# Long range on a budget!



## Vespa (Jan 10, 2011)

I want a good set-up for nature/sports and I want to know what people think would be the best way to add a long distance set up on a student budget?


----------



## Vinny (Jan 10, 2011)

Maybe not the best but certainly the cheapest: vivitar 650

If you have a crop sensor it gets larger.

You have to understand the exposure triangle as it is fully manual.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 11, 2011)

You need to let us know what line of gear your using.

For Nikon I'd recommend a 300mm f4.5 ais manual focus lens.


----------



## Vespa (Jan 11, 2011)

I am using a nikon D5000


----------



## John Mc (Jan 11, 2011)

Telephoto's on a crop sensor are a good way to go. 300mm lenses usually are closer to 500mm on a crop sensor.

And a student budget could be anything from $50+,what do you have saved,if any of are willing to pay at the moment?


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 11, 2011)

Rokinon 650-1300 mm Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Mount | Overstock.com

Everything on it is manual but it is cheap as hell, it will get you very long reach, and I've actually seen some pretty decent pics taken with it.  Its not for pixel peepers, but you're a student and the damn thing is only $250.  If you wanted excellent quality and large aperture with that kind of zoom range it'd be over $20,000 and 30+ lbs.

Here is a flickr group of pics taken only with that lens (rebranded to Opteka but they're all the same): Flickr: Opteka 650-1300mm Super Telephoto Zoom Lens


----------



## KmH (Jan 11, 2011)

Take note that few of the Flickr photos in that group are sports action shots, and they are all daytime shots.

If you want to do any field sports action shooting at night......


----------



## Infidel (Jan 11, 2011)

Shooting 1300mm at F/16, even in bright sun, you really need to consider your tripod budget.


----------



## Drake (Jan 11, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Flickr: Opteka 650-1300mm Super Telephoto Zoom Lens



I'd be careful with these, judging only by the flickr photos. I had used a cheap Sigma 70-300mm on XTi, and it wasn't grat, but not bad either. Keep it at 70-200 and it's actually very sharp. The long end though is only average at best. However, when I look at the moon pictures taken with Opteka to compare with my photos from the sigma... Even with its 'short' focal length of 300mm, sigma manages to get a similar amount of details on a moon shot.

Heres my shot of the moon with Sigma 70-300 @300mm - link

The lens is not very fast, but still, a whole lot faster than the Opteka. Shooting hand held in daylight is not a problem


----------



## Infidel (Jan 11, 2011)

Keep in mind that the sharpness and detail achieved in moon shots is greatly influenced by atmospheric conditions, probably much more so than lens sharpness. These super cheap, super long teles aren't actually that bad at the center of the frame as far as sharpness is concerned, although wide open they tend to display rather severe vignetting. The main limitations are lack of autofocus, lack of communication with camera in general, and very small max aperture (slow; good tripod/head combo is a must). They are a good way to experience super long focal lengths, without spending $10k+.


----------



## Drake (Jan 11, 2011)

I know how big is the influence of atmospheric conditions in moon shots, but it's still probably the best way of comparing such lens having only a few samples from flickr. I have no idea how far from camera were the subjects on other photos, or if the photos were cropped or not.


----------



## usayit (Jan 11, 2011)

Adapted manual M42 lenses should be easy enough and probably bettr than that f/8-f/16 tubed glass.


----------



## Marc-Etienne (Jan 11, 2011)

Here is what I came up with a year and a half ago before I get a "real" lens. I was on a fairly tight budget too. I paid probably around 400-500$ dollars for a good astrological telescope, 40$ for the adapter and 40$ for a used 2X TC. With practice you get pretty decent shots and light is not an issue at all! It's not "real" photography with a sweet lens, but you can practice and learn until you gather your money for a lens. I personally think it's worth it thinking about it

Good luck!


----------



## Infidel (Jan 11, 2011)

Marc-Etienne said:


> ...I paid probably around 400-500$ dollars for a *good astrological telescope*...



Come again?


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 11, 2011)

If image quality is your paramount concern, then again I'd recommend a 300mm f4.5 ais manual focus lens.  Cost range from $100 for a rough non-ed version, to around $275 for a mint ed version.

It's optics are as good as a modern 300mm f4, which costs over $1000.

I've compared my 300mm f3.5 ed to my 300mm f2.8 af-s ed and the image quality was nearly identical in both focused an out of focused areas at f4.5.  The only advantage to the $3000 f2.8 is a stop an a half of extra speed.

On a d5000 you wont get metering with ais lenses, but telephotos are usually used outside which makes the lighting pretty consistent and easy to judge--self metering isn't much of a hassle.

You'll also only have manual focus, but the focus on this lens is buttery smooth; WAY better then the MF on any autofocus lens.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 12, 2011)

usayit said:


> Adapted manual M42 lenses should be easy enough and probably bettr than that f/8-f/16 tubed glass.



Ive seen Takumar 500mm f/4.5's go for less than $300!


----------

