[Nass]

Anyone have any experience with M42 MTO-1000A, or another recommendation for vaguely affordable 750mm+ super tele however weird? (for birding, APSC). I can live with doughnut bokeh (I think!). I have the Sigma 150-500 old version with TC but just isn't cutting it for me. I'm not a birder at all but live on property with insane wildlife so stupid not to get a vaguely ok telephoto. I'm sure I saw a review somewhere of maybe a telescope optic used for this with some shot of a pigeon but I can't find the darned piece, grr. Image is example of photo I can't live with

Thanks!

Attached Images

 

[BugsDogsAndSunsets]

I'm interested if anyone can recommend any options for you, I havent seen anything matching that description. My only tele is the SMCP-M 300 f4. It works for birds, but I have to get somewhat close.

[jeffdrew]

Anyone have any experience with M42 MTO-1000A, or another recommendation for vaguely affordable 750mm+ super tele however weird? (for birding, APSC). I can live with doughnut bokeh (I think!). I have the Sigma 150-500 old version with TC but just isn't cutting it for me. I'm not a birder at all but live on property with insane wildlife so stupid not to get a vaguely ok telephoto. I'm sure I saw a review somewhere of maybe a telescope optic used for this with some shot of a pigeon but I can't find the darned piece, grr. Image is example of photo I can't live with

Thanks!

Quick notes: several telescope makers make superb, small, adaptable optic tubes that are generally fixed aperture but very portable. Generally less than f/7, excellent glass and reasonably priced. William Optics (look at new Red Cat!), Explore Scientific are a couple companies; think “astronomy small scopes.” Also consider adding a micro four thirds camera body, Olympus OM digital possibly, adapts your PK lenses with an adapter and effectively doubles focal lengths. I have done this option recently and like the results. Fwiw, I have tried cheap telephoto options with converters etc, and not real happy overall. I have a Pentax da* 300mm + converter that works great. On the OM (m43) body, the 300mm is big but yields very good images with some practice. The m43 body may rescue your Sigma zoomer.

[Adam]

Have you looked at the K 500mm F4.5? It's really sharp, even with the 1.4x-L teleconverter. The only caveat is that it has pretty noticeable fringing.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Docrwm]

I had an 800mm mirror lens a few years back and sold it off. Far too finicky for my taste for what you got out of it. I do recall that it was nearly useless without a tripod and it did not like direct sunlight AT ALL. Photo quality improved dramatically with a 3-stage collapsible rubber hood (hard to find at that diameter but well worth the effort).

[photoptimist]

Physics is a bitch. A 750 mm lens at f/8 requires at least a 95mm front element -- it's a lot of glass and that's not cheap.

A decent long telephoto always requires an indecent amount of money.

[Fenwoodian]

.
Wear camo, maybe even work from a blind. That will enable you to get closer to your subjects. From an IQ standpoint, I'll take the results from a 300mm - 400mm lens any day over a 750mm lens.

I've worked with a number of professional wildlife/bird photographers. None of them ever used a lens over 600mm. Most used EXPENSIVE (over $10,000) 400 and 500 lenses.

A quality bird image will have: every feather sharp enough to see the individual veins in it; catch light in the bird's eyes; colorful and tack-sharp eyes; AND the bird doing something extra-ordinary.

Last week I was shooting burrowing owls in Arizona USA with expert Canadian bird photographer Anthony Bucci. Check out his website, you'll learn much about bird photography.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 03-19-2019 at 10:01 AM.

[catfishjohn]

I came up with an idea which worked out pretty well. Bought a 6x7 400mm f 4 and added a 6x7 to K adapter. Also watched until I found the 6x7 teleconverter in 2x and one in 1.4. This makes several focal length possible with surprisingly good IQ. The lens and adapters can be found fairly cheap if you watch the bidding. I got the lens for about $330.00, the adapter for about $60.00 and the teleconverters for $30.00 the 2x, and $70.00 the 1.4x. Around $500.00 for a set up which can go from 400mm to 1100mm. The IQ is good but it takes a heavy tripod, carefull attention to focus and using the shutter timer at the longer end. Read the review in the lens database and also check out the teleconverter reviews. Also look for the newer model teleconverters, they are grey not black. Of course everything is fully manual. And heavy! An interesting effect with this set up is the gain in light reducing the 6x7 to 35mm. The 6x7 is twice the size of 35mm which equates to 4 times the area. When you put the adapter on the light which would have fallen on the 6x7 size is concentrated on an area one fourth that size. This gives a gain of a little more than one stop. I checked this by setting up on a clear sunny day and comparing my DFA 150-450 (set on 400 f4) to the 6x7 lens. The K1 always raised the shutter speed to get the correct exposure using the 6x7 lens. This is not an apples to apples comparison as the glass and coatings in the DFA give better light transmission. However the shutter speed always went up using the old 6x7 400 f4 SMC compared to the DFA. I also compared the area covered in the photos. At 100 yards both lens covered the same area, DFA set at 400mm.

[clackers]

To go over 600mm it's perhaps better to go for a telescope and a T-mount to K-mount adapter.

Swarovski are the preeminent maker of birding scopes.

As Fenwoodian points out, the wildlife photographer way is to camo and goretex up, and stake out a previously scouted spot and let the wildlife come to you. A 70-200 suffices with a portable hide, for instance.

[UncleVanya]

Do not rule out using the F 1.7x semi autofocus adapter on a lens. Even the 6x7 lens on an adapter might work.

[catfishjohn]

Adam is spot on about the 500mm f4.5. Can be found in M42 or K mount. Usually cheaper in M42, just add an adapter. It works great with a crop sensor camera and the HD DA 1.4. You will find that at those long focal lengths that any shake is hugely magnified. Also any heat makes lots of distortion at any distance. Dust and haze can be a real bummer as well. If you refine your skill at longer distance then birding distance will come somewhat easy.

[marcusBMG]

The farther away you want to peer, the more vastly expensive it becomes to get best results.

I too would suggest for relatively distant birding etc that the "digiscoping" options are the ones that will give you reach beyond your good sigma 50-500mm without necessarily breaking the bank. Then the question becomes which scope? Answer: the best you can afford! My middle of the road opticron HR66-GA (old model) basically isn't good enough, I have not been impressed with the results from my digiscoping attempts with that. My impresson is that small sensor photographic devices are the way to go - your smart phone, or perhaps something like a Q. As the sensor size increases you are spreading that exit pupil cone of light vastly thinner.. (talking about eyepiece projection which is the most common mode).
The scope manufacturers usually offer hopelesly overpriced digiscoping adapters but something like this which I picked up for a fiver off ebay, is readily adapted.
An alternative would be to look at acquiring a primarily astro telescope eg st like a celestron 8", to set up in your ?conservatory and adapt for land photography.

addendum if you check the review listings for the tamron adaptall 500mm mirrors I have put in links to video reviews, one in particular discusses using these with tc's, with some v good results.

[catfishjohn]

Avoid the 6x7 300mm F4, I tried one and now it gathers dust.

[tvdtvdtvd]

vaguely ok telephoto.

Since no one has yet to suggest it......, why not go Q? It doesn't sound like you're concerned about maximum image
fidelity, so why be bothered with the back breaking bulk? You can get a LOT of reach from a relatively inexpensive
and diminutive Q setup.

[MossyRocks]

Anyone have any experience with M42 MTO-1000

The M39 mount one yes but on my K-3 I need an extension tube to get it to mount so I lose infinity focus. It is a friend's and on permant loan to me until his wife forgets he bought it. It isn't too heavy but handles like a trash can on the end of the camera. Some day I will stick my spotmatic behind it and go for the moon and should be able to get infinity focus then as it does focus past infinity, just not enough to compensate for the extension tube on the K-3. It is big and impressive looking though. That said if I were to buy something around that focal length I would instead go for a modern Newtonian telescope. They aren't much more expensive for a good one that would be faster, sharper, lighter, and better in every way other than having to get telescope to T-mount and T-mount to K-mount adapters.

For now what I want for long glass is an A* 400mm f/2.8 or a (A/F/FA)* 600mm f/4 but leaning towards the 400 given the size of most things I want to put into the frame but the smaller Messier objects would look nicer with that 600.