[Abbazz]

- The article emphasizes the greater importance of the rear filter with W/A lenses. Is it possible that at 500mm and this price point that it just isn't considered necessary?

This is quite possible. For a 500mm lens, a variation of 0.5mm in the flange focal distance due to the rear filter is very easy to correct with a small adjustment of the distance ring, so most users won't even notice it. And all these long focal lenses usually focus a little bit past the infinity mark as a built-in provision for thermal expansion. This will not be the case with a 17mm lens, were a 0.5mm variation would make the lens unable to focus to infinity, due to the smaller depth of focus of the wide angle lens.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Marc Sabatella]

I read all of these threads with interest because i'm also looking for some decent, affordable long glass. Pop Photo recently did a review of the Pro Optic 500 mirror and it was a pretty positive review.

True, and then someone else reviewed it and slammed it. But really, the sample pictures in that review were, for me, in the "not so bad" category - better than my Tamron-made 70-300 looks with my Kenko TC.

I know it seems like a lot of hemming and hawing over what is going to be a pretty cheap purchase. But I figure if I spent a lot of money on a very good lens, I *know* it would be money wasted, because a) I don't shoot wildlife that often and b) if the lens is big and heavy, I'm more likely to leave it at home. Only a small and cheap lens could *possibly* be worth it for me, but I don't want to throw away $100-$200, either.

[Marc Sabatella]

Meantime, here's the Samyang 500/F8 with and without a piece of glass inserted in the rear (pardon the expression). Left side is barefoot per shutter speed. Judge for yourself whether or not it was beneficial

Other way around, if anything. Boo.

Thanks for posting these, and the pointer to your other shots (although the tractor shot you sent me earlier was all the convincing I needed that the quality of the Vivitar 400/5.6 was more than adequate)!

[reeftool]

I do get outside and enjoy doing some bird and wildlife shots (or at least I try to) and also some of the sporting events like my daughters crew team races. I'm using a Sigma 70-300 and getting by with cropping but would much rather have the lens length. I know that what I need is going to be kind of big and a little heavy. The 200/4 Tak with the 2X converter is a pretty heavy setup and I have difficulty hand holding it. Probably double the weight of the Sigma.

[Just1MoreDave]

OK, so what do you think of it? Have you tried it with and without the rear filter?

I tried it first with moon photos, then a few shots of mountains from the back yard, and some bird photos. The moon photos don't look much different than with my 400mm lens and cropping. The mountain photos were a poor choice of subject/shooting location because there's like 30-40 miles of atmosphere between here and there. The already lower contrast just gets worse. The bird photos were not terrible, but my technique is still a greater influence than the lens quality.

I haven't tried it with the skylight filter; it doesn't look like the previous owner did either.

In general, I prefer my Tokina SD 400mm f5.6 and possibly cropping, but the Tokina is about 3x the weight and twice as long. I would never travel with this lens, so I keep the Vivitar for its portability potential (unrealized, byt you never know!).

[Marc Sabatella]

If it's even close in quality to the 400 cropped, that's saying a lot. The images H2 posted strike me as miles from what I'd expect of a 400mm lens cropped to 500mm FOV.

Anyhow, I just got your PM, and am heading out for the day, but will respond soon!

[pacerr]

I just put up those 300mm comparisons up as a new thread since it was getting a little OT.

See Pacerr " Tamron 75-300 vs SuperTakumar 300/4 Part 1"

H2

[Longboarder]

I have an ancient Vivitar 500/f6.3 lens manual focus lens.

It is built beautifully from seperable metal sections and weighs a ton. It is 20 inches long after all.

Whilst the picture quality is not on a par with modern lenses, I reckon it is cracking value for the £40 that I paid for it.

Apparently these were meant to be built by Olympus and then badged Vivitar.

Just FYI in case you see one cheap.