klm77 From Canada, joined Sep 2009, 170 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7338 times:
Hey guys I just wanted to ask a general opinion about this lens. I know it's really cheap (around 250 bucks) so I know for sure that it's not something spectacular. What I wanted to know is, would it worth spending the two hundred something dollars to try to shoot contrails? I know Sony has a prime 800mm and with a tele converter I could get up to 1600mm but it's kinda pricey (around 1400-1500 from what I've researched so far) and i'm not that good yet to be spending that much.
dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1753 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7338 times:
Those lenses are basically poor adjustable focal length telescopes. Have you considered looking at a genuine telescope if you are interested in contrails? Most any camera can be adapted to a real telescope fairly easy.
ilpavone2004 From UK - England, joined Feb 2008, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7311 times:
My advice, as a contrail spotter, is to save some money and buy a telescope. I personally own a 12'' dobson telescope. For contrail spotting dobson telescope, that have a newtonian optical scheme, are the most used because they are cheap and you can afford a good overall performance. Contrail spotting telescopes, for good contrails spotting photos, start froma size of 8'' (minor size ---> less light gathering---> longer shutter speed---> blurry photos)
For any other comment of question you can directy write to me or visit this forum
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7071 times:
Mattia's advice was "right on"; the "lure" of being able to photograph things that are far away with big long telephoto lenses that are "cheap" has been going on for many years now. Unfortunately, there is much more to making far away objects look close, than just having a lot of focal length; as Matia pointed out, you need a lot of light, and a lot of resolving power, and the only way to get both, is with a lot of aperture; the bigger the aperture, the more light, and the more resolving power. But that's only the beginning............even if you have a big telescope, you also need a big mounting; (which tend to be even more expensive than big telescopes ! ) It's kind of a "vicious circle" ! A few years back, a very clever fellow named John Dobson came up with a scheme to build a reflecting telescope, using what's known as the "Newtonian" principle, and the "big mounting" is completely made from plywood ! Dobson even ground his own mirrors, as have countless other amateur telescope makers, but I can tell you from experience........."it aint easy" ! A lot of companies are making and selling "Dobsonian" telescopes these days, and yes, they really DO WORK ! And as big telescopes go, they are dirt cheap ! That would be the only practical way to getting into very long range photography, without spending "big bucks" ! But as for the big 600 - 1200mm "lens" you mentioned.........save your money !
If you end up buying one of those things, the only practical "use" i can think of for it, would be to use it to beat the guy who sold it to you over the head !
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
klm77 From Canada, joined Sep 2009, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6932 times:
Thank you guys for the tips, really helpful. As I am still getting into more details about lenses I knew that a long distance lens costs a lot of money and no doubt that it should, so I knew that this Rokinon couldn't have been anything amazing for 250 bucks.