# 800mm lens!



## Overread (Jul 18, 2008)

Ok its not a real 800mm its a 70-200 + two 2*Teleconverters (canon and sigma). Turns out to get the 1.4s on needs an extension tube due to silly protuding parts!

The results are not as bad as I thought they would be - light is key for this and very bright light out is definatly needed. Couple that with manual mode to get a little more control and a rocksteady support. Focusing is all manual and the depth of field is fine, but not too fine. Its not got the speed to capture movement - not tried in direct sunlight but then it might work - so its a stattic sniper! 

Test shot - taken from a beanbag support out of a window - resized, edited and sharpened.




f9,1/6,ISO 400
flash on 

web serviceable, a little less than sharp fullsized:
100% crop from centre with no sharpening:





with more practice and stronger light (evening overcast grey at the moment here) I recon I can get a little more out of this combo!

And that is not all:





I has new shiny kits to play with - inc a sigma 150mm


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2008)

And here it is :




shown here also with the sigma 2*TC (not used in test shots)

Test shot:




f5, ISO 400, 1/500sec
quicks shot in the staition awaiting collection

100% crop - no sharpening






And I tried it on a moving target as well:




and no that's not the flash affecting the number plate 

A very sharp lens and easy to handle. Smooth and silent focusing - though its not as fast as some others (read canon 70-200mm ) but that does not mean it cannot capture movment at all - far from it!



All in all a good day for me I think - barring the paybacks/chemical cleaning of 4 flours in under 2 hours and lack of sunlight


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 18, 2008)

wicked cool!

I want some awesome lenses like that!  

I have a sweet zoom lens for my Canon SLR that I use at Gatecon (and make ppl jealous), but one even better than that?  That'd be wicked sweet!

I think mine's a 200 - I'll have to look when I get home.  But a friend looked through it the first time and nearly jumped out of her skin b/c suddenly the actor on stage was 'so close'!


----------



## ktabic (Jul 18, 2008)

Might have to try something like that with my 28-300mm lens. 700mm is just cool.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 18, 2008)

Earth calling OR ! For years I've used a 2x teleconverter on my 400mm f6.3 preset. 

I take it the 1.4x is matched to the lens.


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2008)

well the canon teleconverters are matched to the L line of lenses - and they have a pertruding lens element at the front which makes them hard to connect to other lenses. The 2*TCs have a deep insert in the back so have space for this insert, problem is that I can't squeeze my 1.4 behind the sigma as the sigma hole is thinner than the canon 1.4 pertusion


----------



## The Ace (Jul 18, 2008)

Probably with very good reason, OR.  Teleconverters also multiply any flaws in the lens.  They were never intended as anything but a last resort and _never _to be used with zooms.  Modern 7-element converters had to be developed when the photographic world went zoom crazy, but you're still trading a little power for a lot of quality.


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2008)

Oh yes I know that - I can see the drop in quality - infact on the instructions it clearly states not to stack teleconverters - yet still they make the 1.4 and 2* stackable is you choose to. I think also the limited access to them based on lens compatabilty is to stop people who get cheaper lenses from getting a TC to get a longer lens as its much more affodable (heck TCs are about as expensive as a lens!) and then complaining that the TC is no good


----------



## mosaix (Jul 19, 2008)

OR - point it at the Moon on a clear night!


----------



## Erin99 (Jul 19, 2008)

*enters*




*faints*

You'll need a weight-lifting course to lift that thing! That's not a lens, that's a telescope! 

So, what will you shoot with the 800, then? Any plans? And I hope you didn't photograph just any car. Those poor people are now perminantly posted online!


----------



## Overread (Jul 19, 2008)

hehe well its probably the only photo of my sister that will get posted - the other (driver) is my dad - he has been online in photos before (very first set of shots I think!)
And yes using it to spot the moon is something I would like to try - though I think 1TC to start with


----------



## Erin99 (Jul 19, 2008)

I tried shooting the moon before, but it's too far away and my aim is not good.  Also, the shots come out as a blurry white blob.

Only twice I've succeeded in getting a picture I'm happy with. But even then I wished I could have zoomed in further.

And your family? That explains it. Although, my dad woud kill me if I posted pics of my family here. Your sister looks pretty, anyway, even if she is hiding behind the reflective window. Your dad's doing a good job of hiding, though. Must have seen you coming. Can't miss that lens. 

Beh! Keep having to re-edit my posts. Darn alien keyboard! Feels too weird!!!


----------



## Overread (Jul 19, 2008)

from what I have read to get a shot of the moon you have to use manual mode - as the camera gets confused and thinks the moon is really dark, when infact its very bright. A tripod is also a must I think *you are shooting rather a long way ) and then I think manual mode with a wide aperture and a shutter speed (not sure about this though I would guess medium speed but I don't know)


----------



## Erin99 (Jul 19, 2008)

Bah, yes, I've tried manual mode - but qwithout the camera

Whoa! Without a camera? That would be difficult. 

Grrr! Can you tell I'm a little tired since I went out today? 

Anyway, yes, I didn't use a tripod, so no matter what ISO I used the shots looked like a blurry egg in the sky, not a moon. Never had a shot of it come out dark, though.

You could also try shooting the moon during the day. I did once and got a very nice picture. You could see the craters and everything.


----------



## ktabic (Jul 19, 2008)

My shots of the moon, from last year, and my old D50:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z264/ktabic/photos/dsc_1097_crop.jpg
Cropped version:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z264/ktabic/photos/dsc_1097.jpg

Was very happy with them at the time. not to much now, so gonna have to wait for a clear full moon night and try again.
When doing night time moon shots you want to set your exposure compensation way down (usually either marked as EV or a + and - symbol in a box) to underexpose the shot to counter the burnout of the moon.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell (Jul 21, 2008)

So, is that an L series lens OR?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 23, 2008)

It's a pity still camera and TV seemto use different screw threads/bayonet fittings.

There are a couple of TV zooms here that'll be going into the skip, as the camera's got outdated. Still, the glass should still be OK.


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2008)

Yes canon L lens - I here once you start using them its like drugs! -- I can well belive it!

Chriss - I agree there is a lot of good older kit out there - though surely there is some company (Hong Kong E-bay?) which has made adaptors for TV to camera fittings?


----------



## Lady of Winterfell (Jul 27, 2008)

I wish I could afford an L series lens. Someday I will!!!!  You are one lucky wolfie.


----------



## AE35Unit (Oct 13, 2008)

Very nice,tho if your camera isn't full frame then its likely to be closer to 1000mm,and to get 800 mm you only need a 500mm lens as the sensor crop factor will do the rest.


----------

