@@adventureswithaleks8216 I’ll see how much more can be seen in the way of astrophotography. Not sure how much it can do. It’s not really a telescope and much as just a far reaching telephoto lens, but I will try!
On the A7iii, which is full frame, it maxes out at 2600mm, but on the A6100, which is APS-C, it's actually at 3900mm (1.5x crop)! With this sort of zoom, doing it on a still, cold day will give you MUCH better results than a hot windy day, as you are looking through so much space. Nice job guys!
Yes! After the video we remembered that one would be cropped. But the cropped made it even better lol. But yeah, weather conditions were not ideal, but I plan to do more with it in the future tho, so keep an eye out!
@@gianpa the crop would be at a reduced resolution compared to a native APS-C body a6000 has a 6000x4000 sensor at 24.3MP. A7iii crop mode drops from 24MP to 10MP
It's soft for three, or more, reasons: 1. Fixed aperture so you can't stop down 2. Shooting through a great deal of atmosphere _and_ 3. Shooting over water = more moisture/humidity/atmosphere, and more turbulence
would stepping down even help? at 1300mm it was already at f/16 and with the 2x converter we're at f/32 - that's easily within the range where diffraction is really apparent
That all does affect it, but you forgot the main factor - this is empty magnification. It's more magnified than the aperture allows. Even if this were in vacuum, it would be impossible to make it sharp.
Very interesting! It actually performed better than I expected. I have recently been trying to get into astrophotography, and one of the first things you learn about is sampling. Basically, there is a fundamental, theoretical limit to the the degree of magnification one can achieve, and this is tied directly to the size of the primary lens. With the combination of lens and cameras you were using, you guys were way oversampling! For the A7iii you were 3.1 times past the theoretical maximum resolution, and the A6100 was 4.6 times past the maximum! So even with perfect optics, there would still have been significant fogging. To prevent this fogging, the minimum size of the objective would have to be 240mm, or nearly 10 inches! If you want more information, I would suggest looking at the wiki pages for Dawes limit and the page "Angular resolution"
Dang, when you put it like that, you make the lens sound a lot better 😂. Note: it does also take some pretty nice shots of the moon. Got some good ones during the last lunar eclipse.
oh my god you have only 150 subscribers aw man that was such a nice video. This channel had a lot of potential! Looking forward to seeing future videos 👀
Thank you! Actually before this video, I was at like 24 subs, so the reactions from you all have been amazing! Never expected it to take off at all! Will definitely have to give a shoutout about that in the next vid.
I started watching without knowing how many subs you got, and with the video's quality and efforts put into it I genuinely thought you got way more subs than you actually got, you got my respect bro
Thank you so much! It means a lot to see the effort appreciated! But even before this video that randomly popped off, I was only at like 24 subs or something so the love we’ve seen from this has been astonishing.
Try it on the Moon and Jupiter. Could be a cheap option for some planetary astrophotography. The amount of flex that thing has is a big problem but if you could mount it in a lens support it would probably work fairly well. As long as your not worried about chromatic aberration or edge focus snobbery.
Hey great work! Love the effort for such a small channel. You guys nailed it. Can't wait to see your progression on RUclips. You have earned my subscription
Here's what I would do with it: Forget about the teleconverter. Use the fullframe camera. Under-expose a little bit. Use a rock or a building instead of a tripod. Increase "contrast" in the video or picture settings to get rid of haze. And then it might actually yield usable results. :)
Oh yeah, that converter easily magnifies any problems the lens had to begin with. I do think a much more stable stand would make a world of difference for the shake as well. I did try to fix the video in some later spots to see if it could look better, but it just didn’t work out. But I have gotten good results from using it for moon photos, so it can look good in the right conditions for sure! Thank you for the feedback!
@@ChaseGuerdet I'd say you're focusing too much on the far end performance. It's pretty common for budget tele lenses to perform poorly at the extremum. But it's still pretty long at "short" end and also faster as well. It's a zoom lens after all, and if I buy it (considering it atm along with some cheap-ass mirror 500/6.3 lens) I'm gonna use all the mm I paid for!
That was an amazing vlog. I didn't realized you only have 800 Subs. I would recommend you make more fun style videos because your duo is amazing to watch. Also every time he laughed. I loved it. Great job.
One other quick thing. When you picked the extended lens up it had flex to it. Without a strong arm or rail to mount the lens at two points and maybe a third point for a camera you cannot get the arch out of the lense. Cannot get a good focus unless looking thru the center of the lens. Good luck guys I think you can get this thing tack sharp.
I bought this lens back in 2017 and used it to take pics of the Solar Eclipse in August of that year. Did phenomenal. However, it isn't really suited for much else because of the manual focusing. It's really only good on objects with fixed focal lengths that don't move around too much. Even the moon is problematic due to Earth's rotation moving the subject out of frame consistently at such a high zoom factor. That being said, it's a good introductory lens for understanding super telephoto lenses without the hefty price tag. I upgraded after this lens to a 200 - 800mm with a 2x entender and even though 1600mm is half the distance, it's a lens I 200% love more due to autofocusing and it being a fast lens. Nice test video.
Lol thanks! Yeah, it was really just as a goofy test more than an actual official test of quality. The follow-up vid we did does a little more testing with actual photos in different environments. Not to say that ones all that serious either but if you want to see more in the way of results, thats there too. 😅
Need to try shots with and without the x2 converter. Good glass vs this products converter should have a huge effect on the quality of the image. I am curious if without the converter if it would be a clear focus image.
The images are different due to the sensor size. A6100 APS-C sensor has a 1.5x factor over the fullframe camera. A medium format sensor is about .64x the fullframe. A 4/3 sensor is about 2x of the fullframe. A 1" sensor is about 2.7x of the fullframe. A typical cellphone sensor has a crop factor of about 5.6x.
not quite new, back in the 35mm film day(yeah, I'm old) these type of lenses would be in the back of Petersons Photographic or Popular Photography magazines(are these mags still even around)?
4:48 What tripod did you use? I’ve never seen a head with a hand grip and I’ve been looking for a tripod I could possibly save up for But aside from that, overall an underrated channel, def looking forward to newer videos!!
That is a Manfrotto tripod, don’t recall the exact model. It was like maybe $50-60. Was really nice because it had a dial lock that moved like a mouse scroll-wheel that could lock and unlock at any angle easily. The problems with it were thin legs so it wasn’t very stable in wind (as you can see) and the lock over time became less and less functional. Overall, was more gimmicky than anything. Which is a shame bc it was cool. But they were cheap. Would recommend to go with something more sturdy if you want to invest in one.
I was looking at almost this exact lens for some astrophotography, this video (of which helped me decide against it, lmao) was randomly recommended to me - you earned a like & sub, great video!
While using it to take photos of the moon, they look pretty nice actually. However, idk if you could ever make it look real sharp with it. The focus is very sensitive, and there was seemingly no perfect spot to make it fully clear
This is far and away the most entertaining and authentic feeling lens review/vlog I’ve watched in recent memory. I’m certainly a fan of character over quality down to every tiny production detail. All of the information is there, the character of the people in the video is prominent and authentic, and ultimately it feels like chatting with friends. 10/10
Thank you! It was definitely a fun way to try it out. It may not be the most efficient or best way to show it off proper, but it was certainly the most entertaining way in my opinion😂
@@ChaseGuerdet It certainly kept my attention better than the efficient alternatives. I think the absurdity of the lens compliments the video's tone well, though. If you replaced this with a 70-200 or something it wouldn't quite be the same, yk?
its part poor optics and its part simple physics. your shooting through SO M UCH ATMOSPHERE that the air itself distorts the image. this is why those big 800mm+ lenses from canon cost $20,000 $40,0000. the degree of precision you need to get sharp images at that focal length are just astonishing. Try the 800mm reflectors. ($100 to $150) they are a royal PAIN IN THE ASS to focus but when you nail it. the results are actually amazing. if you want big zoom with decent quality on a budget here is how you get it. Sigma 150-600mm $700 used. then you get a high quality doubler (I have a 2x mkiii for my canon) NOW on an FF you have 1200mm (I got a "ok" decent shot of the lunar eclipse with this HAND HELD yes it was 90% luck) and if you pair it with a crop sensor camera now your talking 1800-1900mm of "usable" quality (IE much better than this) but as you no doubt see its gonna cost you $1100 for the sigma and a good quality doubler a 1.4x will greatly improve image quality but at the expense is not nearly as much mm FF 840mm Crop 1260mm also either of these combo's will auto focus. Something I have not tried. is putting my opteka 800mm reflector on my canon 2x doubler. should be better image quality than the included crap doubler it came with that I can't find anyway. might have to try that. would net me 1600mm at F16 the sigma however will net you 1200mm (FF) with a doubler at F12.3 which is much better. and while 1200mm is not 2600mm the resolution sharpness difference will mean you can MORE than 50% crop which means a better overall image at 2600mm effective than with that. ALSO much beefier tripod! I mean it. think surveyor tripod and some weights to make it heavier. the sturdier the tripod the less of those micro vibes you will get. also if your sony has IBIS use that !! it does work quite well and will net you 1800mm effective on the sony if its a crop sensor !!!
I've had one of these bad boys for 6 or 7 years now and I took it to Africa on safari ( Kenya , Tanzania ) really for a laugh , I set it up in camp on a tripod ( must have a tripod ) and focused in on a spot on small mountain over a mile+ away in Sumburu national park that had Leopards ( allegedly ) , managed to get a good focus on an area of rocks and bushes ( Sony A6000 with a remote controller can of Beer and a large JD and Coke at the ready ) I didn't have the 2x converter so I was at 1300mm + extension E-Mount adaptor + Crop , all being viewed on a 7inch monitor. Well I was quite surprised at the clarity afforded by all this monstrosity , The misses ( wife ) and our guide and camp ranger all huddled around the screen in anticipation with Beer in one hand and remote control in the other waiting for some unsuspecting Leopard ( or anything living ) to walk in shot , but you guessed it , jack sh@t , nada zip , NOTHING, we sat until the batteries went dead and not a peep . But in Tanzania from the Safari Truck with the lens laying on the roof of the truck , begging the wife the driver and cook to remain motionless i captured a Leopard resting in a tree I managed to get 5 or 6 shots before the light breeze picked up a bit and made focusing impossible . The best shot was WOW because the Leopard in shot 5 lifted his head and looked straight at the camera. That moment for me was spiritual man awesome . How I wished I had 61 Megapixels A7r4 with IBIS to then allow the crop in post .
Yeah, we now have better cameras for it with a higher megapixel, and I’m sure clarity would be much better without the 2x magnifier. But that sounds like an awesome experience for sure and what it’d be best at. We did it honestly in it’s worst state being 2x magnified and as a video rather than photo. I’m sure it’s not all that bad. In fact, I got some decent shots of the moon with it during the recent lunar eclipse.
I loved the video but I really would have liked to have seen a test of the lens at a shorter focal length and without the teleconverter in place to see how it does at 600mm - 1000mm and possibly with a polarizing filter in place on a high res dslr with mirror up, or a mirrorless upwards of 50Mp. That said I guess if you have the money for cameras like that, you wouldn't be in the market for a lens like this? Who knows. Interesting project though, thanks.
Tbh, "proper" lens of this length cost well above the price tag of most (if not all) mirrorless bodies. So there's definitely a demand. At least just to see if such lenses is your thing altogether.
The inability to focus down to very sharp image is basically shows you have exceeded magnification limit and now have empty magnification. Aperture dictates it. That's one of the reasons why telescopes, even those that observe Sun (no problem with light amount), need large apertures.
Instead of comparing at a distance too far , determine ,at what distance it does, produce a better result with more detail, on a perched bird. Obviously the wobble ,and haze is a problem at that lens extension, and distance. THAT, would be helpful to know. Thanks
Yeah, that’s fair. I have more of that since with moon shots where they actually turn out fairly decent that way. This was more of just a way of testing how far it can go and what that looks like given its ridiculously high focal length. But I’ve heard a lot along the lines of your request, and will do an update in the future about it.
Perhaps in the future computational photography will be able to deal with the many issues of heat, vibration and filtering by the atmosphere. The mass market may not justify that kind of development work, but I suppose that satellite and military applications would. There is a feeling of power and fun being able to see things from such a great distance, but I can think of no other useful application other than wildlife photography and video.
Yeah, I bet they would turn out a whole lot better. I just got some shots of the super lunar eclipse and it could benefit from a sharpness boost. But hey it was only $200
I have this lens too. It's looks pretty good with circular lens. I use auto breaking for images and manual focal length. With two tripods, no movement.
Image is blurred because of small aperture. Basically you are seeing diffraction artifacts. Check out Hyugens Optics channel. The guy explains this effect in details in his recent video.
I have this exact same lens. I have had it for about 12 years. I found it was a tad foggy - especially on high magification (1200mm). However, this is to be expected on a lens at the price range it is in. I have used it several times and one excellent thing to shoot with it is ... the moon. But, for the price, the results are good. If you want something crisper and clearer, you will need to save up and buy a much more expensive lens. One thing about tripods - the sturdier it is the better. That is why very good tripods are built like the proverbial craphouse and heavy az.
This is definitely for stills, fast shutter speeds and in body IS will help the shake situation and make photos usable for things like birds and wildlife. That said, it won’t be as sharp as other options. The max quality from that lens will be without the teleconverter and somewhere at the lower end of the range. Again, not ideal, but for a birder on a budget, it may be better than no long reach lens.
It’s a nice vlog, and well written, but I’d recommend this lens to very few people. I could see the chromatic aberration through the camera’s video feed.
I have one of these (though without the 2x teleconverter) -- used for $30 US (and it looked unused), on my Lumix G85 Micro-Four-Thirds mirrorless (2x crop factor). So that's an equiv of 1300-2600mm full frame. I was not shooting video but stills, and I had all of the same issues that you encountered -- very hard to get steady, image was very soft, and not a lot of light makes it through. Fun to test out once, but I cannot see any reason that I would ever use it for photography *or* video.
@@ChaseGuerdet -- Might be useful for a private investigator trying to get pictures of someone having an affair!!! 🙂 Oh -- and it does look cool when mounted on a camera and carrying it around! 🙂
I can HEAR the quality of materials as you screw the 2x converter on. I don't even need to see the rest of the test (but I will, for the algorithms). :D
That’s pretty cool that you can get this zoom for just 200… though not sure what you could actually do with it… hope you can think of a good use! Subbed, curious to see more, always on the lookout for some video ideas 😁
Thank you so much! But also, it does great moon photos which I’ll need to show soon. So keep an eye out for those. I may try to show it in its better circumstances.
I like it guys :) I hope you don't stop public something like this. Because the experiment was crazy and pretty interesting. The lens is not bad I think. Maybe this converter was superfluous. On 650-1300 it can be good lens for animals photography, or maybe this converter can help you to get something interesting in astrophotography. But however don't stop doing you content! It's kind, funny and interesting. Peace!
@@ChaseGuerdet Your reply is appreciated. I'm shooting a Lumix G9 with the 100-400 and, most of the time, that's enough reach. However, nesting birds sometimes require more distance to preserve their welfare. I'm experimenting with the digital zoom in the menu with mostly good results with low ISO's and good light. However, I'm always on the lookout for an optical option. Had some very good results with a Canon R7 and 800mm RF f11 lens and would love to adapt that to my G9 but so far no luck finding such an adapter which gave me almost 1,300mm's on the R7. However, I prefer the feel of the G9 and would love to see what the 800mm or Opteka lens would do on an MFT camera.
I got the same lens several years ago. It sucks! The shake is a problem but the real issue is that you can't really focus it. It's never sharp. I took it out once to photograph the sandhill cranes in a cornfield. I had to rest the lens on my car door because I only had one tripod and it wasn't strong enough. I was able to zoom pretty well on the birds, but nothing was in focus.
You needed to use, hacked canon 5d mark iii or EOS M/M2 with magic lantern open source custom firmware why? Then you could use 10x zoom feature to focus on his nose🙂
In the UK at the moment you can get this type of lens for around 100 pound. Which is around 130 dollars rounding up. And for that price its very much worth it. I was thinking of getting this lens for wildlife photography as im just getting into using interchangable lens cameras and dont have the money to spend on a really expensive lens yet. But looking at this video it really seems like this would be a big hassle to use. And the lack of auto focus as a beginner is abit scary. But for astro which im getting a massive urge to do it seems amazing. So ill definitely be picking up one of these next month
Yeah, the focus on the cheaper ones like these are super sensitive. And without a sturdy tripod, it can be really shaky. You can still get good quality photos with it, but its obviously much more inferior than the high cost alternatives.
They come with an adapter for a certain type of camera. Mine came with a Sony adapter, but I’m pretty sure there are Canon adapters that can work with it.
I recently started into photography and i was looking for some gear i could use at the beginning. I firstly thought on analogical lens, which would save me some money, but i could only find small ones, since the high focal distance ones always looked shady (and so that one you showed kkkkkkl, but then it got some good results and i might look forward to have one later. Greets from Brazil, a quite difficult country to be a photographer KKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Look out for soligor zooms there's this 90-230mm f4.5 amazingly built and has fixed apperture for all the focal lengths it covers, quite inexpensive, also the vivitar series 1 zooms are legit the 70-210 f3.5 macro, it's a pain in the ass handheld but it's actually decent and very affordable, the Nikkor 135mm f2.8 it's amazing, bought mine for 175€. Ofc these are not crazy Tele lens, but worth the lookout! Keep shooting
@@simonsusername bro, thank you very much! As soon as i get enough money to buy a new lens, i will make sure to check those out. Thanks again for the tips, king 🙏🏻
Oh it’s perfect for close-ups like the moon! Focus is a bit sensitive so make sure it’s in focus but yes two tripods for stability and a monitor to see it’s focus were my methods to success.
Wow. Great Video. Well done, especially like how you took the time to go to separate places and did test. I've bought one aswell and its come with a t-mount, would you know what adapter I need to attach it to a micro 43? Thanks
Thank you so much! I believe that depending on which one you buy determines the adapters they come with. Mine of course came with the Sony mount, but I know there are others! So make sure it’s the right one.
@@ChaseGuerdet Many thanks. I've just had a thought, the price of some this cheap lens in Ebay is upto about £150 mark, a decent branded one costs literally £1000s, but a branded decent telescope costs from about £150. I wonder what result would one get by using a telescope as a lens substitute - could it be better than even using the Nikon P1000? One day maybe.
Would have been good to see what it would look like without the teleconverter on also. Might of been able to get a better focus, but wouldnt of been as much of a zoom
Nicely done and a fun little field test. :) I would partly blame diffraction for the fogginess. With the Teleconverter it results in an aperture of f/32 which makes loss of detail due to diffraction very likely. You could test a cropped 1300mm shot against a 2600mm shot and see whether the cropped resolution looks worse.
It has its problems for sure. It shines most when doing things like photos of the moon. But even then, focus is very sensitive and it may be hard to get real good detail on it. But I did get some good shots of the lunar eclipse!
Surely not a good idea to test it over a vast expanse of water. The water vapour and atmospheric refraction it causes must affect both definition and contrast. A bit of fun though. 😉
Oh yeah, we tested the lens to its most extremes. All in good fun though lol. Will do a follow up if there’s something you want to see though where we try to make it look better lol
I wouldn't mind seeing some more intermediate shots. Max range does not look great but if it can produce some sharp images at a more mid range, it could be worth the $200. Unless you're a very low budget P.I. I would skip using it for long range video.
Looks better than I was expecting it to, but my only telephoto is the EF 75-300mm so that's probably why. I compared the price to cheap telescopes and adapters and saw the lens isn't cheap enough when you can get comparable reach with cheap telescopes. Part of me kind of still wants one but I know I can put that money to many better uses. I like how the lens bends when handled.
In our follow-up vid we did manage to get some more decent shots. If its real still, and not zoomed in all the way, you can get some better product out of it.
I actually have seen similar lenses before, No way it costs 200$, a 450-900 plus 2x converter is around 80$ and actually useable if you use it as a telescope to "see" instead of trying to get a sharp photo
i have a Pentax Q with PK adapter, a 2x TC and an old sigma 100-300 so thats 5.6x crop + 2x300mm gives me the FOV of a 3360mm lens... and its abslolutley bullcrap! i tried the moon once but needed a really short ss coz the moon was running through the frame. IQ was garbage and i need tons of light coz the Q isnt any good at anything but base ISO. This stuff is only good to please your curiosity, no practical value 😅
Atmospheric Haze. You are shooting super far through all sorts of things in the air, especially water vapor! No matter what you do the farther from your subject the more hazy it’ll be! It’s just physics!
Yeah, I also think it was at least a little but from condensation from a very cold car to a hot outdoor climate. But yeah, shooting across the river can also have other rippling effects that adds to problems 😅
@@ChaseGuerdet Heh heh and yes. But I have this lens and can say a few things about it. First of all at this price you simply cannot find anything at this magnification ratio. Then the sharpness is really not that bad, especially before using that crappy 2x TC. You actually lose a lot of that (Wrongly) so-called sharpness due to low light passing through it and slow shutter speed resulting, in reality, in a blurred image that reflects by the user as lower sharpness. What it lags is contrast. Then has CA and other aberrations including some ghosting. Then, of course, you need full sun. Better yet, if you take it to planet Naboo where they have 2 suns! ! ! : - ) But my friend, you really need a better tripod. Those crappy ones you have won't cut it. Anyways thanks for uploading this, least to say, interesting one.
Yeah, I believe that condensation caused the weird foggy look. The reason the tripod was shaking so much was moreso the lens I think. The wind on the riverside was so strong that it had a lot more influence to move it around and at that focal length, the most minor movements look drastic. But I’m sure more heavy tripods could help a little.
Hey guys! Be sure to check out our follow-up video using this lens to take better photos/videos from your suggestions!
I’d try wildlife, but might be quite difficult without AF… some static wildlife?
Also, generally maybe more astrophotography, not just the moon 🌚
@@adventureswithaleks8216 I’ll see how much more can be seen in the way of astrophotography. Not sure how much it can do. It’s not really a telescope and much as just a far reaching telephoto lens, but I will try!
Wildlife photography
Jupiter, Saturn and Mars too!
You say there's some fog what do you expect at 2600mm that's a lot of atmosphere you are shooting through.
On the A7iii, which is full frame, it maxes out at 2600mm, but on the A6100, which is APS-C, it's actually at 3900mm (1.5x crop)! With this sort of zoom, doing it on a still, cold day will give you MUCH better results than a hot windy day, as you are looking through so much space. Nice job guys!
Yes! After the video we remembered that one would be cropped. But the cropped made it even better lol. But yeah, weather conditions were not ideal, but I plan to do more with it in the future tho, so keep an eye out!
@@ChaseGuerdet somewhat surprised at shooting over water - that would cause some problems.
They're the same potentially because you can record in apsc mode on the a7iii without losing resolution instead of cropping in post
@@gianpa the crop would be at a reduced resolution compared to a native APS-C body a6000 has a 6000x4000 sensor at 24.3MP. A7iii crop mode drops from 24MP to 10MP
@@IanBPPK not for video, 4k is less than 10 megapixels so there's no drop in resolution. What you say is true only for pictures.
It's soft for three, or more, reasons:
1. Fixed aperture so you can't stop down
2. Shooting through a great deal of atmosphere _and_
3. Shooting over water = more moisture/humidity/atmosphere, and more turbulence
True, our second try at it got generally better results.
@@ChaseGuerdetYes, I watched that video. 👍
would stepping down even help?
at 1300mm it was already at f/16 and with the 2x converter we're at f/32 - that's easily within the range where diffraction is really apparent
That all does affect it, but you forgot the main factor - this is empty magnification. It's more magnified than the aperture allows. Even if this were in vacuum, it would be impossible to make it sharp.
@@lajoswinkler I did miss that one. I should have thought of it more like an astronomical telescope than a camera lens.
Very interesting! It actually performed better than I expected. I have recently been trying to get into astrophotography, and one of the first things you learn about is sampling. Basically, there is a fundamental, theoretical limit to the the degree of magnification one can achieve, and this is tied directly to the size of the primary lens. With the combination of lens and cameras you were using, you guys were way oversampling! For the A7iii you were 3.1 times past the theoretical maximum resolution, and the A6100 was 4.6 times past the maximum! So even with perfect optics, there would still have been significant fogging. To prevent this fogging, the minimum size of the objective would have to be 240mm, or nearly 10 inches!
If you want more information, I would suggest looking at the wiki pages for Dawes limit and the page "Angular resolution"
Dang, when you put it like that, you make the lens sound a lot better 😂. Note: it does also take some pretty nice shots of the moon. Got some good ones during the last lunar eclipse.
Do you have a link to a calculator for this? Would be interested to see where a combo like the sony 200-600mm and A6000 fall.
@@ChaseGuerdet that's exactly what I'm looking for with this lens, moon photography, u got any samples? Would be nice a video about it
@@alexisgarciagonzalez1915 I do! I’ll be sure to show them soon!
@@ChaseGuerdet This is also where my interest in this lens lies. Subscribing to see some stills.
oh my god you have only 150 subscribers
aw man that was such a nice video. This channel had a lot of potential! Looking forward to seeing future videos 👀
Thank you! Actually before this video, I was at like 24 subs, so the reactions from you all have been amazing! Never expected it to take off at all! Will definitely have to give a shoutout about that in the next vid.
I started watching without knowing how many subs you got, and with the video's quality and efforts put into it I genuinely thought you got way more subs than you actually got, you got my respect bro
Thank you so much! It means a lot to see the effort appreciated! But even before this video that randomly popped off, I was only at like 24 subs or something so the love we’ve seen from this has been astonishing.
@@ChaseGuerdet you deserve way more attention
Try it on the Moon and Jupiter. Could be a cheap option for some planetary astrophotography. The amount of flex that thing has is a big problem but if you could mount it in a lens support it would probably work fairly well. As long as your not worried about chromatic aberration or edge focus snobbery.
It works pretty well for the moon! Got some shots during the lunar eclipse. Will probably show those soon.
not a good way to do planetary imaging...
Ivedomeso!erhimg like this with an e500 and ibelieve a cheap vintage Tamron 4 or 500 zoom and 2x. It worked ok as long as a mouse didn't sneeze nearit
I can tell some effort went into this video, it has good production quality. Hope your channel grows 👍
Thank you so much! I hope to be doing more soon!
Keep up rhe good work guys.@@ChaseGuerdet
Hey great work! Love the effort for such a small channel. You guys nailed it. Can't wait to see your progression on RUclips. You have earned my subscription
Thanks! I plan on having another one up this week. Kind of a follow-up but definitely worth it!
Here's what I would do with it: Forget about the teleconverter. Use the fullframe camera. Under-expose a little bit. Use a rock or a building instead of a tripod. Increase "contrast" in the video or picture settings to get rid of haze. And then it might actually yield usable results. :)
Using the right filter would be a better idea.
Oh yeah, that converter easily magnifies any problems the lens had to begin with. I do think a much more stable stand would make a world of difference for the shake as well. I did try to fix the video in some later spots to see if it could look better, but it just didn’t work out. But I have gotten good results from using it for moon photos, so it can look good in the right conditions for sure! Thank you for the feedback!
Or just use the tripod mount on the lens which means a more stable center of gravity.
@@ChaseGuerdet I'd say you're focusing too much on the far end performance. It's pretty common for budget tele lenses to perform poorly at the extremum. But it's still pretty long at "short" end and also faster as well.
It's a zoom lens after all, and if I buy it (considering it atm along with some cheap-ass mirror 500/6.3 lens) I'm gonna use all the mm I paid for!
That was an amazing vlog. I didn't realized you only have 800 Subs. I would recommend you make more fun style videos because your duo is amazing to watch. Also every time he laughed. I loved it. Great job.
Thank you! We get more comfortable in the following channel videos, and had tons of fun doing them.
One other quick thing. When you picked the extended lens up it had flex to it. Without a strong arm or rail to mount the lens at two points and maybe a third point for a camera you cannot get the arch out of the lense. Cannot get a good focus unless looking thru the center of the lens. Good luck guys I think you can get this thing tack sharp.
What distance were you apart from eachother when you were filming your buddy on the other shore?
I bought this lens back in 2017 and used it to take pics of the Solar Eclipse in August of that year. Did phenomenal. However, it isn't really suited for much else because of the manual focusing. It's really only good on objects with fixed focal lengths that don't move around too much. Even the moon is problematic due to Earth's rotation moving the subject out of frame consistently at such a high zoom factor.
That being said, it's a good introductory lens for understanding super telephoto lenses without the hefty price tag. I upgraded after this lens to a 200 - 800mm with a 2x entender and even though 1600mm is half the distance, it's a lens I 200% love more due to autofocusing and it being a fast lens.
Nice test video.
Lol thanks! Yeah, it was really just as a goofy test more than an actual official test of quality. The follow-up vid we did does a little more testing with actual photos in different environments.
Not to say that ones all that serious either but if you want to see more in the way of results, thats there too. 😅
10/10 for vlogging
Need to try shots with and without the x2 converter. Good glass vs this products converter should have a huge effect on the quality of the image. I am curious if without the converter if it would be a clear focus image.
We did experiment a bit more to try and make it look good in our follow-up video. Be sure to check that out too!
Hey there, some great video here. Would you guys please zoom at the moon with the lens? Maybe some comparisom between 650mm and 2600mm. Thanks
Oh yeah, it does great moon shots. I plan on doing more with it soon so I’ll be sure to add some in when I do!
@@ChaseGuerdet Alright! let's subscribe and wait for that
yes - that would be an obvious task.
The images are different due to the sensor size. A6100 APS-C sensor has a 1.5x factor over the fullframe camera.
A medium format sensor is about .64x the fullframe. A 4/3 sensor is about 2x of the fullframe. A 1" sensor is about 2.7x of the fullframe. A typical cellphone sensor has a crop factor of about 5.6x.
This is what I was thinking about while watching. Cameras are soo fun😂😱
not quite new, back in the 35mm film day(yeah, I'm old) these type of lenses would be in the back of Petersons Photographic or Popular Photography magazines(are these mags still even around)?
4:48 What tripod did you use? I’ve never seen a head with a hand grip and I’ve been looking for a tripod I could possibly save up for
But aside from that, overall an underrated channel, def looking forward to newer videos!!
That is a Manfrotto tripod, don’t recall the exact model. It was like maybe $50-60. Was really nice because it had a dial lock that moved like a mouse scroll-wheel that could lock and unlock at any angle easily.
The problems with it were thin legs so it wasn’t very stable in wind (as you can see) and the lock over time became less and less functional. Overall, was more gimmicky than anything. Which is a shame bc it was cool.
But they were cheap. Would recommend to go with something more sturdy if you want to invest in one.
I was looking at almost this exact lens for some astrophotography, this video (of which helped me decide against it, lmao) was randomly recommended to me - you earned a like & sub, great video!
While using it to take photos of the moon, they look pretty nice actually. However, idk if you could ever make it look real sharp with it. The focus is very sensitive, and there was seemingly no perfect spot to make it fully clear
I think attaching some heavy weights to the base of the tripod could help with the incessant shaking.
Yeah, the tripods used weren’t the best for the job. Hindsight is 20/20 😅
Finally a good vlog lens!
Exactlyyyy
This is far and away the most entertaining and authentic feeling lens review/vlog I’ve watched in recent memory. I’m certainly a fan of character over quality down to every tiny production detail. All of the information is there, the character of the people in the video is prominent and authentic, and ultimately it feels like chatting with friends. 10/10
Thank you! It was definitely a fun way to try it out. It may not be the most efficient or best way to show it off proper, but it was certainly the most entertaining way in my opinion😂
@@ChaseGuerdet It certainly kept my attention better than the efficient alternatives. I think the absurdity of the lens compliments the video's tone well, though. If you replaced this with a 70-200 or something it wouldn't quite be the same, yk?
its part poor optics and its part simple physics. your shooting through SO M UCH ATMOSPHERE that the air itself distorts the image. this is why those big 800mm+ lenses from canon cost $20,000 $40,0000. the degree of precision you need to get sharp images at that focal length are just astonishing.
Try the 800mm reflectors. ($100 to $150) they are a royal PAIN IN THE ASS to focus but when you nail it. the results are actually amazing.
if you want big zoom with decent quality on a budget here is how you get it.
Sigma 150-600mm $700 used. then you get a high quality doubler (I have a 2x mkiii for my canon)
NOW on an FF you have 1200mm (I got a "ok" decent shot of the lunar eclipse with this HAND HELD yes it was 90% luck) and if you pair it with a crop sensor camera now your talking 1800-1900mm of "usable" quality (IE much better than this) but as you no doubt see its gonna cost you $1100 for the sigma and a good quality doubler
a 1.4x will greatly improve image quality but at the expense is not nearly as much mm FF 840mm Crop 1260mm
also either of these combo's will auto focus.
Something I have not tried. is putting my opteka 800mm reflector on my canon 2x doubler. should be better image quality than the included crap doubler it came with that I can't find anyway. might have to try that. would net me 1600mm at F16
the sigma however will net you 1200mm (FF) with a doubler at F12.3 which is much better. and while 1200mm is not 2600mm the resolution sharpness difference will mean you can MORE than 50% crop which means a better overall image at 2600mm effective than with that.
ALSO much beefier tripod! I mean it. think surveyor tripod and some weights to make it heavier. the sturdier the tripod the less of those micro vibes you will get. also if your sony has IBIS use that !! it does work quite well and will net you 1800mm effective on the sony if its a crop sensor !!!
Thanks for the info my friend. Much appreciated
I've had one of these bad boys for 6 or 7 years now and I took it to Africa on safari ( Kenya , Tanzania ) really for a laugh , I set it up in camp on a tripod ( must have a tripod ) and focused in on a spot on small mountain over a mile+ away in Sumburu national park that had Leopards
( allegedly ) , managed to get a good focus on an area of rocks and bushes ( Sony A6000 with a remote controller can of Beer and a large JD and Coke at the ready ) I didn't have the 2x converter so I was at 1300mm + extension E-Mount adaptor + Crop , all being viewed on a 7inch monitor. Well I was quite surprised at the clarity afforded by all this monstrosity , The misses ( wife ) and our guide and camp ranger all huddled around the screen in anticipation with Beer in one hand and remote control in the other waiting for some unsuspecting Leopard ( or anything living ) to walk in shot , but you guessed it , jack sh@t , nada zip , NOTHING, we sat until the batteries went dead and not a peep . But in Tanzania from the Safari Truck with the lens laying on the roof of the truck , begging the wife the driver and cook to remain motionless i captured a Leopard resting in a tree I managed to get 5 or 6 shots before the light breeze picked up a bit and made focusing impossible . The best shot was WOW because the Leopard in shot 5 lifted his head and looked straight at the camera. That moment for me was spiritual man awesome . How I wished I had 61 Megapixels A7r4 with IBIS to then allow the crop in post .
Yeah, we now have better cameras for it with a higher megapixel, and I’m sure clarity would be much better without the 2x magnifier. But that sounds like an awesome experience for sure and what it’d be best at. We did it honestly in it’s worst state being 2x magnified and as a video rather than photo. I’m sure it’s not all that bad. In fact, I got some decent shots of the moon with it during the recent lunar eclipse.
I loved the video but I really would have liked to have seen a test of the lens at a shorter focal length and without the teleconverter in place to see how it does at 600mm - 1000mm and possibly with a polarizing filter in place on a high res dslr with mirror up, or a mirrorless upwards of 50Mp. That said I guess if you have the money for cameras like that, you wouldn't be in the market for a lens like this? Who knows. Interesting project though, thanks.
Thats fair. I will do an update that shows it in a better light. I got good moon shots while using it at its base ranges. So its not all bad!
Tbh, "proper" lens of this length cost well above the price tag of most (if not all) mirrorless bodies. So there's definitely a demand. At least just to see if such lenses is your thing altogether.
that was really good considering all things.
Yeah, and our follow-up video does a better job of showing what you can do with it. Focus is easily the worst aspect of it though unfortunately.
Well even if the images are poor it will impress the ladies!!
Size does matter!!
It works best set to (pulled out to) around 800 to 900mm max, then it's quite sharp.
True! In our follow-up video we take photos from different focal lengths, and you can really tell the difference in them.
The inability to focus down to very sharp image is basically shows you have exceeded magnification limit and now have empty magnification. Aperture dictates it. That's one of the reasons why telescopes, even those that observe Sun (no problem with light amount), need large apertures.
Yeah, once we went back down to normal focal length in our followup video, the images came out much better.
Instead of comparing at a distance too far , determine ,at what distance it does, produce a better result with more detail, on a perched bird.
Obviously the wobble ,and haze is a problem at that lens extension, and distance.
THAT, would be helpful to know.
Thanks
Yeah, that’s fair. I have more of that since with moon shots where they actually turn out fairly decent that way. This was more of just a way of testing how far it can go and what that looks like given its ridiculously high focal length. But I’ve heard a lot along the lines of your request, and will do an update in the future about it.
Should try something like this on my 5dsr and 1dx mark iii
Astrophotography??? Maybe.
The shaking maybe?? doesn't matter when the starts are so far away...maybe
Ordered mine three days ago. The covid pandemic is affecting shipments these 😁
Yeah, I heard some people had problems getting them or seeing them being sold out on the site.
Perhaps in the future computational photography will be able to deal with the many issues of heat, vibration and filtering by the atmosphere. The mass market may not justify that kind of development work, but I suppose that satellite and military applications would. There is a feeling of power and fun being able to see things from such a great distance, but I can think of no other useful application other than wildlife photography and video.
When using focal lengths of 2500mm + I like to use the celestron edge HD line of telescopes, they are f/10 and much sharper
Yeah, I bet they would turn out a whole lot better. I just got some shots of the super lunar eclipse and it could benefit from a sharpness boost. But hey it was only $200
Need a Vixen mount and my telescope mount that holds 18 lbs. A 12 inch vixen mount to shim up the camera.
I have this lens too. It's looks pretty good with circular lens. I use auto breaking for images and manual focal length. With two tripods, no movement.
Image is blurred because of small aperture. Basically you are seeing diffraction artifacts. Check out Hyugens Optics channel. The guy explains this effect in details in his recent video.
I have this exact same lens. I have had it for about 12 years.
I found it was a tad foggy - especially on high magification (1200mm). However, this is to be expected on a lens at the price range it is in.
I have used it several times and one excellent thing to shoot with it is ... the moon.
But, for the price, the results are good. If you want something crisper and clearer, you will need to save up and buy a much more expensive lens.
One thing about tripods - the sturdier it is the better. That is why very good tripods are built like the proverbial craphouse and heavy az.
Totally. You should check out our follow-up we just did where we right some of the wrongs we had here.
I would like to see more of this type of videos
Thank you! Definitely expect some real soon here!
This is definitely for stills, fast shutter speeds and in body IS will help the shake situation and make photos usable for things like birds and wildlife. That said, it won’t be as sharp as other options. The max quality from that lens will be without the teleconverter and somewhere at the lower end of the range. Again, not ideal, but for a birder on a budget, it may be better than no long reach lens.
It’s a nice vlog, and well written, but I’d recommend this lens to very few people. I could see the chromatic aberration through the camera’s video feed.
Yeah, its cheap for its spec and it shows
At 1:05, no it does not "zoom". It is a multifocal lens. There is a difference.
not available now on amazon ... you must have made them sell out the inventory.
I guess so 😳😂
I have one of these (though without the 2x teleconverter) -- used for $30 US (and it looked unused), on my Lumix G85 Micro-Four-Thirds mirrorless (2x crop factor). So that's an equiv of 1300-2600mm full frame. I was not shooting video but stills, and I had all of the same issues that you encountered -- very hard to get steady, image was very soft, and not a lot of light makes it through. Fun to test out once, but I cannot see any reason that I would ever use it for photography *or* video.
Yeahhhh, glad you got it on the cheap lol. But I do want to do a little more with it yet before I’m done with it.
@@ChaseGuerdet -- Might be useful for a private investigator trying to get pictures of someone having an affair!!! 🙂 Oh -- and it does look cool when mounted on a camera and carrying it around! 🙂
I got one .and a good tripod to hold it.i use it on my 80 D
It doesn't matter what size sensor you use, the focal length of the lens remain the same!!!
I can HEAR the quality of materials as you screw the 2x converter on. I don't even need to see the rest of the test (but I will, for the algorithms). :D
Thanks! 😂 It didn’t turn out great in the end but it can be good when used right. I got good lunar eclipse shots with it.
Harry Potter and Ron Weasley?????
😵💀
About 70K views and only 396 subscribers? You guys should have 100K subscribers by now.
Thank you! The feedbacks been insane so far from this video alone so I’m still more than happy with the results.
That’s pretty cool that you can get this zoom for just 200… though not sure what you could actually do with it… hope you can think of a good use!
Subbed, curious to see more, always on the lookout for some video ideas 😁
Thank you so much! But also, it does great moon photos which I’ll need to show soon. So keep an eye out for those. I may try to show it in its better circumstances.
I like it guys :) I hope you don't stop public something like this. Because the experiment was crazy and pretty interesting. The lens is not bad I think. Maybe this converter was superfluous. On 650-1300 it can be good lens for animals photography, or maybe this converter can help you to get something interesting in astrophotography. But however don't stop doing you content! It's kind, funny and interesting. Peace!
Well good news, the follow-up to this is coming out in the next day or so, so keep an eye out! We may just show some of that stuff 👀
What was the MP on your camera. a still photo lens. what MP cameras you guys used?
It was a 24mp and the full frame a7sIII shoots with a 12
@@ChaseGuerdet So the Lens wasn't the best and can still work for casual close range photos.
I would have liked to have seen a sample of how this lens performs without the 2x extender.
Our follow-up video shows us using it without the modifier. The quality gets better the lower the focal length.
@@ChaseGuerdet Your reply is appreciated. I'm shooting a Lumix G9 with the 100-400 and, most of the time, that's enough reach. However, nesting birds sometimes require more distance to preserve their welfare. I'm experimenting with the digital zoom in the menu with mostly good results with low ISO's and good light. However, I'm always on the lookout for an optical option. Had some very good results with a Canon R7 and 800mm RF f11 lens and would love to adapt that to my G9 but so far no luck finding such an adapter which gave me almost 1,300mm's on the R7. However, I prefer the feel of the G9 and would love to see what the 800mm or Opteka lens would do on an MFT camera.
I got the same lens several years ago. It sucks! The shake is a problem but the real issue is that you can't really focus it. It's never sharp. I took it out once to photograph the sandhill cranes in a cornfield. I had to rest the lens on my car door because I only had one tripod and it wasn't strong enough. I was able to zoom pretty well on the birds, but nothing was in focus.
😂yeaaaa
You needed to use, hacked canon 5d mark iii or EOS M/M2 with magic lantern open source custom firmware why?
Then you could use 10x zoom feature to focus on his nose🙂
In the UK at the moment you can get this type of lens for around 100 pound. Which is around 130 dollars rounding up. And for that price its very much worth it. I was thinking of getting this lens for wildlife photography as im just getting into using interchangable lens cameras and dont have the money to spend on a really expensive lens yet. But looking at this video it really seems like this would be a big hassle to use. And the lack of auto focus as a beginner is abit scary. But for astro which im getting a massive urge to do it seems amazing. So ill definitely be picking up one of these next month
Yeah, the focus on the cheaper ones like these are super sensitive. And without a sturdy tripod, it can be really shaky. You can still get good quality photos with it, but its obviously much more inferior than the high cost alternatives.
2:46 you need a dovetail plate and a telescope mount, wimpy camera tripods are pretty useless even at 700mm
Yeah, we thought using two could help but it ended up not. The second time around we used a stronger tripod to better results
@@ChaseGuerdet heavier the better.
Will this lens work on the Canon 400d
They come with an adapter for a certain type of camera. Mine came with a Sony adapter, but I’m pretty sure there are Canon adapters that can work with it.
i really like this video. Keep it up!"
Thank you! We plan to do a little follow-up so if you have any new ideas for what to do let me know!
I recently started into photography and i was looking for some gear i could use at the beginning. I firstly thought on analogical lens, which would save me some money, but i could only find small ones, since the high focal distance ones always looked shady (and so that one you showed kkkkkkl, but then it got some good results and i might look forward to have one later. Greets from Brazil, a quite difficult country to be a photographer KKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Look out for soligor zooms there's this 90-230mm f4.5 amazingly built and has fixed apperture for all the focal lengths it covers, quite inexpensive, also the vivitar series 1 zooms are legit the 70-210 f3.5 macro, it's a pain in the ass handheld but it's actually decent and very affordable, the Nikkor 135mm f2.8 it's amazing, bought mine for 175€. Ofc these are not crazy Tele lens, but worth the lookout! Keep shooting
@@simonsusername bro, thank you very much! As soon as i get enough money to buy a new lens, i will make sure to check those out. Thanks again for the tips, king 🙏🏻
need to make a brace mount for it
Check out my latest vid, I use your guys’ suggestions and sort it out 😅
Ah, two tripods. That's the trick. (I am struggling to use this lens, don't want to give up yet.). Fun vid. Maybe lunar photog?
Oh it’s perfect for close-ups like the moon! Focus is a bit sensitive so make sure it’s in focus but yes two tripods for stability and a monitor to see it’s focus were my methods to success.
Wow. Great Video. Well done, especially like how you took the time to go to separate places and did test. I've bought one aswell and its come with a t-mount, would you know what adapter I need to attach it to a micro 43? Thanks
Thank you so much! I believe that depending on which one you buy determines the adapters they come with. Mine of course came with the Sony mount, but I know there are others! So make sure it’s the right one.
@@ChaseGuerdet Many thanks. I've just had a thought, the price of some this cheap lens in Ebay is upto about £150 mark, a decent branded one costs literally £1000s, but a branded decent telescope costs from about £150. I wonder what result would one get by using a telescope as a lens substitute - could it be better than even using the Nikon P1000? One day maybe.
Would have been good to see what it would look like without the teleconverter on also. Might of been able to get a better focus, but wouldnt of been as much of a zoom
I promise you that’s some of the best sharpness it offers. I’ll show in a followup vid soon😅
@@ChaseGuerdet Hahaha, i dont doubt it, just was wondering what it might look like without the teleconverter haha
I had one of those and it worked well for Moon photos. =)
Yes! I got some great shots the other day of the Lunar Eclipse!
Nicely done and a fun little field test. :) I would partly blame diffraction for the fogginess. With the Teleconverter it results in an aperture of f/32 which makes loss of detail due to diffraction very likely. You could test a cropped 1300mm shot against a 2600mm shot and see whether the cropped resolution looks worse.
Yeah, I do plan to take it back into the field to see if we can get better results
cool reviews guys!!
i'm thinking to buy these lens lol
It has its problems for sure. It shines most when doing things like photos of the moon. But even then, focus is very sensitive and it may be hard to get real good detail on it. But I did get some good shots of the lunar eclipse!
what do you expect from Chinese brands vs Japanese brands
Absolutely nothing! 😁
Was not disappointed
I have those tripods. Not so good in the wind.
Yeah, definitely need something less flimsy to control them
Surely not a good idea to test it over a vast expanse of water. The water vapour and atmospheric refraction it causes must affect both definition and contrast. A bit of fun though. 😉
Oh yeah, we tested the lens to its most extremes. All in good fun though lol. Will do a follow up if there’s something you want to see though where we try to make it look better lol
the screw it in part got me xd
I wouldn't mind seeing some more intermediate shots. Max range does not look great but if it can produce some sharp images at a more mid range, it could be worth the $200. Unless you're a very low budget P.I. I would skip using it for long range video.
A follow-up where we do our best to make it look good is coming soon. Keep an eye out for it! 👀
@@ChaseGuerdet I like what you're doing and wanna see where you go. Subscribed!
Man this video is so funny 😂
Looks better than I was expecting it to, but my only telephoto is the EF 75-300mm so that's probably why. I compared the price to cheap telescopes and adapters and saw the lens isn't cheap enough when you can get comparable reach with cheap telescopes. Part of me kind of still wants one but I know I can put that money to many better uses. I like how the lens bends when handled.
Yes! Money can go to much better use I’d say. But was still really fun to test its extremes.
Is it worth getting it? I wanna get it for wildlife photography
In our follow-up vid we did manage to get some more decent shots. If its real still, and not zoomed in all the way, you can get some better product out of it.
I actually have seen similar lenses before, No way it costs 200$, a 450-900 plus 2x converter is around 80$ and actually useable if you use it as a telescope to "see" instead of trying to get a sharp photo
Are you saying I was scammed?! 😭
What is the name of the lens again?
Its the brand opteka, 650-2600mm
@@ChaseGuerdet ah ok tysm :)
You need to be a good sniper to get a good shot with this!
Lol our follow-up does something like that 😅
I'm betting you would need an FX like 45 megapixel and then dumb down to 20 in post just to sharpen it up..
Oh yeah, I bet that’d help. Using a 12mp wasn’t the best option 😂
If use Olympus with IBIS would be much more interested vs 35mm sensor
I have the exact same lens and it does a decent job at photos of the moon for how cheap it was
That is one of its stronger suits!
This is a far better test than all these test chart- shooters poduce all the time....!
i have a Pentax Q with PK adapter, a 2x TC and an old sigma 100-300 so thats 5.6x crop + 2x300mm gives me the FOV of a 3360mm lens... and its abslolutley bullcrap! i tried the moon once but needed a really short ss coz the moon was running through the frame. IQ was garbage and i need tons of light coz the Q isnt any good at anything but base ISO. This stuff is only good to please your curiosity, no practical value 😅
Very much so. Not exactly practical. If not only for the hyper-sensitive focus.
it could be used for astronomy
Yeah totally! It works pretty well for moon photos.
Try it without the Tele converter. The quality should be better. Really like the video.
Thanks! I think it was actually condensation build-up on the lens, but yeah, the converter definitely also makes an impact 😂
At 7:39, that is NOT dirt on the lens, it is on your camera's sensor.
So you basically took one of those kids telescopes and turned it into a pinhole camera 😂 awesome
Atmospheric Haze. You are shooting super far through all sorts of things in the air, especially water vapor! No matter what you do the farther from your subject the more hazy it’ll be! It’s just physics!
Yeah, I also think it was at least a little but from condensation from a very cold car to a hot outdoor climate. But yeah, shooting across the river can also have other rippling effects that adds to problems 😅
@@ChaseGuerdet still a fun experiment!
Does it fit the rebel t5 ?
I believe there are multiple versions where each one comes with a certain camera brand adapter. So there should be a version that does.
@@ChaseGuerdet oh ok thanks
This is it. I'll use this to find big foot.
And with this lens, it will look just as good as the photos that currently exist of him😅
Good enough for physical surveillance purpose.
Yes! We have a follow-up vid showing it off in other ways coming in the next day or so, so keep an eye out for it! We do a better job with it.
No way! The focal length is insane!
I can imagine it’s minimum focusing distance is like 20 feet 😅
It might even be further than that 😂
Useful video
Thank you! Theres another follow-up coming up soon that shows it in more practical uses, so definitely check that one out too when it comes out.
Better buy 2 bottle bottom abd glued together in a tube 😅
😅You’re not wrong
Isn't it amazing with so little money you can get so much of a lens?!
Its fair. There is a lot of lens physically there. But its not good lens 😂. Results may vary in the next video though.
@@ChaseGuerdet Heh heh and yes. But I have this lens and can say a few things about it.
First of all at this price you simply cannot find anything at this magnification ratio.
Then the sharpness is really not that bad, especially before using that crappy 2x TC.
You actually lose a lot of that (Wrongly) so-called sharpness due to low light passing through it and slow shutter speed resulting, in reality, in a blurred image that reflects by the user as lower sharpness. What it lags is contrast. Then has CA and other aberrations including some ghosting. Then, of course, you need full sun. Better yet, if you take it to planet Naboo where they have 2 suns! ! ! : - )
But my friend, you really need a better tripod. Those crappy ones you have won't cut it. Anyways thanks for uploading this, least to say, interesting one.
@@samsen3965 oh yea, they’ve been replaced a long time ago. (This vids almost a year old now 😂)
You need high iso and shutter speed and a non shaking tripod.
Yeah, I believe that condensation caused the weird foggy look. The reason the tripod was shaking so much was moreso the lens I think. The wind on the riverside was so strong that it had a lot more influence to move it around and at that focal length, the most minor movements look drastic. But I’m sure more heavy tripods could help a little.
@@ChaseGuerdet maybe it was too funny
impractical but fun video :D
Lol thank you, that was the goal 😂
Great lens for street photography
Yeah was surprised with some quality I got on the street. Vid coming soon with that.