# Cheap 400mm prime or teleconverter?



## Netskimmer (Jul 14, 2011)

I have been trying to get great shots of the moon, and may try for the sun once I have the proper filters. The problem is that even at 300mm the moon is so small in my viewfinder that I can't get a sharp manual focus and auto-focus only does so well in this situation. Add to this the fact that I have to crop the heck out of the photo to get the moon to a decent size in the photo and you have a soft photo. I have also wished at times for a little more zoom in the field. It is difficult to get very close to a wild deer or photograph a bird in the tree tops and 300mm often doesn't seem to cut it. These would not be action shots and a tripod would typically be in use, there would also be plenty of light so having a smaller max aperture or losing a stop or two would not bother me. This is not a $900 problem for me, it's more of a $200-$300 problem.  So I can either get a cheap, used prime from Sigma, Tamron, ect or a decent teleconverter. The converter would be more versatile (and probably a little cheaper) than the lens and give me a little more reach, but I would assume that a prime 400mm (even a cheap one) would give me better IQ. What do you guys think?


----------



## gsgary (Jul 14, 2011)

If the converter is for your 55-300 i wouldn't fit one to that lens, i doubt the Nikon will fit but the sigma or Kenko might


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 14, 2011)

If the moon is 'quite small' with a 300, it won't get magically huge with a 400.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 14, 2011)

Maybe a 800mm mirrors lens may be in your budget.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jul 14, 2011)

you need like 500-1000mm. ebay son!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 14, 2011)

There are lots of old T-mount 400mmm f5.6 primes floating around that you can find for <$150; the IQ from them is actually pretty decent, BUT as pointed out, it's not going to be life and death difference between 300 and 400 mm.  Nikon TCs will ONLY fit on their 'pro' (Gold-ring) lenses, so if you go that route, it will have to be a 3rd party (Kenko's have a good rep).


----------



## AgentDrex (Jul 14, 2011)

This is taken with a 75-210mm with severe chromatic aberration issues:


----------



## AgentDrex (Jul 14, 2011)

Just find a used telescope that has a t-mount and then get a t-mount adapter for your Nikey....


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 14, 2011)

D7000 on a Celestron 2000 f/8, 27-shot stack.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jul 14, 2011)

Sparky knows what I'm talking about...and practices it unlike me...I'm all bark and no bite...little doggie...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 14, 2011)

One trick is stacking a series of images.  It's similar to focus stacking.  Only the sharpest portions of each image are used.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jul 14, 2011)

Aligning Images in Photoshop


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 14, 2011)

Registax does it automatically, and is free.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jul 14, 2011)

Thanks for the link man...you rock..........................................................
...............
..............
and roll


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2011)

500mm f/8 pre-set long-focus lenses, like Quantaray brand from Ritz or Kits Camera, $100 or so.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 14, 2011)

AgentDrex said:


> This is taken with a 75-210mm with severe chromatic aberration issues:



I can do a bit better than that with my 55mm-300mm but they are still too soft for my liking. I would post some examples but I am at work. 

This 800mm mirror lens looks promising. 
Amazon.com: Rokinon 800M-AI 800mm F8.0 Mirror Lens for Nikon (White): Camera & Photo
I have read several threads, including a few here, that deal with these. The ad claims they are good for both sports and nature photography but with a fixed f8 I find that claim dubious. It does look like it could do the job though.

I also found this t-mount telescope adapter:
Nikon SLR T-Mount Telescope Camera Adapter
I have an old telescope in storage though I suppose the IQ would depend on the telecsope.


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 14, 2011)

Hi Netskimmer, I've been taking some moon photos as well recently.  From my experience, I think that atmospheric conditions (haze, smog, humidity, moon position) all have a significant impact on quality (more so than focal length?  I don't know, 300mm is the most I've got).  I feel like I've gotten decent results with my 70-300mm VR handheld.  The following were at 300mm, f/8 @ 1/400 ISO 200.  1.Cropped and 2.original uncropped.











I feel like I've had the best results when it is a clear night and the moon is lower in the sky.  I'd love to try a mirrorless or telescope mount though!

I'd love to see more shots or see what others think the best settings, environment and time are!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 14, 2011)

SLY500P Bower T-Mount 500mm f/8.0 Preset Telephoto Lens, Requires T-Mount. 

This is the kinda thing Derrel was talking about I think....


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 14, 2011)

Heres another...

KN420800TM Kenko 420-800mm f/8.3-16 Vari Zoom Lens, Requires a T Mount


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 14, 2011)

ulrichsd said:


> Hi Netskimmer, I've been taking some moon photos as well recently. From my experience, I think that atmospheric conditions (haze, smog, humidity, moon position) all have a significant impact on quality (more so than focal length? I don't know, 300mm is the most I've got). I feel like I've gotten decent results with my 70-300mm VR handheld. The following were at 300mm, f/8 @ 1/400 ISO 200. 1.Cropped and 2.original uncropped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you're getting results similar to mine but I'll need to get home and compare the images side by side to be sure. 

What type of lenses are those? I mean the technical name for them. I was trying to get info on those compared to the mirror lenses but without a way of specifying what lenses to compare them to it's hard to bring up much info.


----------



## Tony S (Jul 15, 2011)

For size reference here is non-cropped shot of the moon taken with a Canon 1DMKIII carrying a 400mm lens with a 1.4TC.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 15, 2011)

ulrichsd said:


> Hi Netskimmer, I've been taking some moon photos as well recently.  From my experience, I think that atmospheric conditions (haze, smog, humidity, moon position) all have a significant impact on quality (more so than focal length?  I don't know, 300mm is the most I've got).  I feel like I've gotten decent results with my 70-300mm VR handheld.  The following were at 300mm, f/8 @ 1/400 ISO 200.  1.Cropped and 2.original uncropped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is one of mine, original size and cropped. I think they are pretty much the same (mine might be a touch overexposed). I believe your image does a better job of showing the moon's contours because it is more side-lit.











I would assume the best time would be when the moon is at its highest since that is when the least amount of atmosphere is between it and you. I believe shots like yours are better due to them being side-lit which shows off more of the moon's texture but that's just me.



Tony S said:


> For size reference here is non-cropped shot of the moon taken with a Canon 1DMKIII carrying a 400mm lens with a 1.4TC.



Wow, thanks Tony! That gives me a decent point of reference for what I would be seeing with a 400mm. It would not be exactly the same because our cameras have different crop sensors but close.


----------



## fokker (Jul 15, 2011)

Netskimmer - the biggest three things in getting a good moon shot are 1) Exposure 2) Focus and 3) Sharpness.

Sharpness will be your biggest challenge with the amount of cropping you will have to do, but it's absolutely possible to get a good shot with what you already have. I've taken some pretty nice moon shots at 300mm on my canon 40d which only has 10MP compared to your D7000's 16 odd, so you have more cropping ability than me. Make sure you use a tripod, mirror lockup, remote shutter release or self timer and have VR turned off and you will maximise the sharpness. Also take off UV filters, then moon seems to sometimes cause bad halo's with these for some reason.

Assuming you can get the exposure right, it seems the focusing could easily be improved upon - the best way by far is to use live view and zoom it in to 10x magnification and manual focus very delicately to get the focus spot on. It also helps to use a narrow aperture (f/8 - f/11 is usually good) because that is where most lenses are sharpest and you will compensate for any slight miss in focus.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 15, 2011)

fokker said:


> Netskimmer - the biggest three things in getting a good moon shot are 1) Exposure 2) Focus and 3) Sharpness.
> 
> Sharpness will be your biggest challenge with the amount of cropping you will have to do, but it's absolutely possible to get a good shot with what you already have. I've taken some pretty nice moon shots at 300mm on my canon 40d which only has 10MP compared to your D7000's 16 odd, so you have more cropping ability than me. Make sure you use a tripod, mirror lockup, remote shutter release or self timer and have VR turned off and you will maximise the sharpness. Also take off UV filters, then moon seems to sometimes cause bad halo's with these for some reason.
> 
> Assuming you can get the exposure right, it seems the focusing could easily be improved upon - the best way by far is to use live view and zoom it in to 10x magnification and manual focus very delicately to get the focus spot on. It also helps to use a narrow aperture (f/8 - f/11 is usually good) because that is where most lenses are sharpest and you will compensate for any slight miss in focus.



Thanks for the detailed response. I have been using a tripod, mirror lockup and a shutter release and have not been using VR and have been using f8-f11. The only thing I have not done is use live view. I tried to use live view but the moon just looks like a bright light with no detail. I though maybe this was because the camera was displaying things with the "correct" exposure settings regardless of what I actually had set so I tried to spot meter the moon then go into live view but that did not work. Then I tried spot metering and using the exposure lock before going into live view and this did not work either. Finally I got the idea to use the exposure compensator which allowed me to actually see the moon in detail. Unfortunately getting a sharp focus is still eluding me but I think it's just because it takes such a fine touch to manipulate the focus on such a small object. With some practice and some trial and error I should be able to get it right.


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 15, 2011)

Its a bit outside your budget at $8000 :thumbup:, but there's always the sigmonster... 300-800mm, thats 1200mm equivalent on a crop-sensor.  Its the biggest non-mirror lens I've never seen.

300-800mm F5.6 EX DG APO HSM - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 15, 2011)

ulrichsd said:


> Its a bit outside your budget at $8000 :thumbup:, but there's always the sigmonster... 300-800mm, ........http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/300-800mm-f56-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma




Pfffft.

Chicken feed..... I tip my paper boy more than that every month.

Try this one.


----------



## enzodm (Jul 15, 2011)

This is with a Hanimex 400/6.3 (T2->M42->EOS), which you can find under many names (and known as "Girl Watcher" in its years) for few money. It is duplicated with a generic 2x TC (worth 10$). I focus through Liveview: it should be at infinity, but really it is focusing slightly over, so I have to come back a little. The moon diameter, cropped 100%, is about 1400px (that is, half field in length): here you are seeing a 800x800 resize. CA can be eliminated switching to b/w since there is not much meaningful color in the moon, and this also gives some more details (choosing green filter). 
Best time to shoot is not full moon.
Don't be shy with Unsharp Mask  .


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 15, 2011)

ulrichsd said:


> Its a bit outside your budget at $8000 :thumbup:, but there's always the sigmonster... 300-800mm, thats 1200mm equivalent on a crop-sensor. Its the biggest non-mirror lens I've never seen.
> 
> 300-800mm F5.6 EX DG APO HSM - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com



Bah! I was thinking more along these lines:
Amazon.com: Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

I know it's for a Canon but for that price it should reconfigure itself to fit my Nikon automatically.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> SLY500P Bower T-Mount 500mm f/8.0 Preset Telephoto Lens, Requires T-Mount.
> 
> This is the kinda thing Derrel was talking about I think....



That is EXACTLY, PRECISELY ******THE LENS***** I was talking about. It's been sold under many brands.


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 15, 2011)

Netskimmer said:


> Bah! I was thinking more along these lines:
> Amazon.com: Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo



:lmao: Hahaha!  Did anyone look at the customer photos on the Amazon site... cracking me up!

They have some nice moon detail on the last one.  And I think my favorite is "Sarah Palin's foto of Russia from back yard with Sigma lens" 

Some of the reviews are hilarious too:



> I recently purchased this beast because I wanted to trade up from my kit lens (18-55mm that came with the Canon T2i). I am a beginning photographer so I have no tripod. Here are two problems:
> 
> 1. The lens is heavy. After a day of shooting in the city or in the park my arms get tiered. Also my feet get tiered because I have to carry an extra 97 lbs. It takes a toll on the whole body.
> 
> ...





> I was a bit hesitant at first to buy this lens because of the weight, but i really needed f2.8 at 500. I take lots of outdoor pictures of my extended family who happens to live 30 minutes away. With this particular Sigma lens i can easily get on my roof and snap away at them. It's a great lens for candid shots because they never know i'm taking their picture. I bought this lens to compliment my canon 50 1.8 lens and the Canon 18-55 kit lens, which is much easier to carry. All in all if you have a strong back and a good DSLR (canon 20D) i would recommend this without a doubt. But, if you don't like eating TV dinners alone in your parents basement i would look at the 55-200 Canon, it even has Image Stabilization.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 15, 2011)

Since you have a non-CPU compatible d7000, I'd suggest a nikon 300mm f4.5 if ais Ed lens.  The optics are outstanding, WAY better then your zoom, and just as good at f4.5 as the $5000+ 300mm f2.8!  These lenses sell for around $300-350, the older non-Ed/if version is cheaper and also a great lens.These lenses can be paired with the tc-301 2x teleconverter which is specially made for 300mm+ primes. This will give you a 600mm f9 lens that is very sharp.Keep in mind though that atmospheric conditions have to be just right to get tack-sharp photos of the moon.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 15, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> Since you have a non-CPU compatible d7000, I'd suggest a nikon 300mm f4.5 if ais Ed lens. The optics are outstanding, WAY better then your zoom, and just as good at f4.5 as the $5000+ 300mm f2.8! These lenses sell for around $300-350, the older non-Ed/if version is cheaper and also a great lens.These lenses can be paired with the tc-301 2x teleconverter which is specially made for 300mm+ primes. This will give you a 600mm f9 lens that is very sharp.Keep in mind though that atmospheric conditions have to be just right to get tack-sharp photos of the moon.



Thanks for the suggestion. This is tempting but it seems that the lens runs at least $300 and the converter runs at least $150 which would put me at $450 or more. If I find I consistently need a 300mm+ focal length with better quality then my current lense I may go this rout but for my needs at the moment I am not willing to spend that much.


----------



## enzodm (Jul 17, 2011)

Netskimmer said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. This is tempting but it seems that the lens runs at least $300 and the converter runs at least $150 which would put me at $450 or more. If I find I consistently need a 300mm+ focal length with better quality then my current lense I may go this rout but for my needs at the moment I am not willing to spend that much.



The one suggested by me (400/6.3) or by Derrel (500/8, same optical schema) can be had for 119$ new, much less used, plus 15$ converter. If you aim at moon, it's worth a try (look again at my picture of the moon).


----------

