Just got this today. I'm not a long lens guy, but I wanted one cheap to play with and I thought it could be useful for my occasional zoo visit. It turns out that I probably won't be bringing it to zoo, 800 mm is just too much for me to handle, and my tripod probably doesn't cut it.
Haven't played much with it, but the lens has a very low contrast, the nature of the beast I guess. It is also very soft. But After a pretty extreme contrast boost and mild sharpening (it probably need more), I guess it's acceptable for A4 sized print. This is shot outside my window on 5D MkII, focus is on the grey roof in the middle.
100% crop
The shot obviously wasn't done with the most rigorous testing methodology, but IMO it is pretty representative of the lens' performance.
It might sound like I am complaining, but I am not, just saying it as it is. If you want an 800mm to peep into your neighbour's home and don't plan to print so large that your neighbour would find out, this might work.
Well forgetting the "typical" responses for around $300 that not to bad, especially considering the Canon 800mm is $10,900 at B&H. Looks like it would sharpen up some and for your stated purposes you cannot go wrong.
It may not be all a lens failing to have soft and low contrast images with a long lens - haze and 'mirage' get in the way to disrupt the path to the lens, depending mostly on the distance and ambient temperature.
Did that view appear crystal clear and sharp to your eye(s)?
The was a haze in the air at the time of shooting, that does contribute to the haziness in the picture. But I couldn't get a sharp picture either indoor with tripod, MLU, shutter speed in the 1/thousands, and flash. Though the contrast may be better. I'll do more testing when there is PLENTY of light.
Nothing against mirror lenses myself - sure they're alright for moon shots and birds on branches - but something like the tokina 80-400 is only 500 dollars i think i'd much rather have it for AF and IQ and blown up it probably competes with the mirror lenses or likely even better results with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter.
I bought a Kenko 2x a while back and slapped it on my 135L, may be I got a faulty copy, when stopped way down to f/11 it doesn't look too different from the above, I returned it and came back with a 55-250IS and much happier. The TC also cost nearly as much as the 800/8.
I was initially looking at the 500mm ones, and I considered getting a Sigma 70-300 and just crop it to 500mm. Assuming the 500 performs similarly to the 800, I do think it is better to go for the 70-300. In retrospect I'd probably prefer getting the Sigma, 800mm is a tough beast to tame for me.
Perhaps because i have a kenko 2x and it performs pretty good when i slap it on my 100 2.8 macro if you ask me.
Maybe optics are different with close focusing and teleconverters i'm not sure.
The 55-250IS is really nice for the price and i enjoy the light weight a lot, i have lifted a 400 5.6 once and i have to say kudos to those that use even heavier super teles handheld...
Well if you ever do get a 70-300 i'd be interested in seeing a cropped comparison.
Mine is stamped "Bower", paid $230 shipped halfway across the globe. I would think that they were made by Samyang and stamped Kenko. It also seems that those that are labeled "Samyang" cost more on eBay.
Why do you think it's manufactured by Yamsang or Samyang or whatever? They're a lens manufacturer too?
I'll add the Bower pic just for fun!
Yes, Samyang makes all of them and stamps all the names on them for different markets/stores.
Just like they make the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Opteka/Falcon/Vivitar/etc. 85/1.4 Aspherical (an amazingly good lens, BTW), the 8mm fisheye, and a soon-to-be-released 35/1.4 Aspherical (possibly 35/1.2 in Canon mount).
I am shocked, to be honest, that you've never heard of them.
I own a 1000mm Russian made cat lens. It's not bad (considering the cost) and I've been impressed with the results. The issue is the very low number of keepers because the lens is challenging to use. Vibration (even mirror slap) is a killer at 1000mm and the manual focus is not the best.
I think I heard the name before... does that count?
Yeah, I mostly only pay attention to the larger names. But if they're making quality optics as evidently they're also into budget optics then I'll have to pay more attention. Thanks man!
Took the this lens out for a real world test spin, the file won't stand pixel peeping, but with careful post precessing it makes some decent photo IMO. I'd say this one would hold up to A3 sized print.
Uncropped on 5D2, this lens does some serious reach.
I was walking in a garden and saw a pavilion atop a slope quite a distance away. I thought it's a worthy subject, so I hold the camera to my face, alas, I can't even fit the roof in my frame. I think it's the first time that I feel myself having way too much reach.
800 mm at f/8 without stabilization means high ISO in broad day light, which unfortunately I am at work most of the time. On top of that the keeper rate is low and it's not sharp to begin with. I guess those are good excuses that I don't have more to show. But I'll try to come out with something.
In my OP I mentioned that the contrast is really low. I'm taking it back. the low contrast above is probably due to haze. The contrast is not fantastic but nothing too out of line, considering that it is a catadioptric it's probably quite good.
Mirror lenses require a lot of light and proper technique. That includes fast shutter speeds, even when used on a tri- or monopod. The low mass of the lens makes them vibrate easily, and the fact that this one doesn't have a tripod mount, doesn't help either, since using the camera mount will maximize any movement or vibration.
Still, used properly, some decent results can be had. Here are some samples from a recent golf tournament, rather off topic, since it's a Nikkor 500mm f/8 on a Fuji S5, but the concept is the same.
I have no crops available here, but I can assure you that they are rather sharp. The contrast have been pumped up though, but with digital cameras, that is not a problem. All these taken on a monopod. A beanbag probably works well too, but I haven't tried that.
Apart from maintaining fast shutter speeds, I use at least 2x focal length as a rule of thumb, the biggest challenge is to avoid busy backgrounds. The bokeh can be rather fuzzy at times, which can be seen in the fourth sample, and OOF highlights get the characteristic doughnut shape. Remember also, that mirror lenses focus past infinity, so even far away subjects have to be focused properly.
I believe Samyang make a 500mm f/6.3 as well. That would be interesting to try. Both of the Samyang lenses have a shallower depth of field than the typical 500mm f/8 mirror lens, which should help a bit with the fuzzy bokeh, but again: watch out for vibrations, and keep the lens locked up in the cupboard on cloudy days.
