Opteka 650-1300mm lens

828jasonwitten82

828jasonwitten82

Messages
74
Edit My Images
No
Hey I like to take pictures of birds and I need more magnification than my 70-300mm lens. Is this opteka lens too good to be true? I know it doesn't have a auto focus. But is the lens quality? Thanks!
 
A friend uses the sigma 150-500 for bird shots and gets great photos.
I think you'd need autofocus and f8 is very limiting in the Opteka.
You'd need good light and still subjects and a tripod to get a semi decent shot IMO from it.
 
I would save the money for something far better to be honest.
 
look out for a 2nd Hand, Sigma 150-500mm leave the cheap rubbish well alone, is my advice

Les :thumbs:
 
Yes, I know that but instead of being sarcastic I post a link with samples and let the OP make his own decision. That way he can decide for himself if the IQ is up to his standards or not.
 
I remember reading reviews of them several years ago (of course they may be better quality nowadays) but I recall that they had the build quality of a toy telescope and the IQ of little better than if taking the picture through a jam jar.

I would genuinely recommend saving up a little and putting the money towards a quality lens otherwise you will want to sell the Opteka and getting very little back for it if you're lucky.

If you're just after reach and not worried about IQ and want to just take record shots of bird species then the Opteka may be the lens for you

You mention you have a 70-300mm, the image quality will certainly be some steps back from that lens.
 
Last edited:
i would have thought a 2xtc on your 300mm would give you better quality,same as others have said save and get the 150-500 you wont regret it,just my opinion
 
twist said:
Yes, I know that but instead of being sarcastic I post a link with samples and let the OP make his own decision. That way he can decide for himself if the IQ is up to his standards or not.
Click to expand...

I can't see how Les was being sarcastic?:shrug: The OP is asking about a specific lens, Les gives a comparison with a shot of his own, showing what can be accomplished with his recommendation of a lens. The OP can then decide for themselves. Les has spent considerable time honing his skills to a high standard, but at least he can back up his recommendation with proof. Sarcasm, no, knowledge, YES. :thumbs:
 
had one and sold it. remember it is strictly manual only so no electronic connection to the camera. When fully extended the barrel tends to bend at the mid joint even when locked which is a huge problem. if you can set the ISO -focus-distance -shutter speed and everything else by guesswork then consider it , if not leave well alone, and don't attempt using it without a good tripod.
If you ask would I buy another my answer would be definately not!!!!!



its a huge beast shown fitted with 2 x TC and that is in its "closed" position extended add anther 8 inches or there abouts
 
Last edited:
The words, barge touch don't pole and with, arrange as required :D

As others have suggested get a Sigma 150-500, the best affordable solution to longer focal lengths.
 
Last edited:
My apologies Twist, it's just how I read it. I agree that you can show good/bad examples of any lens, you are totally right with your point.
 
Last edited:
feek said:
My apologies Twist, it's just how I read it. I agree that you can show good/bad examples of any lens, you are totally right with your point.
Click to expand...

No need, I shouldve clarified in my initial post just didnt want to point any fingers ;)
 
Nothing, i meant what lens would you be putting the TC on

if youre meaning the 70-300mm then probably not, the Nikon TC wont fit and the Kenko will take you to f/8 and be really sluggish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
828jasonwitten82 said:
So would the teleconverter work better with the 300mm?
Click to expand...

What Gary is saying if you use a teleconverter on something with a max aperture of F/5.6 normally, with a 2xTC you'll end up with F11.2 or something daft. Your viewfinder will look like the black hole of calcutta and you can wave goodbye to AF.

You'd probably be best just saving up for a 150-500.
 
Right, I've had a good clean up in here.
A lot of those replies were far from welcoming to a new member, and from a few people who should know better too.
Remember that we all started out somewhere and had to learn somehow.


I know it was done with the best intentions, but I've had to remove some of the references to specific photos in that link too.
It's fine to post a link to a Flickr group to show sample images from a particular lens and to discuss the IQ in general - but even if it's done with the intention of helping another member, we shouldn't be singling out photos from photographers who aren't here to defend themselves.
 
SarahLee said:
Right, I've had a good clean up in here.
A lot of those replies were far from welcoming to a new member, and from a few people who should know better too.
Remember that we all started out somewhere and had to learn somehow.

Guys,
I've also had to remove some of the references to specific photos in that link.
It's fine to post a link to a Flickr group to show sample images from a particular lens and to discuss the IQ in general - but even if it's done with the intention of helping another member, we shouldn't be singling out photos from photographers who aren't here to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Thanks it's ok I know this is all obvious to you guys and I am thankful for the help you guys give
 
My answer was deleted - What can I say - I was bad..

The correct answer to your question is its rubbish & not worthy of any further mention.
 
I personally would rather use a shorter lens, like a 300mm, add a TC [this is what I do with my 300] and if needed crop down in post. the quality will still be better than the Opteka on a heavy crop.
 
My answer too was deleted.

Let me just say this... look closely at samples to see if there is user error, before writing a bad shot off as the lens.
 
I have used a sigma 1.4 TC on my Nikon 70-300 lens but due to f stop usually in manual mode. This lens is about the only one with enough "throat" so the inside doesn't hit the TC.
 
Last edited:
RichardtheSane said:
My answer too was deleted.

Let me just say this... look closely at samples to see if there is user error, before writing a bad shot off as the lens.
Click to expand...

that is true but that lens is shockingly bad , my mate andrew owned one briefly before he got shot of it

as has been said something like a 150-500 is the way forward

but even a digiscoping set up and a decent scope will give better IQ than the opteka - the only long lens ive encountered that was worse was the cosina 100-400 (that was on par with trying to use a milk bottle)
 
Last edited:
828jasonwitten82 said:
I'm using this for birds so I need autofocus
Click to expand...

if you need autofocus you can definitely forget the opteka , and forget TCs unless you use them on a f4 or f2.8 lens.

as has been said the sigma 150-500 is your best bet

a cheap 170-500 or 135-400 (both also sigma) would also be an option and would be less costly but lack OS (not necessarily a problem if you are using a tripod ad/or shooting fast shutter speeds
 
theres no inherent issue - but like anything else check the sellers feedback , and if possible pay by cash on collection so that you can check the item before handing over your wedge
 
828jasonwitten82 said:
That's what I was thinking. Do you think getting one off eBay would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

In general, I would warn against that TBH. Not just because I personally don't like E-Bay but mainly because there have been reported issues with Sigma lenses involving bad copies and where do people tend to get rid of stuff like that with fewer potential repercussions? If you can find one close enough to home to do the final deal face to face after inspecting the lens and taking some test shots, fine but as a distance deal, personally I wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top