500/1000mm Tele Lens on ebay - Any good?

I think the price should give you a clue,not worth wasting your money.
 
awfull... but that doesnt mean you cant get good shots out of it... depends what you want... i brought a similar thing for moon shots, and have had some good results... but i wouldnt use it on anything else...
 
A proper 500mm lens from Nikon or Canon is currently over £5000, even sigma 500mm lens is over £3500. Realistically do the maths on the price, what are you really getting for £90, not alot, avoid.
 
What the lens for a Nikon on a Canon body :lol::lol:

Wouldn't have thought it would have been that good, otherwise someone else would have bought one - he has several for sale :nono:
 
for that price I think you would be better looking at a used 500mm mirror lens. Something like th tamron?
 
I wouldn't bother if it were me. I bought a "cheap" Optica lens 600-1300mm lens which came with a 2x magnifier. The problem is they are manual focus only usually, and at max zoom of 1000mm it is very hard to stop camera shake even on a solid tripod, the shutter movement alone can make enough movement on the camera can make the picture go out of focus. So you would have to use it with the mirror up the up position to prevent it.

This is the best I could achieve with the one above but it wern't easy. this is it below, a bit of the moon (nikon D200 sharpened considerably )
even then I had to use a remote shutter release

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u217/bazza104/DSC_0042.jpg

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u217/bazza104/DSC_0024-4.jpg

Staff Edit : Images changed to clickable links. Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text :)

Taken at max of 2600mm

Bazza
 
andrewc said:
For £ 90 I'd rather buy a really nice bottle of wine, drink it, then use the bottle as a lens. Much the same results, but you've had 4 glasses of really good plonk so are still ahead.
Click to expand...


It's also the only way that you'll believe the images produced are any good :lol:
 
I'm surprised with the moon shots, They are pretty good for the money. Ok not as sharp as more expensive stuff, I have just been looking in a early 80's photography book and these moon shots are better than the ones in there which were probably taken on pro gear. If you look in some of the old books there are lots of shots that nowadays would be deleted and are basically crap shots but years ago people were impressed by them? how times have changed LoL
Brian
 
Sorry for the oversize photos, I will leave it just with the links. Brian I think I only paid around £150 for that lens. I must have another go with the D300 as see if I can do a better job. One of the problems was someone kept moving the moon out of shot before I could set the gear up properly.You realise just how fast the moon travels when using that range to try and get a picture.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
Sorry for the oversize photos, I will leave it just with the links. Brian I think I only paid around £150 for that lens. I must have another go with the D300 as see if I can do a better job. One of the problems was someone kept moving the moon out of shot before I could set the gear up properly.You realise just how fast the moon travels when using that range to try and get a picture.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

I know what you mean about the moon moving fast, amazing, I thought I should be wearing a seat belt to take the shots.

I can't seem to see a link though. I cant help but be intrigued by these cheap lenses

Sean
 
How about all pitching in for one and having an "insame tele on tour" aka the nifty type of thread. Although, I think those moon piccies will be hard to beat :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top