Flair resistance was great, no problems... except on one shot. What's happening at the bottom where the sun reflects in the water? It doesn't look like typical lens flare to me...
jotdeh wrote:
Flair resistance was great, no problems... except on one shot. What's happening at the bottom where the sun reflects in the water? It doesn't look like typical lens flare to me...
I suspect reflections in the camera's sensor cavity, not the lens.
rico wrote:
I suspect reflections in the camera's sensor cavity, not the lens.
It is the reflection. We don't know if the reflection was caused by the single-side coating from the elements or by external filter. My old 300/4L non-is has same problem, and it was due to single-side coating.
phuang3 wrote:
It is the reflection. We don't know if the reflection was caused by the single-side coating from the elements or by external filter. My old 300/4L non-is has same problem, and it was due to single-side coating.
I didn't have a filter installed. The rear element rear surface appears to be coated, too. Maybe it's a reflection off the sensor surface that reflects back in the silver adapter?
^^ I also noticed some rear element hot-spottning and flaring when used at the long end. The spotting is exacerbated by placing the lens on long tubes as well.
flashinm wrote:
Bif, I don't mean to derail this thread, but how do you like the Sigma 500mm? I'm assuming it's the manual focus version? I just picked one up on a whim in OM mount. I didn't even know it existed until yesterday. Looking forward to testing it out, but I just wanted to get your thoughts. Also picked up the budget gimbal that you posted a link to.
Yeah, I like it. The IQ is slightly better overall than a Canon 300/2.8L plus the 2x TC. Mine is AF though. I think it's probably the first AF version released - not really sure. The MF has a proper dampening (almost none!) and throw for MFing BIFs and etc. The foot allows a nice balance with the GH1 on the other end of it. The hood screw-locks into either position collapsed or telescoped, There's a threaded extension hood I don't have, which provides an additional 6 inches or so of flare protection. MFD is 14 feet so it's not really good for macros without putting it on tubes. It comes with it's own shoulder strap like the 300/2.8L which is very useful for lugging around! The rear filter thread is 30.5mm which are common enough but there's no felt or fuzz to keep out the dust where the insert goes. It overlaps enough to form a seat which will keep out most particles I think tho. For the $800 to $1,100 they seem to sell for I'd say it was worth it. The AF is a little noisy but not too bad. I guess the AF is it's only weak point. It's fine for slow moving objects but for something traveling fast down it's Z (directly toward or away from the camera) I guess it's going to miss as much as it hits.
jotdeh wrote:
How do you control the aperture on this?
The adapter ring. All Sony/Minolta AF mount lenses that I know of have a manual coupling prong which adapters can engage. The only lenses I know of which do not have such a manual coupling are Canon EF (EOS) lenses. So for those I have to carry an old EOS film body around in my back pocket to set the aperture with. But all others have adapters with a control ring. Of my 20-some adapters the only one's I've not acquired control-ring adapters for are OM and MD. I've seen an OM one with control ring but just not grabbed it yet.
One test suggested to see whether it is the lens or the camera is to rotate the camera by 180 degrees and compare the shots. The lens is rotationally symmetric, the mirror box is not.
I dunno if for other people it's a combination of camera and mirror or not. But in my case it's the lens. I dunno exactly what part of the lens tho. The flocking, the rear element, some other aft construct (lip, ledge, ring, etc.), are all suspects I considered.
Thanks for the summary, OpticalFlow! Makes sense to me, since the flare has this linear reflection look to it, and it is at the bottom (top of the mirrorbox).
Bifurcator wrote:
In my case it's a mirrorless GH1 µ4/3 camera.
I dunno if for other people it's a combination of camera and mirror or not. But in my case it's the lens. I dunno exactly what part of the lens tho. The flocking, the rear element, some other aft construct (lip, ledge, ring, etc.), are all suspects I considered.
Ah ... I didn't make it clear that I was specifically referring to jotdeh's example image. Obviously the lens may produce some flare as well - it is just those linear stripes at the bottom that reminded me of the example images in the thread I linked to.
If it is indeed the back of the mirror you should be able to reproduce this effect with other lenses as well, jotdeh - if you create the right conditions.
The 100-300 has been on my "watch list" for some time but I mostly see overpriced buy-it-now offers from ebay dealers that never sell. Do you have a ballpark figure of what would be an acceptable price to pay for this lens in good to very good condition ?
I've been watching them for about 3 months now and ones in:
- completely mint condition with no zoom creep go for between $1k and $1.2k.
- Mint condition glass and externals but with some zoom-creep go for $900 ~ $1k.
- Mint condition glass but with zoom creep and some marks or worn rubber grip go for $800 - $900.
- And when you start including noticeable amounts of dust or clouds in the description then $700 - $800.
And probably with $50 of overlap all around.
IMO much dust or clouds should knock it down into the $400's but people seem to be willing to pay twice that anyway <shrug>. I've watched 12 of them sell now and two in the used shop I frequent. Japanese, US, and German prices seem to be identical after the exchange rate is applied to U.S. dollar. On all 12 I asked if there was zoom creep if it wasn't included in the description. All 12 plus both the ones on the shelf had zoom creep. One of the ones in the shop was very stiff with only 1mm per second zoom-creep (very slow) which often stopped all together till it was shaken slightly.
I guess it's nearly impossible to find this lens without zoom-creep.
BTW, the slow zoom creep one in the shop is still available and with exchange rate is $900 (shipped abroad).
I think if you are using such long extension tubes you get a pretty huge image circle (which you only crop a small section) so maybe it's not that surprising to see some artefacts like this from reflections behind the rear element?
Optical Flow, I got mine in beautiful condition (mint glass, minor cosmetic wear), with Contax hood and pouch for EUR 460 + shipping from a dealer in Germany, through ebay. I think that was an exceptionally good price - just gotta be lucky. I was looking for one for a good year.
jotdeh ,
Yeah, that's like $640 after reasonable shipping. I'm guessing the "minor cosmetic wear" is what kept the price low. Does it have zoom creep - even a tiny bit?
Optical,
that's about $775 after shipping I guess. That's good if it's good. Ask him questions before bidding on it for sure! Too many people leave out too many details on zooms for my taste - especially one-touch zooms! If he just says "great condition all around" like most Americans do call him on it and ask for details!
it's not on ebay - but I've just sent an email asking the questions regarding zoom creep and dust. Price includes overseas shipping, which works out to around $700 in our dollars (AUD). I could save 30 EUR if I have it shipped to my relatives in Germany and pick it up the next time I visit. Seriously thinking about it now.
Yeah, some of them stick at either end and only creep in the middle.
OpticalFlow wrote:
Bif,
it's not on ebay - but I've just sent an email asking the questions regarding zoom creep and dust. Price includes overseas shipping, which works out to around $700 in our dollars (AUD). I could save 30 EUR if I have it shipped to my relatives in Germany and pick it up the next time I visit. Seriously thinking about it now.
And ask him to shine a bright flashlight through it and rate the amount of cloudiness on a scale of 1 to 10.
inglis wrote:
Bifurcator, what do you think of the colors from this lens? You have used so many different types of lenses, with different characteristics, I have wondered what you think of this lens's palette?
Looks like I missed this question from page 1, sorry. Hmm, the colors are very clean. No shifts with different apertures or gradient fringes in the bokeh - and at all FLs. But that's all I can really say. I didn't test it for color accuracy. I felt it was different than most excellent APO lenses and different than Fluorite lenses. But at the same time very near those types with no bleeding and good saturation. Perhaps describable as a Zeiss grade achromat. You've already seen it's bokeh and sharpness demonstrated in this thread so I guess I needn't describe those aspects? For me considering colors, it's like a sharper, slower C/Y 100/2.8 without the macro, but with zoom to 300mm, and for about the same price.
Bif,
you mention asking about cloudiness and Krosavcheg mentioned some cloudiness in the rear group of his sample as well.
A few months ago an ebay seller from Hong-Kong sold one with a cloudy rear-element (it still went for close to $400 if I remember correctly).
Is element separation something to watch out for with this lens ?
No, not separation but it's old enough and the construction is open enough that the humidity over the years can leave grime and mineral deposits on a few of the inner rear surfaces. I haven't tried to open one but it doesn't look easy. So I guess there will be a high percentage of them with some layers of film over some of the element surfaces which will look very similar to separation - only more evenly distributed. I guess it will be extremely rare to find one with none. And such shows up best with a bright flashlight shinning up through it toward your face but tilted a little to one side.
I do this with all old lenses unless I forget or something.
