4 ms·

Re. great optics, I think that's especially the case with telephoto lenses, I don't think there's any workarounds to make them highly portable? I'd not heard o

Re. great optics, I think that's especially the case with telephoto lenses, I don't think there's any workarounds to make them highly portable? I'd not heard of that Leica before, but it does look amazing.

sosuke 7y ago
I've been looking for some magic workaround. The closest thing you can find at the moment is a mirror telephoto lens. You can get them pretty cheap but often standard telephoto lenses that have the images cropped get better results.
- acomjean 7y ago
  I had a mirrored lens (400mm). It worked ok, but I had it for a film camera and you can't adjust the aperture. This was more of an issue on the film camera I had, but long focal length lenses have a very small depth of focus and stopping down the aperture helps that. Canon tried a fresnel lenes there "DO" series. Not quite as good quality at about half the size and way more money. Its interesting technology. You can see the lens size comparisons near the bottom of this article. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f... One of the main things driving larger optics/ is the amount of light the lens lets in. EG: max aperture (a lower f number) means bigger lens, more money. The availability of digital sensors means often you can shoot with higher film speed and might not require as large a max aperture..
- brudgers 7y ago
  I picked up a Tamron Adaptall 55B 500mm f8 two and a half years ago. They were produced from 1979-1983 and sold new for about $400 as best I can tell. The big difference from contemporary Samyang and Rokkinon catadioptrics is it's really long focus throw. It's about 350 degrees from 1.5m to infinity. At 500mm even f8 is shallow. Hyper-focal distance is over a kilometer on a crop sensor. Even with a 2x teleconverter (1000mm f16/t22) it's less than a kilogram so it's easy to walk around hand holding and throwing it in the bag is not a major commitment. Like any other lens it's a compromise. I live with it's technical shortcomings because it provides a specific capability to make images I would not make otherwise. In theory, it's a choice between lenses based on technical specifications. In practice it's a choice between making image with the catadioptric and no image at all. The images that would not exist otherwise exist because I can see in 500mm prime before I raise the camera and when my eye hits the viewfinder I'm not making a "well maybe I can crop it" compromise.
fooker 7y ago
One workaround is the use of Fresnel lenses. This is featured in Canon's DO (Diffractive Optics) line of lenses. Another 'workaround' is the use of a mirror, but these lenses are only useful for very specific tasks and are usually not designed for the high end market.
- anfractuosity 7y ago
  Interesting, will have to look at Canons DO lenses, not heard of them before.
  - petepete 7y ago
    Nikon's PF lenses, of which there are only 2 (300mm f4 PF and 500mm f5.6 PF) are worth a look too. I have the 300PF and it's smaller and lighter than a 24-70mm and plenty sharp. The 500PF has been sold out since launch. https://i.imgur.com/o4kNzNy.jpg https://i.imgur.com/o4kNzNy.jpg
  - Wistar 7y ago
    I have had the 70-300 DO for about 12 years and find it to be a lackluster lens and seldom use it (never). https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-do-is.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-do-is.htm I agree with Ken Rockwell's review of the lens except I add that it just doesn't have the color and contrast "pop" of equivalent lenses such as the 100-400 L II zoom. One thing, though, the used price for the DO lens is low.
- m463 7y ago
  You can always identify photos taken with mirror lenses because out-of-focus highlights look like donuts.
tomchuk 7y ago
Canon has their DO (Diffractive Optics) technology[1] which I think only ever made it into a 70-300[2]. Mirror lenses have been around for a long time. They fold the length of larger telephotos into about a third with some trade-offs in speed and image quality. [1] https://global.canon/en/v-square/34.html https://global.canon/en/v-square/34.html [2] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6-do-is-usm https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d...
- ip26 7y ago
  There's the 400 f/4 DO II - fantastic lens. The DO tech turns a mainly tripod lens into something you can easily hand hold.
arethuza 7y ago
There is the option of reducing sensor size which allows very long focal length equivalents but at the cost of reduced image quality - I have Nikon P1000 which has a 24-3000 zoom in a package which is fairly large but still pretty portable. Is the image quality as good as my full sized Nikon gear - definitely not. Can I take more pictures that I couldn't even attempt before (wildlife and landscapes) - definitely.
- jungletime 7y ago
  There's this Polish guy that climbs buildings, and he uses the P1000 from time to time, for very dramatic zoom effect. Like in this video https://youtu.be/1fP4UArArNg?t=104 https://youtu.be/1fP4UArArNg?t=104 Well, this specific video was on April fools, and him standing on top of the mast was masked in (faked), but that background footage of the zoom out was from P1000 camera.

sosuke 7y ago

I've been looking for some magic workaround. The closest thing you can find at the moment is a mirror telephoto lens. You can get them pretty cheap but often standard telephoto lenses that have the images cropped get better results.

acomjean 7y ago
I had a mirrored lens (400mm). It worked ok, but I had it for a film camera and you can't adjust the aperture. This was more of an issue on the film camera I had, but long focal length lenses have a very small depth of focus and stopping down the aperture helps that. Canon tried a fresnel lenes there "DO" series. Not quite as good quality at about half the size and way more money. Its interesting technology. You can see the lens size comparisons near the bottom of this article. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f... One of the main things driving larger optics/ is the amount of light the lens lets in. EG: max aperture (a lower f number) means bigger lens, more money. The availability of digital sensors means often you can shoot with higher film speed and might not require as large a max aperture..
brudgers 7y ago
I picked up a Tamron Adaptall 55B 500mm f8 two and a half years ago. They were produced from 1979-1983 and sold new for about $400 as best I can tell. The big difference from contemporary Samyang and Rokkinon catadioptrics is it's really long focus throw. It's about 350 degrees from 1.5m to infinity. At 500mm even f8 is shallow. Hyper-focal distance is over a kilometer on a crop sensor. Even with a 2x teleconverter (1000mm f16/t22) it's less than a kilogram so it's easy to walk around hand holding and throwing it in the bag is not a major commitment. Like any other lens it's a compromise. I live with it's technical shortcomings because it provides a specific capability to make images I would not make otherwise. In theory, it's a choice between lenses based on technical specifications. In practice it's a choice between making image with the catadioptric and no image at all. The images that would not exist otherwise exist because I can see in 500mm prime before I raise the camera and when my eye hits the viewfinder I'm not making a "well maybe I can crop it" compromise.

fooker 7y ago

One workaround is the use of Fresnel lenses. This is featured in Canon's DO (Diffractive Optics) line of lenses. Another 'workaround' is the use of a mirror, but these lenses are only useful for very specific tasks and are usually not designed for the high end market.

anfractuosity 7y ago
Interesting, will have to look at Canons DO lenses, not heard of them before.
- petepete 7y ago
  Nikon's PF lenses, of which there are only 2 (300mm f4 PF and 500mm f5.6 PF) are worth a look too. I have the 300PF and it's smaller and lighter than a 24-70mm and plenty sharp. The 500PF has been sold out since launch. https://i.imgur.com/o4kNzNy.jpg https://i.imgur.com/o4kNzNy.jpg
- Wistar 7y ago
  I have had the 70-300 DO for about 12 years and find it to be a lackluster lens and seldom use it (never). https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-do-is.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-do-is.htm I agree with Ken Rockwell's review of the lens except I add that it just doesn't have the color and contrast "pop" of equivalent lenses such as the 100-400 L II zoom. One thing, though, the used price for the DO lens is low.
m463 7y ago
You can always identify photos taken with mirror lenses because out-of-focus highlights look like donuts.

tomchuk 7y ago

Canon has their DO (Diffractive Optics) technology[1] which I think only ever made it into a 70-300[2]. Mirror lenses have been around for a long time. They fold the length of larger telephotos into about a third with some trade-offs in speed and image quality. [1] https://global.canon/en/v-square/34.html https://global.canon/en/v-square/34.html [2] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6-do-is-usm https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d...

ip26 7y ago
There's the 400 f/4 DO II - fantastic lens. The DO tech turns a mainly tripod lens into something you can easily hand hold.

arethuza 7y ago

There is the option of reducing sensor size which allows very long focal length equivalents but at the cost of reduced image quality - I have Nikon P1000 which has a 24-3000 zoom in a package which is fairly large but still pretty portable. Is the image quality as good as my full sized Nikon gear - definitely not. Can I take more pictures that I couldn't even attempt before (wildlife and landscapes) - definitely.

jungletime 7y ago
There's this Polish guy that climbs buildings, and he uses the P1000 from time to time, for very dramatic zoom effect. Like in this video https://youtu.be/1fP4UArArNg?t=104 https://youtu.be/1fP4UArArNg?t=104 Well, this specific video was on April fools, and him standing on top of the mast was masked in (faked), but that background footage of the zoom out was from P1000 camera.