And, of course, it took me a few seconds to comprehend the meaning of
this line in the ad:
"This innovative construction helps make the lens a popular choice for
(hmm, why would I buy such an expensive lens if I'm renting a house to
someone... Couldn't I just use a throwaway camera for the listing?)
I got theived by Minolta on the repair of one of my $800 Rokkor
lenses.......I'll never deal with the creeps again. A $300 lens doesn't
have a lot of glass in it, and that's what they replaced it with. It
was a piece of trash. Price *usually* equates to quality. Usually.
I am seeing that now. is their an affordable f2.8 400mm lens availagle ?
I really need the F2.8 since I have to use 1/1000 or better shutter speed at
iso 100 (anything higher is less desirable since it adds noise)
> They carry dozens of lenses in the $5,000+ range. It's not unusual at
> all for good glass to cost a lot more than the body that it's being > attached to.
> Mike KD7PVT
> NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
> NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. >
I wish! I do piggy-back astrophotography with an ancient Pentax K-1000
and would LOVE a good, affordable f2.8 400mm.
The biggest f2.8 I could afford was a 125mm, and it vignettes so badly that
I have to digitally correct the scanned images.
My 400mm is an f5.6 aftermarket cheapo that only makes a decent image at f8
and then only over about 20% of the frame. Image enhancement, again.
Paint Shop Pro; don't try cheap astrophotography without it. ;)
Yes, there are several 'affordable' ones, but you definitely wouldn't
like the amount of distortion, chromatic aberration, and lack of
If you're looking for a *usable* 400mm/f2.8 you'd better be prepared to
shell out more than the camera...much more...much closer to what your
laptop cost you.
Affordable, of course, is a relative term. $2,495 for a 300mm f2.8
prime lens is a bargain, especially when you consider that a Nikon or
Canon equivalent is probably going to run ~$1,000 more. (Don't even
ask what a similar Leica lens will run!)
Good lenses cost real money. I worked my way through college working
at a camera store, so I know of what I speak. I couldn't believe how
much the quality of my photos improved when I moved from Pentax gear
to Nikon due to the quality of the Nikkor glass. I also had Leica
stuff for a while; the image quality was superior to the Nikon stuff,
but not enough for me to justify the additional cost. I finally
decided to jettison 35mm altogether, and now use a Mamiya 645 system
for important stuff (like family celebrations and portraits), and a
digital camera for snapshot stuff.
A suggestion: buy a cheap used 645 (Bronica, Pentax, or Mamiya) and
use it with 400 ISO film; a body with 70-80mm prime lens can be had
for less than $500 on eBay. It'll kick the ass of your 35mm stuff at
100 ISO, and you can go to slower film stocks when you don't need the
higher shutter speed.
Of course, it also depends on the exact lens. If you want to talk
35mm- some Nikkor lenses are pretty crummy - others are as good as you
can get, Zeiss and Leica included. In any case, good lenses cost very
serious dollars, and you generally get what you pay for + "brag factor"
(large for Zeiss and Leica, moderate for Nikon).
What's the 'brag factor' for my house-brand lens from Ritz cameras???
I sold an old manual camera set a couple of years back, and in going
through and inventorying everything, found some 'house' lens that were
completely destroyed due to outgassing of the adhesives in the lenses.
Granted, I hadn't even looked at them in 10-20 years, but I was
surprised nonetheless. My 'name brand' (read: Pentax manfactured)
lenses were still in good shape.
Ahhh... now you see why people spend big bucks on good digital SLRs.
A $3000 camera body looks cheap compared to a $6000 lens :)
A high quality camera body like the Canon 1D can give you excellent
results at ISO 800 or even ISO 1600, which means you can shoot with
a 400mm f4 or f5.6 at 1/3000+ in decent outdoor conditions.
There is no free lunch in terms of light gathering ability.
Big bucks for a large sensor in the camera body means great high
ISO performance which means you can shoot outdoors at high shutter
speeds without breaking the bank with $6000 lenses.
Of course, shallow depth of field at long telephoto lengths
is very desirable for sports shooting which is why the
pros pay for both.
Too many people get carried away with megapixel counting with
digital cameras. Pixels are not all created equal. The sensor
in the Canon 1D (with only 4.1 MP), is close to 5 times bigger
than that found in the consumer level cameras with 5+ MP. This
is why those cameras have terrible noise problems at anything
greater than ISO 100 or maybe ISO 200.
Best cheap rocket photo rig? An old used film SLR,
cheap telephoto - probably 100-300mm, and Fuji 800
film. Shoot at around 1/2000 or faster if possible for