Nikon 1000mm ED F/11. Any comments?

[Igor]

Has anyone used this lens with the S2? If it's compatible at all...
Any comments, please?

[Tom Nolle]

According to both the S2 and N80 manuals, that lens is *not* compatible with the camera. P19 in the english version of the manual. I've also heard that it is not compatible from another Nikon user.

Tom

[Igor]

Thanks Tom.
And pity! This would make a mind-blowing telephoto lens!!
I even saw a 2000mm Nikon!

[Tom Nolle]

The 2000mm is also incompatible!

Seriously, Igor, I'm not sure how useful a reflex lens would really be anyway. They give a funny appearance to the out-of-focus areas, and the very small f-stop makes them a bear to use. Swampy has shot through his Celestron telescope, and I've taken shots through my Meade scope, using a T-adapter. It sort of works, but I wouldn't use it as an alternative to a real telephoto lens.

I went though trying to find a cheaper substitute for a long telephoto about three years ago; I looked at telescopes, reflex lenses, and so forth, and ended up getting the Sigma 500mm f4.5. Smartest move I ever made (but one of the more expensive ones, too!)

Tom

[Igor]

Tom,
how about Sigma 50-500mm? Everybody raves about it.

[Swampy]

Thanks Smunky!

Yes, I do love the 50-500. It's about the same length as the 70-200VR physically, when at 50mm, but doubles in length when at 500mm. It does a wonderful job all the way around and I'm very happy with it.

Some day, I'd like to take Tom's straight 500 Sigma and do a side by side between the two at 500mm. I'm betting the 50-500 will be a close racer if not even.

[Igor]

Swampy,
is it heavy? Can it be used without tripod? At 500mm especially.

[Tom V]

I had a mirror lens once, and only partially liked it. It was a Rokkor 250mm f5.6 and was about the size of a 50mm ƒ1.4, and in fact, could fit on the camera in a "ever-ready" case. It was nice and handy, cheap and kind of novel. It was useful in such a limited range of situations, I rarely used it. I sold it for $50 and never missed it.

I have used a 600mm mirror lens as well. I am glad I did not spend my money on that lens.

All out of focus highlights take on the shape of the aperture, leaving donuts all over, which I found distracting.

The marked aperture may be geometrically correct, based on measured diameters, but I thought they were at least half a stop optimistic. (F11 would problably let in about f13's light). It might be due to the secondary mirror taking up space smack dab in the middle of the front element.

Dark? I wouldn't want to try focusing an f11+ lens in the S2's viewfinder. Autofocus will not work at that aperture, regardless of whether or not the lens is AF or not. Oh, and it's not.

No aperture means no aperture to adjust. That means all exposure adjustments have to be done with shutter speed, - do you want to shoot under 1/1000th?, or with adjustments to ISO. I think things would have to be VERY bright to shoot at ƒ11 with a high speed and moderate aperture. I think you would have to be shooting at ISO 800 or 1600 all the time.

Sure, reflex lenses are nice and compact, but once you factor in the massive tripod you need to carry around with it, what's the difference?

[Swampy]

I agree with Tom, a straight f11 - that's pretty hard to use. Heck Igor, my telescope is a straight f10 - it was a pain to use, even though it was large, sure, but on a tripod, at f10, I couldn't shoot anything even in bright daylight without going to iso400 and a shutter speed of 1/125. I wouldn't waste my money on something like that, just because it's use would be completely limited.

The 50-500mm Sigma is a little heavier than the 70-200VR by about a pound and a half I think. It DOES get to be a bear to use long term even with a tripod. You probably won't have as much trouble as I would as I've got a messed up arm. It a tollerable lens to use for me though. When I get that lens out, I know I'm putting in a pack, taking it somewhere and setting it up on a tripod for the most part.

When you're looking for a a lens of this focal length, a good one, even just a so-so one, is going to weigh quite a bit more.

[ghiribizzo]

I was going to ask the same question re. the 1000mm f11 because i have one. I only recently got a used S2 Pro body and noted that it is stated as uncompatible.
However, does anyone know if this is a physical 'clearance' issue for the mirror or just because an attempt to lift the pair by the body would probably rip the mount out of the body! The S2 isn't made like an F5...

Yes, f11 is not the easiest to use but i use a Nikkor 500mm f8 regularly and it's easily hand held at 1/500 at ISO400 on film or digital.

[BadpicKev]

Swampy,
is it heavy? Can it be used without tripod? At 500mm especially.

i think so

50-500 @500 handheld S3

http://www.badpicphotography.net/assets/images/DSCF3237.jpg

[Igor]

Impressive shot Kevin!

[fujifilmnut]

Kevin has a steady hand! :bowdown:

[Gil]

There is a world famous photographer called Jay Maisel. Jay is 78 years old and still active in teaching and taking pictures. he has a Nikon 1000 mm F11 and loves it. He took some amazing images of the world trade center from his home in New York. he has many images before and after the 911 atack.
I took a class at the santa fe workshop with him. I saw many of the images taken with that lens and the BIG tripod he used to hold it.
For the right price, I would purchase that lens.

[BadpicKev]

Impressive shot Kevin!

i will say, that the bigma is held i gap between the thumb and forefinger. sort of like a cradle. the other hand hold the camera. thus i have support at the end of the lens and the body. for really good hand holding, get a bush hawk.