Thread 4458140

What are the best options for cheap ultra-telephoto lenses these days?

I want a mint Nikkor Ai-S 600mm f/4 but I know I'll be sorry the moment I travel with it.

>>4458140 (OP)
Probably third party. The's a sigma apo zoom with a top end of 500mm, I think its like a 150 - 500 or something that they made heaps of in F mount, EF and Pentax. Probably Minolta A too. It's fairly small for a lens with that much reach, but its still not what you'd call small compared to pretty much any other lens. You might be able to get one fairly cheap, and obviously the have the advantage of being autofocus. If you're that committed to compactness you could try a mirror lens, but be warned they're all soft as hell. Other than that maybe try older Tokina / Tamron / Sigma offerings as they're fairly cheap, maybe you can find something small ish too.

>>4458144
I've had a Tokina 100-400 (or maybe 200-500), it was unusably soft the last 100mm or so, and overall was pretty disappointing in terms of sharpness.
If I had a Canon body I'd get the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM, but that's $2k and I don't own Canon.

>>4458140 (OP)
>cheap
Doesn't really exist
I could find a used Sigma 150-600 C for the equivalent of 700 usd, it's decent but not exactly a stellar lens. Bright lenses are all much more expensive, starting at 1500 usd

>>4458146
Picrel is an Tamron adaptall2 300/2.8, so there definitely are pretty sharp options out there if you look, though 300 probably isn't long enough for what you want. Regardless, im sure there's some decent primes out there if you go through some manufacturers product history. Usually you can find stuff that hasnt been hyped to death if you find it like that too.

Pay to play.

Or, get a Nikkor 200-500/5.6 ED VR. My go to bazooka lens for anything I can't throw a rock at.

The VR is outstanding I can pan 400mph cruise missiles 1/8 mile away at 100th of a second and they're sharp. Wide open it's pretty good too. The focus is pretty quick and on my D4 will follow things pretty accurately and quick.

>>4458154
I've got this. Get a 1.4x Tele converter on it and you can stare into birds nostrils.

>>4458155

The tele's work on them! I did not know that, guess i'll have to pick one up for next Speedweek or World Finals

>>4458157
oh yeah,
and 1.4x gives you 700mm, its ludicrous.
Very slightly softens your shots, but because that lens is pretty damn sharp, it really makes no difference. Its a power couple.

>tripfag
>photo of camera rather than from camera
yep

>>4458207
envy

Might be a stupid question, but why can't we get full frame 1000mm+ optics for like $200?
I'm not talking about fancy shit. A tiny tiny max aperture like f/128 (yes one hundred twenty eight) would be fine IMO. I'm kind of interested in photographing really far away things with remote flashes near the subject or just in bright sunlight on a tripod so light quantity isn't an issue, but all the long lenses seem to be super costly because they're trying to be f/2.8 or some fancy shit.
What gives?

Is it just too niche to want a lens that you can hike up a mountain with and photograph something far away with good zoom?
For example photographing a waterfall from super far away is something I'd want to do and lots of people slap on ND filters to prolong exposures for this anyway, so f/128 wouldn't even be a problem there.

>>4458236
You mean a telescope?

>>4458237
I mean no, not really, the intent here is to use it with a camera not use it with an eyepiece.
Manual focus would obviously be fine by the way.

>>4458239
so, you mean a telescope with a camera adapter?

>>4458236
>zoom
You should learn what this means.
>super far away
The air itself would ruin your image even if the shitty optics didn't (which they would).
Also, this: >>4458242

>>4458236
Meade Infinity 60 + Kenko 2x tele, ~1600mm @ F/26

Total price: ~$80

You can definitely get better photos out of it, it's starting to rain and I'm losing a lot of light.

>>4458207

>He didn't get a press pass for Bonneville Speedweek

well that must suck to be you, I got paid for this btw

>>4458256
I've done the telescope adapter thing. It's next to impossible to get a sharp photo of out them, there's zero depth of field for anything all the way out to the horizon, and if you don't have a very heavy tripod, touching it at all to adjust anything throws everything off.

>>4458140 (OP)
I'm not sure why older lenses aren't that popular right now, since most mirrorless cameras have built in IBIS, I know the older 300mm f4s are popular again.

The only issue I have with older lenses, especially the bazooka like 600, 800mm is that they're heavy beasts.

>>4458263
>had to call and ask for a press pass

>>4458263
I would kill myself if I had paid a fat tranny for photos and got out of focus shit like this

4458311

fake c&c 0/10

4458273

>mfw just showed up and got one because I'm already connected with the organization

>>4458313
>sugar the eternal embellisher
we saw your fb posts where you asked how to get one, and bonneville is a nothingburger public display

>>4458322
>canon drops his trip to attack people who actually post photos
>again

>>4458322
You know, I've been to Bonneville... holy there's flat dry spots but you have to drive through salt slush to get to them. Afterwards our poor rental car needed to go through the car wash three times to get all the salt off it.

>>4458140 (OP)
You can buy old screw mount mirror reflex lenses for cheap. Less than 100 four a 500mm f8
They don't look particularly good but i love the bokeh

dont forget that TTArtisan makes a new manual 500/6.3 in most mounts. its cheap and pretty light and youre not gonna have to deal with the mirror/reflex lens bullshittery.

>>4458674
500mm with no IS or AF sounds like cancer. You'll be shooting at 1/1000th wide open in the best of light which arguably isn't bad for birding as long as you actually manage focus.
You can get 100-400mm f/5.6 IS AF lenses for like an extra $300-400 on top of what the TTFartisan goes for.
I mean yeah if $300-400 is prohibitive for you then whatever, but why not just save money for another month

>>4458140 (OP)
what for? what body you have?
maybe a mirror telephoto might be decent for your use case
definitely not the sharpest, not the fastest and bokeh is not for everybody, but it's cheap and compact
or just get a smaller prime and shoot in APS-C or with a teleconverter

4458322

I knew where to get one I just wanted to cross my T's and dot my I's before I showed up I'm building a car and would like to return to set the record.

You're a nophoto anyway no one cares about your opinion I replied because I felt sorry for you. While I'm out actually doing cool shit your pathetic sorry excuse of an ass is still trolling people on 4chan, go outside and touch grass

>>4458416

Did you go in 2023 when it looked like this? That was a horrible year we ran a short course and a lot of drivers said they should have just cancelled the event, the only people who set records were the slow crowd who only needed a mile or so to set them.

>>4458426
condom bokeh
Interesting