# ProOPTIC 420mm-800mm Impressions and Review



## mdsoares

So you probably clicked on this thread thinking, "WTF?  Someone is taking these cheap POS super tele lenses seriously?"  That's right!  I am.

The reason for this review is to determine if some of these super budget, super telephoto lens are even worth the metal they're cast out of.  Let's face it, this is a very expensive hobby (I also maintain a saltwater fish tank.  The Fish are a bargain compared to photography), and there are alot of casual hobbists out there, just longing for a budget lens with that little extra reach they need.  That may be for catching their son or daughter playing outfield in little league, or going down to the waterfront to take leisurely pictures of sailboats.  For many of these weekend hobbyists, buying a $1000 lens to get that reach simply isn't an option now, or ever.  They simply cannot justify spending that kind of money on glass that they will use very sparsely.

So the question is,  what about the budget super telephotos out there?  We're all familiar with them as eBay is awash with them new or used for too good to be true prices from manufacturers like ProOptics, Opteka, Samyang, and Quantaray. As such, they've developed a reputation for being worthless, low quality, and unable to produce useful images.  While this may be true for the pro or semi pro photographer, the casual hobbyist isn't nearly as demanding.  Consequently, that is who these lenses are marketed toward.  Let's face it, most DSLR casual hobbyists are rarely going to create prints any larger than the occasional 8x10.  They simply want usable images that they can send to their family, post online, or print on 4x6s.  Does the ProOptics 420mm-800mm Super TeleZoom allow that?

Now that we have the "why would you waste your time on this?" segment out of the way, it's time to take a look at the lens itself, and see how it performs.   I'm going to look at the build quality and design of the lens, and then review it's real world performance.  I'll give my take, but I will post sample pictures.  So you can be the judge.

*






Manufacturer:  ProOptics
Focal Length: 420mm -800mm
Aperture: variable from f8.3
Focus: No AF - Manual Ring only
Testing Camera: Sony A-200
ISO: ISO400
*

*First Impressions / Build Quality*
When I first opened the box, the first thing I noticed was that this lens will not win any awards for aesthetics.  It is jet black steel full of right angles.  The main barrel is smooth and straight.  It's obvious the designers were not concerned with building a product with great shelf appeal.  As for the quality, the entire lens is steel with the exception of the rubber grips imbedded in the focusing and aperture rings.  It does NOT feel like a cheap lens in hand.  I was expecting alot more plastic or low quality metal for the price. 

*Function/Design*
In making this lens affordable, the designers decided to leave out some major components that DSLR users these days would consider essential.  Namely, like all the other budget super telezooms on the market, this is a T-mount lens, meaning no Autofocus.  This lens does not communicate with the camera body at all.  Luckily for me, my Sony A200's metering system works through the lens just fine and I was able to take perfectly the "old fashioned" way using the camera's exposure meter.  Ideally, if you are dealing with a manual focus only lens, you'd expect the focusing mechanism to be easy.  This lens succeeds in one area, and fails in another.  The focusing ring is very smooth and finding focus was not difficult.   The failure is the design of the focusing ring, in that the ring has to travel over 360 degrees to cover the entire focusing scale.  SO while honing in on the correct focus is relatively easy, getting there is much too slow.  To go from one end of the focusing spectrum to the other the ring twists around 1 1/2 full rotations.  Especially when the ring is rather far from the camera body, this makes focusing a rather slow endeavor.

While this lens is marketing as a Supertelephoto Zoom, it is not a true zoom.  It is more of a variable focal length lens than a zoom.  To change focal lengths you must loosen the zoom lock ring and then pull the barrel forward to zoom in, or pull back to zoom out.  Thus it is a Push/Pull Zoom, and not the true twist zoom we're all used to.  The barrel for the zoom has the focal lengths of 420mm, 600mm, and 800mm marked, so you know where to pull the barrel out to.  However if you want 500mm for example, you're left to guess where it should be. 

There is also an aperture ring between the focus ring and the zoom lock.  The aperture can be adjusted from f8.3 to f11 at 420mm, meaning you need a sunny day or a high ISO to shoot.  This is not a fixed aperture lens, so by the time you zoom in to 800mm, your aperture range has gone from the widest of f8.3 to a widest of f16.  If you want to use the full power of this lens, you need to crank up the ISO a bit, have a very stable tripod, or a clean sunny day.  The ring travels rather smoothly and adjusted the aperture in real time, which makes the metering of your camera body usable.  Dial in the aperture you want on the lens and most bodies will meter for you at that aperture.

*Testing*

I took some test shots on a mostly Sunny day at about 12 noon.  All shots were taken ISO400 with my Sony A200 in full manual mode.  To test the lens I used a satellite dish about 150-200 yards away from my house as a test subject.

420mm f8.3 ISO400 1/500
--My first impressions with this photo was...wow...that's actually quite usable.  The focus was good though not great, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of distortion.  A shot like this could most definately be used in 4x6 prints or online.  Lets take a closer look fully cropped however.






Here is that same image at 100% fully cropped so we can see the REAL quality of the image.  Any image can look ok zoomed out at 33% of it's original size.  There is a bit of noise fully cropped, though that may be due to the ISO of 400.  There is a hint of some blue chromatic aberration on the top right side of the dish where it contrasts with the dark green background.  Focus is a bit soft, though not horrible.  Overall I'm impressed given the preconcieved notions regarding these type of lenses









Next let's dial this puppy in all the way.  I have a good lens already that does up to 300mm so I would just crop images from that lens rather than pulling out this ProOptics to use the 420mm focal length.  The real test to me, will be the 800mm images.

Looking at the following image at 800mm and f16...color me impressed.  If I can consistently get shots at 800mm like this with a lens that routinely goes brand new for $100...I will be very happy.  Definately some noticible crom abberration at the top of the roof.  However if you have photoshop that can be fixed up.  So at 800mm the lens is producing images most definately sutable for 4x6 prints and online postings.







Of course lets see what this image is REALLY made of and take a look at it at 100% cropped.  

Fully cropped to 100% the image seems to deal with some noise and crom abberation issues.  The noise can easily be fixed with some basic editing, and the crom abberation should be able to be taken care of as well.   This is no $1000 lens...but i'm quite impressed for the $$ spent.  I expected much much worse.







And lastly, here is a photo with a kit lens at 18mm to show the scale and zoom of the previous photos.

The dish used as the subject is directly across the street above the garage with the yellow door, on the next block.









*Conclusion*
I think after viewing those images you'll agree that the results are not half bad for a lens with such a poor reputation.  This near idential design can be found with the names of Quantaray, Phoenix, Opteka, and Samyang on it, so it's not some high end design, which makes the results pretty impressive.

I do however, stop short of reccommending it for people looking for a super telephoto for bird photography or action sports.  You will have trouble if you take this lens to a hockey game and expect to get good shots.  The manual focus is just too slow for most fast action.   However if you're happy taking picture of players on the bench, or hanging out at warmups, or a slow game like baseball, you can probably get usable shots out of this lens.  I'd venture to say that if you know your basics you can squeeze decent 8x10's out of this sucker without too much problem.

For the casual photographer looking for something to take photos of his kid at a baseball game, or to take to the zoo to get some super closeups, this lens will produce respectable 4x6 prints without a problem and will be fine for posting your photos online for family and friends to see.  Do not expect to get a job for Sports Illustrated with this lens however.  You'll be sorely disappointed if that is your goal.

*Overall Ratings*
Build Quality / Design - 6/10  (build is good, but design flaws make focusing too slow)
Performance - 6/10  (does well enough for most casual shooters to get usable shots)
Value - 8/10 (can't beat the price for a servicable super tele)
Overall - 6/10 (not an average. I Have to take the insanely low price into account.  This lens produces usable decent results for an amazing price.  While it does not deserve a spot in the professional or prosumer's kit bag.  It can be a useful tool in the hands of a casual shooter who needs that extra reach.)


----------



## mdsoares

Anybody have any comments?  As you can see I tried to take a lens that is often scoffed it and find it's place in the world?

Does anyone have any comments?  Anyone have any experiences, good or bad, with these bargin basemant super telephotos?  Think I'm spot on and this lens does have some uses?  Or am I way off base and by even putting a shot through this lens I have commited a great sacrelige.   Let me know.   

I remember when I started out, it was hard to find any objective information on these el cheapto manual telephotos.  The only info out there was a simple "they suck and are a waste of money."  But it was hard to find someone who had actually bought one and tried it and had objection information on them.  That's what I'm trying to provide here.  Please let me know if you agree or disagree and why.


----------



## keith204

Thanks for the review...I've always been intrigued by these cheapo teles, and wondered about the results.  Not as bad as I had imagined.  Nice work.


----------



## tirediron

Excellent reivew; well done! I still have an old 'S' mount version of one of these in 400mm at home; fully manual and built like a brick s**thouse. You probably won't make the cover of NG with these shots, but they're more than usable for the average amateur shooter who occasionally needs to reach out. Just goes to prove that you can't judge a book by its cover, or a lens by its brand name!


----------



## monkeykoder

Actually this makes me want to look at one of those el-cheapo fish eye lenses (not the filters the actual el-cheapo fish eyes).  If they have this kind of quality (halfway acceptable) they would be great for effect kinds of shots.


----------



## Steph

I don't know how cheap this lens is but to me the results are very poor. Chromatic abberation is unacceptable (you don't even need a 100% crop to see it) and the shots are amazingly soft even in the centre of the frames (I cannot imagine how bad the image must be in the corners). I cannot believe there is a market for this lens. Casual shooters won't buy this lens because it is bulky, manual focus and has a maximum aperture than will almost always require a tripod (which most casual shooters can't be bothered with). For prosumers or professionnals the image quality is horrendous (even if the price was under $50) and they won't buy it. I personnally think this a useless piece of equipment, not from the rumours but judging by the pictures you posted. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere than carrying this poor piece of equipment around to take poor quality pictures once in a while.

Edit: I previously missed the price in the original post. To me at $100 it is not even good value. I'd rather buy a good quality polariser, a pinhole camera, some film, some older film camera, get a few of my pictures hand-printed by a pro lab, get some of my pictures framed... There are 1000's better uses of $100.


----------



## Bifurcator

monkeykoder said:


> Actually this makes me want to look at one of those el-cheapo fish eye lenses (not the filters the actual el-cheapo fish eyes).  If they have this kind of quality (halfway acceptable) they would be great for effect kinds of shots.



You mean the Fish-eye and wide angle converters for $20 to $75 bucks?  Or the bayonet mounted lenses?


----------



## monkeykoder

Well I'd like to find one in bayonet mount that was cheap but that is probably not possible


----------



## mdsoares

Steph said:


> I don't know how cheap this lens is but to me the results are very poor. Chromatic abberation is unacceptable (you don't even need a 100% crop to see it) and the shots are amazingly soft even in the centre of the frames (I cannot imagine how bad the image must be in the corners). I cannot believe there is a market for this lens. Casual shooters won't buy this lens because it is bulky, manual focus and has a maximum aperture than will almost always require a tripod (which most casual shooters can't be bothered with). For prosumers or professionnals the image quality is horrendous (even if the price was under $50) and they won't buy it. I personnally think this a useless piece of equipment, not from the rumours but judging by the pictures you posted. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere than carrying this poor piece of equipment around to take poor quality pictures once in a while.
> 
> Edit: I previously missed the price in the original post. To me at $100 it is not even good value. I'd rather buy a good quality polariser, a pinhole camera, some film, some older film camera, get a few of my pictures hand-printed by a pro lab, get some of my pictures framed... There are 1000's better uses of $100.



While I definately see where you are coming from, I do think this lens has a valid use for some people.  For example, even me.  I want a lens that occasionally gives me a little extra reach every so often.  While the lens usually costs about $100 new on ebay, I got it used for $30.  So I couldn't pass up the opportunity to try it.  After trying it, I will probably occasionally use it.  For example at college football games to get a shot of the star player or coach on the opposite sideline.  While I won't be selling those shots to SI...judging by the examples, they'll be just fine for 4x6s or on flickr or something.  Just for fun.

Yes...I COULD save up for a REAL supertelephoto.  However as a casual hobbyist, I simply cannot justify dropping that kind of money on a lens.  It just doesn't make sense financially for someone like me, and I'm sure some other people as well.   However I can get this lens for a good price, and get the reach I want for a little fun, even though I sacrifice significant quality.  Let's face it, you and I both know I probably wouldn't be making 8.5x11 prints out of shots with this lens...but that's not really the point of it.

To each his own, however I am a casual but educated hobbyist and have found a little niche for this lens.


----------



## mdsoares

Hey all.

Wanted to follow up with this lens.  So It was a clear night tonight in Buffalo, NY and the moon was out in force.

So I pulled out this lens and decided to take some shots.

ISO200
f8
f=800mm
1/100

First image is cropped from 2nd image.


----------



## epp_b

Frankly, I'd sooner see the bit they spent on making this a zoom lens spent making a few slight image quality adjustments for a fixed 800mm instead.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

sorry, that first image was just HORRIBLE. CA everywhere, the centre looked OK, but once you moved to that outer left edge... it was distgusting. quality is reflected in price i guess with these.


----------



## mdsoares

Do'Udren's Eyes said:


> sorry, that first image was just HORRIBLE. CA everywhere, the centre looked OK, but once you moved to that outer left edge... it was distgusting. quality is reflected in price i guess with these.



No offense taken.  

I look at it this way.  Before spending $30 on this lens, I simply couldn't take a shot of the moon like that.  Simply couldn't be done.  There was no way I was going to drop hundreds, or thousands of dollars on a lens I would use maybe once month to get some astro shots.   So for $30, I'm happy with it. I've since sent the shots through some post, upped the contrast, etc., and for a $30 lens...I'm pleased.

For me, photography is a hobby, not a career.  I'm not competing with anyone for the most technically perfect shot.  I don't have any need for the biggest or the best.   Would I like an 800mm lens of better quality?  Of course.  But I simply refuse to spend the kind of money those lenses fetch.

I do appreciate the frank comments though.  I created this thread to take an objective look at this lens, and I definately think that is what is happening.


----------



## Bifurcator

I'd like Do'Udren's Eyes to point out the CA as on my monitor there is none AT ALL. It's perfect! I mean it's a little soft but that's resolving power and nothing to do with CA.


So go for it Do'Udren's Eyes... Show us all this CA. 






-- 
Of course if this is a B&W image there would of course be ZERO c.a. CA stands for Chromatic Aberration and the word "Chromatic" means having to do with color. Unless there was intense contrasty fringing or something then CA wouldn't be detectable in a B&W image.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

the chromatic aberation? you seriously dont see it? in both 100% crops theres purply blue colour fringing around the rooftop edge and the satellite dish. i think its pretty apparent... painfully so.

mdsoares even pointed out that he noticed some too. so maybe your monitors a bit baffed?

And for thirty dollars this definatelty IS a bargain, no doubt.


----------



## Bifurcator

Well you posted after the moon images so I assumed you were talking about the moons where indeed there is no CA.

Also this level of CA is _about_ the same as on any lens available for &#8804;$2000 (USD). The resolving power is much lower than a $2k lens produces though.  Most of the resolving deficiencies can be cured in PS with multi-level sharpening. All total I'd say it was an awesome lens at anything under about $800.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

yes sorry i was referring to the original images posted not the shots of the moon. 
and yes considering you cant touch the 800mm focal length with anything less that 1000 (except of course these) its a good deal. would i spend 30 bucks on this? yeah probably just to screw around with. but i cant see it lasting too long in my bag because the IQ is just beyond my lowest standards. those are just MY standards, this lens could obviously be used by some people comfortably.

EDIT

after thinking about it for thirty seconds more id like to seriously experiment with one of these lenses in black and white. i think the results with the severe CA and other deficiencies might add a nice touch.


----------



## Bifurcator

OK I see. I know what you mean.  

Dang, I thought I was in for a nice debate. 

-- 
There's a Nikon 200~400 w/doubler ($10,000) and a Sigma 300~800 $8,000 that I'm sure kick it's butt.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

haha sorry man. id also like to bring up the topic of mirror lenses. that would be another neat experiment as they are also very in expensive and provide LONG focal lenth equivalents. any one use one before?


----------



## Bifurcator

I played with a few in the 80's.  All had more CA and more pronounced CA than this lens and about the same resolving power. I tried a 500mm and a 800mm. They were still expensive back then as they were just being introduced.  I dunno if newer ones are any better or not. The reviews I skim show that they aren't tho.  (but obviously only for the ones that were reviewed.  )


----------



## monkeykoder

Darn it now I think I'm going to have to pick one of these up for my fm10 just to see what I can do with it.


----------



## mdsoares

Did some post to bring out more contrast and sharpness.


----------



## Warren_G

As a confirmed gadget addict, I ordered both a 500mm mirror and a 650-1300mm Phoenix lens off Amazon. They were so cheap I could not resist trying them out. The mirror lens also included a 2x converter. My only real test so far was to shoot a few pics of last months full moon with the 1300mm and the converter. 
First, the cons:
Camera shake at 2600mm length, the tripod had to be kept extremely still, even the slightest touch or breeze, and the shake was amplified greatly. I used a remote shutter release, but it was still tedious.
IQ - not the greatest, hard to focus manually as just touching the lens often shook so much that the moon would move entirely out of the frame.

Pros:
Zoom, zoom, zoom. Wow! the moon filled the entire frame and there was actually lots of detail.
Wow factor, the camera with a 2 foot lens sticking out on it does look kinda massive

The quality of these lenses are not even in the same ballpark as a decent zoom, and they shouldnt be compared at all. Many people are happy with the pictures that their camera phones take, so CA and softness are not concerns. If I want a high quality photo, I will put on one of my primes. If I want to be able to read a license plate from 4 blocks away, this lens is perfect. 

Bottom line, lots of fun for the low price. I am sure many of us have more expensive gadgets that get little or no use. If you have a little disposable income, you wont go wrong adding one of these to your lens collection.


----------



## epp_b

Can you post some samples with the mirror lens?


----------



## Bifurcator

If he doesn't here some fron net:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html
http://mirrorlens.blogspot.com/
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...p-macro-adaptall-to-nikon-review--test-report
http://www.photozone.de/mirror-lenses
http://www.buzzillions.com/dz_63638_samyang_500mm_f_8_ultra_telephoto_manual_reviews
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28750982
http://oly43club.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=88
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28752148
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28752537
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28753835
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28753806
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28768444
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28867194
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/600_8_mirror

most of these look much better than I remember. 

 ---> http://www.canonfd.com/mirrorlenses/pages/page10.html  <---:lmao:


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

that tamron 500mm mirror isnt looking too shabby on IQ. i have no idea what the price tag is on it though but i bet its probably still worth the price, you just have to put alot of work into the shots...


----------



## Bifurcator

The biggest problem I'm seeing is a terribly noisy DOF blur. But other than that I agree... not too bad at all.


----------

