| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2016 Location: London Posts: 1,050 | | Review Date: December 22, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $12.39
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Surprisingly sharp, especially stopped down | | Cons: | Heavy and a bit awkward | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 6
Value: 10
Camera Used: Nikon D50
| |
The one I have is branded "Dufay" but appears to be identical to the others with 72mm filter mount described here. I got it a few months ago for £10 ($12.49) in a branch of a British pawn shop / money lending shop chain. Their photographic equipment is usually badly overpriced, but this time I got lucky. When I compared it to a cheap mirror lens I'd previously used I was surprised how much better it was; clearer, sharper (especially stopped down), and much more contrasty. It's a bit of a pig to carry around; I use a Hama tripod case and put it over a shoulder. One important point - I've added a longish hood, made up of a 35mm long metal hood that had a 78mm screw thread at the end, to which I've added a deep rubber hood taking the total length to about 90mm. Between them the hoods and the case cost a little more than the lens itself, but I think they were a good investment. I've generally found that I need to adjust contrast a little for best results, but much less than with a mirror lens. One thing I've noticed is that long lenses like this really make any dust or smudges on the sensor stand out - since taking these pictures I've cleaned my camera, and I'm waiting for nice weather to see how well it worked. In London at this time of year that may be a long wait...
A helicopter over Hyde Park, London
The Albert Memorial, London - I've inset a picture taken with a zoom set to 55mm at approximately the same distance
The December 2016 "supermoon", 1/500th F16. Contrast adjusted slightly, otherwise unmodified.
Overall I'm very pleased, and thoroughly recommend these lenses - they're pretty good if you can work with their limitations.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2014 Posts: 9 | | Review Date: December 6, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $18.50
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Range, Decent Sharpness, Inexpensive | | Cons: | 1. Shooting @ F8 takes patience and a good tripod 2. Looks and feels like a sniper scope... | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 5
Value: 10
| |
This is the Samyang 500mm "k mount" (similar to these models) great combo with a 2x converter...perfect for moon shots. For the price range I find it a steal of a deal!
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/309256-misc-test-phot...ml#post3450731 | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: April, 2015 Location: Virginia Posts: 2
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 11, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Bought and paid for decades ago, high mag. | | Cons: | Manual only, no modern features | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 6
Value: 10
Camera Used: Nikon D5100
| |
An eagle nest near here got me digging in the drawer for every piece of glass I own. My Canon Vixia HF G20 can squeak out 20:1 zoom at HD using its 2x zoom setting, but was struggling to get me close enough. My strongest telephoto for my Nikons was 300 mm. $10k and up pro wildlife lenses are out of reach for now. But down in a forgotten drawer was my old Quantaray 500mm f8. And I do have Nikon T-mount adapters on hand to use the cameras on microscopes and telescopes, so ....
I've never had much luck with this lens on my earlier cameras. The f8 optics are too dim to work with the pentaprism rangefinders on the older SLRs. Half of the center split screen was almost always black, and I never really got great focus with it.
But based on the reviews here, I dusted it off and tried it on my Nikon D5100. This humble lens has finally found a camera it really works well with. The D5100 has proven to be my go-to camera for microscopy due to the screen and video options. You flip the lever that raises the mirror and activates the screen in real time, then punch the + button a few times to zoom in. This lets you focus perfectly.
The D5100 will not meter with this relic on it, but a few test shots get the exposure right in the M setting. But once set up and on a good tripod, the lens is quite serviceable for stills and excellent for HD video. In fact, the camera works out exposure for video automatically, in spite of the manual aperture.
The only modification to the image above is the automatic compression applied during upload.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2012 Location: North Wales Posts: 2,720 | | Review Date: December 11, 2014 | Not Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | cheapest ultra telephoto | | Cons: | handling, slow, long cfd, propensity for hazed rear element (early vintage examples).. | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 5
Value: 8
Camera Used: pentax K-r, lumix G1
| |
I acquired a Praotor II branded example very cheaply, with a view to making a comparison with my tamron 500mm mirror. It was suffering from the common complaint of haze on the rear element, note that this typically does not clean off. Fortunately a neighbour has a gem polishing set up so a few minutes buffing with some jewellers rouge did the trick.With these "moddings" it is difficult to say how representative the IQ of this lens is. I can say that it shows similar characteristics to the shorter focal length "wundertutes": decent sharpness, dull contrast, susceptible to PF.
TBH I am more enamoured both with the tamron 500mm mirrors and the 400mm f6.3's. I find this long tube (max length of this one 44cm/17.3" - an early one, later and current models are shorter) to be particularly user unfriendly, very difficult to eliminate shake without a high shutter and a good solid tripod set up, unlike the tamrons where I can often make do with a fence post, bean bag etc etc (and even hand hold if the light is good enough to get 1/500th, 1/1000 +). This observation is also commented upon in the video review linked to above in the description. I would advise users serious about trying to get the best out of these to consider the sort of mounting set up I use with my tamron 31A: macro rail with two solid points of contact supporting the lens to damp the "bendy ruler/seesaw" oscillation tendencies. OTOH maybe you gun happy Americans are more used than I am to hold long thin objects steady...
Focusing at f8 through an optical VF is a hit and miss affair IME, and although this does have the advantage of a variable aperture, in practice in use it's f8 and sometimes f11, rarely any higher (diffraction reducing IQ) so the priority is on decent IQ at open or near open apertures. And although I have struggled to get decent comparison pics during these dull winter days my clear impression is that the tamron 500mm has comfortably better IQ f8 vs f8. In fact, more test shots at f8 post haze cleaning have been disappointing.
This test pic of the castle was taken before I refurbished the rear element. f8, 800asa, 1/1600.
Doesn't look too bad resized but the 100% crop was not as good as the tammy, or as good as I think it should be, which I attribute at least partly to the haze.
UPDATE. I have had the opportunity to check out a couple of better examples of these 500mm lenses, including an almost LNIB Prinz-galaxy. Performance was distinctly better but without altering my overall assessment which is that overall I don't recommend these. Reasons:
1. Upscaled pics from the better 400mm 5.6's/6.3's typically match or better pics from these so 500mm is no advantage.
2. Tamron (and ?tokina) mirrors better resolution.
3. f8 is too slow, too dim with OVF.
3. CFD 10-12m is too long. 6-8m for 400mm lenses much better, and focus to just a couple of m with the mirrors.
4. Propensity to haze on the rear element (early models).
You should be discriminating and prefer one of the better 400mm lenses, or a tamron/tokina mirror (but not the shabbily performing opteka/samyang etc etc 500mm mirrors available new off Amazon/ebay etc).
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: SoCal Posts: 518 | | Review Date: November 16, 2014 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, relatively decent lens for 500mm | | Cons: | CA/PF, soft wide open near infinity | |
I have the Rokinon variant of this lens.
It can take some decent shots, however, it is not good in harsh lighting conditions (SoCal lighting), especially wide open at f/8 
Even though its a slow lens, it can take some very nice shots, just take some time to stop it down a good bit for a decent DoF on landscapes, it'll also cure some PF.
I haven't had a chance to shoot the moon yet, but I do have a cheap Cimko 2x6e TC to add to this for those shots.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 30 | | Review Date: October 23, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light, ok IQ | | Cons: | Really hard to use | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 7
Value: 9
| |
My lens claims to be a "Kimunor," but is otherwise identical to the Quantaray. Condition was honestly a bit funky, but only in that the T adapter was essentially pulled apart in the middle -- a condition that seems to be very common for this particular lens. Re-seating the back-half of the T adapter and tightening 3 set screws fixed it. In every other way, the lens was pristine.
This lens is actually lighter than the 400mm f/6.3 lenses I have. The image quality appears to be better too. Here's an unprocessed (except crop) example:
That was shot hand-held at 1/500s on APS-C. It's really not bad. Very simple optics work pretty well at small enough apertures....
There is an odd general glow to some images that have high contrast content, but it is not consistently present. Otherwise, there are surprisingly few aberrations.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2010 Location: MD Posts: 952 | | Review Date: September 11, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $5.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | cheap; quite decent for 500mm | | Cons: | purple fringing, needs light | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
I got this lens thrown in w/ another, and so I was not expecting much. For what it's intended to do, however, it's not bad. It handles well enough, because there really isn't much to it. It's quite easy to use, because you just set the camera to Av mode, and it will take care of metering just fine. Set your desired preset f-stop, use the OPEN ring to focus, close down to the preset, shoot. It's possible to use it handheld, but you'll get better results on a tripod with a timed shutter release.
As for sharpness, it's quite acceptable for those distance shots. Shots of distant objects at 100% on this lens are much better than shots at 167% on my outstanding DAL 55-300. (Ie, at the comparable viewing size.)
Bottom line: Great value for 500mm.
UPDATE: 2/2014: After more use w/ this lens, I'm upgrading it a bit. It does take some fussing and luck to get a good pic, but it is doable. This pic was taken on an overcast day w/ dull light, but it was close to nearest focusing distance at 30feet.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/151-pentax-k-30-k-50/205533d1...imgp4372-1.jpg
I'm guessing it's the same lens as the Quantaray. Here's a nice Flickr set I found using this FiveStar 500.
Still a great value for a 500mm lens.
UPDATE: 2015.06: I acquired the similarly constructed and similarly inexpensive Spiratone Pluracoat 400mm f6.3. The Spiratone is about 3/4" shorter and a bit easier to focus w/ the f6.3. Results are similar to the 500mm, but in general the 500mm does a slightly better job.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 40 | | Review Date: May 24, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, fairly good pictures. | | Cons: | Heavy, slow weak tripod mount, flexes so you must compensate | |
Inexpensive lense that takes surprisinly good pictures, but as it is f8 wide open you need lots of light, definitely need a tripod, but the mount flexes, so you have to aim low and release to achive target point where you want it to be. Focus is smooth and positive. Came with a "matched 2X converter" which I think deteriorate the picture quality, will try with a better quality doubler soon. Best thing about the converter is that the k-mount is held on by set screws as is the screw mount on the lense, so I removed the k-mount from the doubler and the screw mount on the lense and put the k-mount on the lense, eliminating the need for an adaptor.
All in all for the price it is surpisingly good, not great but good. | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Posts: 2,357 | | Review Date: February 24, 2010 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Can be found for very little expense, weighs less than two pounds so some handheld captures require less effort | | Cons: | It does not produce sharp images from many fast moving subjects; not the lens you would want for some sports, birds or aircraft in flight o | |
Most often you will find someone selling their old copy of the lens at times for somewhere around $50. For great shots of the moon you can get with this lens, it is well worth that. Even images of animals resting or slowly pacing at zoo exhibits for example, this lens does provide good images.
My copy was bought somewhere around 1986 perhaps and I am sure from either Montgomery Wards or Kmart. It originally came with a leather pouch and a lens hood that simply slide off and on. I wish I had kept the lens hood especially. This lens need a bit of contrast added to the images when shooting in sunlight. And it requires good sunlight for any sharpness with appropriate shutter speeds.
I would tell anyone that a reasonable copy of the lens found for under $60 would be a very good telephoto lens for landscapes, good sunlight conditions or not very fast moving subjects.
 | | |
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
