Out to Lunch
Ventor
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
For those who, like me, don't want to watch a random Youtube clip, here's a good ol' text-and-image review: Review: TTArtisan 500mm 6.3 ED IF - phillipreeve.net
And the Petapixel post, with TTArtisan's sample images: TTArtisan's New 500mm f/6.3 Full-Frame Mirrorless Lens is Just $329
Doesn't look bad. I have a 400mm f/6.3 Telyt-R that I adapt to my Fuji digitals from time to time, and I don't know if I'd really feel a need to grab an X-mount version of this if one appeared as a result. But for an occasional-use long lens, it looks like you could do a lot worse.
And the Petapixel post, with TTArtisan's sample images: TTArtisan's New 500mm f/6.3 Full-Frame Mirrorless Lens is Just $329
Doesn't look bad. I have a 400mm f/6.3 Telyt-R that I adapt to my Fuji digitals from time to time, and I don't know if I'd really feel a need to grab an X-mount version of this if one appeared as a result. But for an occasional-use long lens, it looks like you could do a lot worse.
ddutchison2
Well-known
Reminds me of those the ads in the back of Pop. Photography in the 70's for those huge Spitatone 500mm telephotos, selling for 0nly $99.
ranger9
Well-known
I recall from back in the day that the street consensus was that those 400/6.3-ish lenses were often pretty good, thanks to a modest maximum aperture and the fact that no effort was expended to make them compact. A simple optical design (typically Petzval-derived) was all that was needed for decent performance, since this design performs well as long as the angle of view is narrow. This meant these lenses weren't true "telephotos," since the physical length of the tube was the same as the focal length of the lens, or a little longer, but they were pleasantly light in weight, since an empty tube doesn't weigh much. The TTArtisan lens appears to be from the same heritage, only with fancier modern glass. I'll bet it will provide comparatively inexpensive and reasonably sharp long-lens fun for a lot of people who don't mind lugging around a physically large lens...
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Yeah, I have the same problem with random blog posts. Cheers, OtL
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Pity no F mount. Oh well.
ranger9
Well-known
How long would you guess it will be before one of the big websites gets a comment like this: “Too bad it's not f/2.8. Also, $329 is too expensive.”
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I've already read more than a few comments talking about how this lens is "useless" as it doesn't have OIS... do these people not take a second to think about how things were done before OIS came along?
das
Well-known
By the way, how did anyone ever accurately focus a f/6.3 telephoto during the film era? The viewfinder would be pretty dark.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear Out To Lunch,
The price isn't bad but it's a rather pedestrian lens as far as telephoto lenses go, especially when used on a FF camera.
It's not available in M4/3 mount which might make it more interesting to me, but I doubt it. I paid $ 125.00 for a Canon FD 200mmf2.8 and $ 300.00 for a Tamron SP 300 f2.8 Adaptall with the case, filters, and matching SP 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters. I also picked up a 300mm f/4 Super Takumar for $ 100.00 with an M42 to Canon EOS adapter with focus confirmation.
The Canon FD is a fabulous lens on my Olympus bodies. It weighs next to nothing, and focus is precise and simple on M4/3 bodies. The crop factor of the M4/3's really pays off with the lens. The 300mm f/4 works great on M4/3 and it works great on my EOS bodies as well. The Tamron is an absolute beast of a lens physically, but it also works fine on M4/3 bodies and has the advantage of being usable on every single interchangeable lens camera I own with the proper adapter. It does kind of require a monopod though unless the day is bright and beautiful.
I like to shoot nature and wildlife photos where auto-focus is certainly beneficial but definitely not absolutely necessary. I enjoy getting pleasing photos with lenses that most people couldn't be bothered to use.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
The price isn't bad but it's a rather pedestrian lens as far as telephoto lenses go, especially when used on a FF camera.
It's not available in M4/3 mount which might make it more interesting to me, but I doubt it. I paid $ 125.00 for a Canon FD 200mmf2.8 and $ 300.00 for a Tamron SP 300 f2.8 Adaptall with the case, filters, and matching SP 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters. I also picked up a 300mm f/4 Super Takumar for $ 100.00 with an M42 to Canon EOS adapter with focus confirmation.
The Canon FD is a fabulous lens on my Olympus bodies. It weighs next to nothing, and focus is precise and simple on M4/3 bodies. The crop factor of the M4/3's really pays off with the lens. The 300mm f/4 works great on M4/3 and it works great on my EOS bodies as well. The Tamron is an absolute beast of a lens physically, but it also works fine on M4/3 bodies and has the advantage of being usable on every single interchangeable lens camera I own with the proper adapter. It does kind of require a monopod though unless the day is bright and beautiful.
I like to shoot nature and wildlife photos where auto-focus is certainly beneficial but definitely not absolutely necessary. I enjoy getting pleasing photos with lenses that most people couldn't be bothered to use.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Dear Out To Lunch,
The price isn't bad but it's a rather pedestrian lens as far as telephoto lenses go, especially when used on a FF camera.
It's not available in M4/3 mount which might make it more interesting to me, but I doubt it. I paid $ 125.00 for a Canon FD 200mmf2.8 and $ 300.00 for a Tamron SP 300 f2.8 Adaptall with the case, filters, and matching SP 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters. I also picked up a 300mm f/4 Super Takumar for $ 100.00 with an M42 to Canon EOS adapter with focus confirmation.
The Canon FD is a fabulous lens on my Olympus bodies. It weighs next to nothing, and focus is precise and simple on M4/3 bodies. The crop factor of the M4/3's really pays off with the lens. The 300mm f/4 works great on M4/3 and it works great on my EOS bodies as well. The Tamron is an absolute beast of a lens physically, but it also works fine on M4/3 bodies and has the advantage of being usable on every single interchangeable lens camera I own with the proper adapter. It does kind of require a monopod though unless the day is bright and beautiful.
I like to shoot nature and wildlife photos where auto-focus is certainly beneficial but definitely not absolutely necessary. I enjoy getting pleasing photos with lenses that most people couldn't be bothered to use.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
Nothing beats Takumar lenses in bang for the buck.
ddutchison2
Well-known
I'm sure they will. They benefit from modern computer assisted design and a much wider range of glass/acrylic options for their elements, and they also have a lot of optical experience. The excellent (and rather pricey) "Zeiss" lens on my Sony was made in China.