSonic Motors) lenses which moved the motor to the lens, making it possible to build the right motor for the right lens, thus reducing the costs somewhat. (Faster motor for long telephoto lenses etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.