This question is for anyone. On our upcoming trip, we will be making a stop in Charleston and I want to get some pictures of the Morris Island lighthouse. Having not been there before, I don't know how far offshore it is. The biggest lens I have is a Vivitar Series 1, 70-210 1:3.5. I also have two teleconverters, 1.5X and a 3X. I'm assuming I can use them both to create 945mm. I know I lose a bunch of light using both but can I expect decent results on a bright day? Also, will it make any difference in what order they are installed. I have a nice sturdy Bogen 3021 tripod so stability shouldn't be a problem.
Another question while I'm at it. I have looked at some 500mm lenses for my Canon A-1 and have seen both long tube types and mirror lenses. What's the story between these two types? Obviously, the mirror lens is much smaller and lighter but the prices are about the same so what's the down side?
[This message has been edited by Ed14 (edited 07-04-2002).]
I can't answer any questions about the lenses, etc, but I can tell you that you can get to within about 100 yards of the Lighthouse- depending on the tide.
It's literally a stone's throw away.
You can get a very long view of Sullivan's Island from Morris Island. (which is at the end of Jolley Beach).
You can get a nice shot of both Lighthouses as you walk up to the morris Island Lighthouse.
You park yopur car juat before the end of the road and walk in less than 1/4 mile past the remnants of the old Coast Guard Station.
There's a nice little restaurant right on the left hand side of the road where it ends and you have to turn left to get to the Lighthouse (If you continue straight you end up in a hotel parking lot.
Don't recall the name, but we had a nice lunch there awhile back.
I'll leave the technical questions to someoine who know' swhat they are talking about.
The problem with mirror lenses is the 'donut' shapes (aka; bad 'bokeh') you receive in the 'out of focus' areas, due to the central reflecting mirror. You usually don't get the 'donuts' with glass lenses. Bokeh refers to the 'out of focus area' rendering of a particular lens. Most lenses have a their own distinct look or feel in this area, and help to define how good a lens is. The ones that render it smooth and natural are generally labeled as better. Those that are 'distracting' are worse. The mirrors are notoriously bad in this category, due to the 'donut' effect.
I picked up a Tamron SP 500mm f/8.0 catadioptic mirror lens a few years back w/ the Canon FD mount, for when I couldn't lug around long lenses. Got it for a reasonable price w/ hood. Quite convenient, but not very contrasty though. The lens test specs are not the greatest, but alot better than most other 3rd party mirrors (especially newer lenses).
The old cult classic 1975 Vivitar 'solid cat' mirror is also extremely nice, but hard to find (don't confuse with newer Vivitars). This lens was actually made by Perkin Elmer (of NASA space telescope fame), and is a 600mm f/8.0. They sold for around $600 in '75 (about $2000 in today's dollars), but can be grabbed used for less than $500 if you look hard enough.
The f/8.0's are very slow though, and you'll have to crank down the shutter speed to accomodate. It's therefore very tough to shoot handheld, but occasionally you'll get one turn out OK (they're so light, you'll want to shoot hand held, but shouldn't). The 2 shots below were handheld w/ the Tamron, but it's very tough to repeat the quality often. It's usually just luck if you catch one without shake. (the squirrel was actually shot through a kitchen window too, LOL). A tripod will help of course, but you still lack the contrast w/ most mirrors. I am not often impressed with the lens, but still occasionally use it with the Canon A-1. Mostly on the tripod though. Maybe at least try for a faster mirror if you can find one reasonable. I think Sigma made an f/4.0 in manual focus, but not familiar with it.
A glass lens would be much more preferable, but for any quality at all your going to fork out some major $$ (just ask Gary, LOL). There are alot of cheap third party glass lenses out there on e-bay for manual focus FD mounts that you'll probably not be very happy with though. Don't just jump on one because it is cheaply priced. Go for the fastest speed you can afford, the quality will more than likely follow the speed of the lens (generally speaking). If you can't afford a fairly fast glass lens, then a mirror might make an acceptable compromise. Since the mirrors lack all the expensive glass, you can usually pick up one with better specs than a glass lens for the same price. You have the Bokeh to deal with though. Spending a little more for a better glass lens is the best choice, of course. Good luck in your search! PS: If you go for a Tamron, make sure it is an SP version. That was their top of the line at the time, and are much better than their non SP lenses.
You can see the distinct "donut" effect in the background grass of the Sandy Alomar shot below. Most shots are much more pronounced than this one. Not the greatest example, but these are the only 2 w/ the Tamron that I already had scanned. Most of the time it can be very distracting, and takes your attention away from the focused subject matter. I tried to compose the squirrel shot to minimize the out of focus area. If the tree didn't take up half the shot, the background would have ruined it.
Rod Watson [This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 07-05-2002).]
Rod gave an excellent explanation of mirror lenses and I certainly can't add a thing to his comments. I don't have one for most of the reasons that he cited. I opted for the fast, big glass 500 mm f4 AFS Nikon lens that, as Rod put it cost major $$$. There's a shot in the Wackos in Wisconsin thread on this forum showing me setting up the "missle launch tube" as Dave put it to shoot the Old Bailey's Harbour lighthouse for the folks who were shooting with Nikon gear on the Door County Lighthousing trip last week.
AS for Ed's other question on stacking teleconverters. Yes, you can, and I've done that occasionally to really reach out to photograph a lighthouse. I'm on my wife's laptop at the moment but I've got some examples that I add to this thread a little later from my own computer where the scans are. If you're starting with a relatively slow lens, when you stack a pair of teleconverters between the lens and the body you end up with a hideously slow lens! A tripod is an absolute necessity - your Bogen 3021 is a good tripod, Ed. If you're going to stack some teleconverters with a slow lens, you'd also benefit from getting a Bogen 3421 long lens brace that goes from the tripod mount of your camera body to clamp onto a tripod leg. This, of course assumes that your 70-210 has a tripod collar, which I suspect it doesn't. You can get auxilliary mounts that clamp onto the lens body that would allow you to do what I'm talking about. It probably goes without saying that using a cable release of some type is mandatory, and if your camera body has a mirror lock-up feature, compose your photo, lock up the mirror, and then trip the shutter with the cable release. Locking up the mirror will prevent mirror bounce from degrading image quality -- at 945 mm, you're at about a 19X enlargment relative to a normal 50 mm lens and ANY movement is hence going to be magnified detrimentally.
To compensate for a slow lens when you stack up teleconverters, you'd do well to use a higher speed film. With my 500 mm lens, which is what is considered a fast long telephoto at f4, I typically shoot Fuji Provia 400F professional slide film, using Fuji Provia 100F only on very bright days. If you're shooting print film, I'd suggest having a roll of Fuji or Kodak's 800 speed print film in the camera when you plan to use the stacked teleconverters. Fuji makes a more generally available consumer slide film, Superia 400. They also used to make a 1600 speed slide film but I haven't seen it around lately (I haven't looked for any either, which may have something to do with that!) To the best of my knowledge, it makes no difference on the order on which the teleconverters are placed between the lens and the body.
If you're inclined to spend some $$$, the Tamron 200-400 f5.6 lens is another option you might want to consider rather than a mirror lens. They're in the price range of about $500 or so and work reasonably well with Tamron's teleconverters and probably equally as well with the ones you already have. Optically, I think they're preferable to dealing with the optical donut inherent to the mirror lenses, but that's just my opinion. I've used on of these lenses with a 2X and 1.4X teleconverter stacked to get me out to 1120 mm and have gotten acceptable results. Of course, you've got a remarkably "fast" f 16 lens! LOL
Thanks very much. It sounds as if I may not be that far from the Lighthouse so I might not need to stack them. It has got me curious though so I'm going to experiment a little before I leave and see what happens. You are correct, my 70-210 lens does not have a bracket for a brace and is quite front heavy especially with the converters attached. I think I can rig up a brace such as you described without much trouble. Thanks to all for you're input. I'll try to post my attempts when we return.
