600mm? Blimey. What's the maximum aperture? Tripods can be a tad complicated, that's true, but for such a big lens you need one. I only have a light plastic one which has been alright so far as it's reasonably stable but I'll have to fork out for a decent one soon enough. The 70-200 is big and heavy enough and anything under 1/125 is tricky to hold steady.
It's a catadioptric lens -- one of the kind that uses mirrors and thus is a lot shorter than the focal length would suggest. Still quite heavy though, and the tripod's a must, but I wasn't applying enough force to get the main column up as far as I needed.
It's fixed f8, and manual focus, so it's fine for this sort of thing (tripod issues aside) but if whatever you're trying to focus on is moving, forget it. (Yes, yes, the Moon moves, but not fast enough to be a major issue.) Seemed to be working okay somewhere around the 1/60 mark yesterday for the Moon.
I know the kind. They were all the hype 20 or 15 years ago but with the advent of better glass and grinding technologies, they've almost passed into obscurity.
1/60 at f8 sounds about right, as the moon probably filled most of the picture at that focal length.
I bought it cheap off my mother, who wanted rid of it; as long as you understand its limitations it has its uses... (and I have a standard 75 - 300mm lens also)
I guess it'd really be (1.6 x 600mm) effectively on my Canon, but yeah, the moon is about half the height of the frame at that length. I may give it another go tonight if it's clear enough.
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 04:25 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 17/11/05 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 17/11/05 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 17/11/05 05:05 pm (UTC)Tripods can be a tad complicated, that's true, but for such a big lens you need one. I only have a light plastic one which has been alright so far as it's reasonably stable but I'll have to fork out for a decent one soon enough. The 70-200 is big and heavy enough and anything under 1/125 is tricky to hold steady.
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 05:07 pm (UTC)Nice piccy though.
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 05:23 pm (UTC)It's fixed f8, and manual focus, so it's fine for this sort of thing (tripod issues aside) but if whatever you're trying to focus on is moving, forget it. (Yes, yes, the Moon moves, but not fast enough to be a major issue.) Seemed to be working okay somewhere around the 1/60 mark yesterday for the Moon.
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 05:35 pm (UTC)1/60 at f8 sounds about right, as the moon probably filled most of the picture at that focal length.
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 05:39 pm (UTC)I guess it'd really be (1.6 x 600mm) effectively on my Canon, but yeah, the moon is about half the height of the frame at that length. I may give it another go tonight if it's clear enough.
no subject
Date: 17/11/05 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 17/11/05 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 17/11/05 07:41 pm (UTC)