It’s even more fun when photographing little King Fishers soaring through the air then dive bombing down into the water all while taking and adjusting with manual focus
@@Poisonous_Owlgood luck trying to get a fast moving bird in even a somewhat closish distance. The FOV becomes narrowly thin and you won’t be able to see whether you hit the bird until you open the picture on a big screen. Good AF improves the hit rate massively and massively moves the statistics of getting a good picture in your favor.
The method described here will have negative effects on image quality. It’s basically desaturating high contrast edges to zero. But hey, this is how they’re able to sell a lens like this for so cheap.
@@tormaid42 i know this method kills sharpness but i dont know editing well so i dont have another option. My lens has higher quality so i dont have problems like this but i still get chromatic aberration when i zoom in enuogh
If you look at the optical formula they published you can see that it's actually an entry level astrophotography telescope with the field flattener lens element group built in, plus an iris, a helicoid focuser and a tiny little built in teleconverter. The build style is much more like those little telescopes than a military lens. Check out williams optics if you want to see more lenses like this with better optics. They have focal lengths available well past a metre
Good sharpness, the purple fringing not unexpected at that price. However spend a little more and get an old used lightweight canon FD 500mm f4.5 with fluorite..
that should be a lot heavier tho. resolution between the two would be very interesting given film equates to low double digit mps and this is a hyper budget tele. id be curious to see how either one perform on a modern 20+mp sensor or even crop sensor
I bought an 800mm on Amazon for $90 and it's actually great. Full manual ofc and it fringes a lot, but fixable and very useable - especially for a hobbyist with no money
@@SenseiFritz labelled as "BENOISON 420-800mm Telephoto Lens" do not expect to shoot cover photos for nature mags with it but as hobby or Instagram, it's pretty good and the price is amazing. Does need quite a bit of de-fringing if that is something that bothers you, so if you're a no edit purist it might not be for you :P
@@Xethl Thanks! Hahahaha.... i don't expect Wonders for that price. But seldom i need more tele than my 200mm for animals (slow or almost not moving), the moon and so on. Fringing isn't a big problem for me..... or for Photoshop. ;-)
@@SenseiFritz I'm not sure how much experience you have so just in case I should warn if you're used to digital, digital cameras essentially simulate the photos on their display they don't show you what's ACTUALLY happening. Because this lens is very cheap it has no chip meaning your camera will likely just through a tantrum when simulating because it doesn't know what aperture it is, just turn off the simulation and get some test shots to see what level your shutter and ISO should be :) if you already know what you're doing, apologies for the useless info!
I bought this lens 2 Weeks ago and its great for that price. I like the stiff Focus ring, because it feels good when I have to Focus a small focus area. The black corners and the chromatic aberations aren` t the big of a Problem. Cool short, too, I like your videos.
Long telephoto lenses are no rocket science, especially without AF and IS and if you compromise on color correction and aperture. For all I need, my very old tele zoom 70-200 f/4 (constant) is more than enough, combined with 46 MPixel to crop in.
I think I’m going to buy it, manual focusing is a really good exercise to be present while taking the shot, and it is great to seat with a lens like that on a porch and or in a camping site and taking photos while been relaxed
Wide open at 6.3? That's the key right there. I would like to see more examples in a less frenetic vid. But it looks like a worthwhile look. The Leica Noctilux has similar fringing, so...
I actually have bought this lens, and when i was on a Trip in Italy with it it served me well, especially photographing smaller wildlife thats relatively close (about 5m) is a ton of fun. Especially Lizards, butterflies and the likes. You can get basically macro shots without being so close that you scare them away.
I bought this and found that focusing was extremely difficult. The images the were in focus were good. But nailing the focus down was so hard I returned the lens.
Cheap is when something saves you Time and Effort. So therefore this Lens really isn't cheap. I worry far less about the manual focusing part as opposed to having to correct lens faults in Software. Would love to see Viltrox counter with a Super Telephoto in the 300 to 400mm range at 5.6 with better Glass but still only manual. Most wouldn't mind spending a little bit extra for that.
ND aperture means no control over depth of field. and I doubt that any of these sample photos were taken with that lens unless cropped significantly. It's bound to have moderate to severe vignetting, which is not evident in any of the samples. And a f/6.3 lens is awfully dim necessitating longer exposure times or high ISO which will be noisy as hell.
I'd probably pick up a vintage lens at the same focal length for less. It might have a bit less contrast because of the older coatings, but should otherwise be similar.
Found it for sale $369 think I'm going to pick it up. Doing astrophotography seen a couple samples of people that used it already. Thanks didn't know it existed.
can you try adapting this to a micro 4/3 with a speed booster? I dont know how exactly it works out but I think it would be a 710mm f4 point something...
This sounds like a great deal for this low price. Do you or someone else know how good it works on an aps-c camera? And does the lens work on dslr camera's? It would be nice to know that
Nah, the Sarblue Mak60 telescope using a t-adapter gives you 750mm in a tiny lightweight package. I mount mine upside down so I can dial the focus with my other hand while shooting. Currently it goes for $129 on Amazon. 😎
Hey man, maybe you know, I won the Hasselblad masters 2023 somehow, and Now I get the x2d 100c and 2 lenses. But Hasselblad doesnt have a 300mm or more tele. Is there another option for the xcd mount? 😅 Thanks alot!
Well for such a long focal length and low cost, can't say i'm surprised by the chromatic aberration, vignetting, and lack of autofocus. The low cost has to come from somewhere
@@TomCalton I made my TT experience and for me the built quality is super cheap. And thats OK, its a cheap lens. But I need a workhorse, something I can count on…
Nope. Even if it’s cheap, it’s still a waste of money because before long, you’ll quickly tire of using it because manual focusing at 500mm is irritating. The lens will just gather dust. No thanks. Use the $329 elsewhere.
No good at all! I bought a brand new Nikon 70-300mm for $200 !!! It's extremely cheap. I used it for professional purposes, it's sharp and flawless! It has Autofocus & Vibration Reduction, which means you can use it without a tripod !!! The photos taken with it look much better than with my 50mm pancake, yeah, it's true!
"military style" as the promotion image is deceptive at best. Also that text is not what any military would be putting on a piece of equipment as it would stand out far too clearly. This is clearly advertorial and not a genuine review.
Whilst I agree it's cheap it's not much use if there's loads of CA. I'm convinced there no ED glass in it . And it would be better if it had ED glass even it meant being twice as expensive Wouldn't buy as it stands
The biggest challenge on these lenses is focusing.
as a definitely not broke photographer who shoots on lots of old manual focus glass, you can get used to it, if you tolerate the sore wrists!
@@no.7893 i really laughed at this reply but i really agree and feel you
How much? Find title get buy
@@no.7893 same here i have more then 30 vintage lenses
Agree. I have my nikkor AF 75-300mm with my Nikon Z30 and its very hard to focus on something far away from me.
Photographing wildlife in manual focus is insanely difficult, would not buy it
skill issue
I only use manual lenses for wildlife lol. It's actually pretty easy
It’s even more fun when photographing little King Fishers soaring through the air then dive bombing down into the water all while taking and adjusting with manual focus
@@Poisonous_Owlgood luck trying to get a fast moving bird in even a somewhat closish distance. The FOV becomes narrowly thin and you won’t be able to see whether you hit the bird until you open the picture on a big screen.
Good AF improves the hit rate massively and massively moves the statistics of getting a good picture in your favor.
@@christophmuller3511 that's still describing a skill issue. Been hitting flying birds for 30 years.
No autofocus on such large focal length would be a nightmare. Maybe buildings, ok, but anything moving would be so difficult
Also thanks for showing how to get rid of that purple lines around the objects😄
These purple lines called chromatic aberration
@@alex_fuji yep i know. Im good at photography but suck at editing
@@Emre-cw7nk editing is not that hard. Try to watch some Lightroom or Capture One tutorials, this should help
The method described here will have negative effects on image quality. It’s basically desaturating high contrast edges to zero. But hey, this is how they’re able to sell a lens like this for so cheap.
@@tormaid42 i know this method kills sharpness but i dont know editing well so i dont have another option. My lens has higher quality so i dont have problems like this but i still get chromatic aberration when i zoom in enuogh
If you look at the optical formula they published you can see that it's actually an entry level astrophotography telescope with the field flattener lens element group built in, plus an iris, a helicoid focuser and a tiny little built in teleconverter. The build style is much more like those little telescopes than a military lens.
Check out williams optics if you want to see more lenses like this with better optics. They have focal lengths available well past a metre
Exactly what I used mine for until I purchased a Redcat 51.
this thing is worth more than my camera...
Take my money
Damn... Spying on your neighbours got me 😂😂
im trying to get the birds i swear
😂 what kind of bird would it be a boobie bird 😂
Good sharpness, the purple fringing not unexpected at that price. However spend a little more and get an old used lightweight canon FD 500mm f4.5 with fluorite..
that should be a lot heavier tho. resolution between the two would be very interesting given film equates to low double digit mps and this is a hyper budget tele. id be curious to see how either one perform on a modern 20+mp sensor or even crop sensor
Yes I would buy it and just defringe in Lightroom
I will really love to have one
pretty nice, but without autofocus for such a long focal length, it's going to be kind of hard ngl
I bought an 800mm on Amazon for $90 and it's actually great. Full manual ofc and it fringes a lot, but fixable and very useable - especially for a hobbyist with no money
Which lens is it?
@@SenseiFritz labelled as "BENOISON 420-800mm Telephoto Lens" do not expect to shoot cover photos for nature mags with it but as hobby or Instagram, it's pretty good and the price is amazing. Does need quite a bit of de-fringing if that is something that bothers you, so if you're a no edit purist it might not be for you :P
@@Xethl Thanks! Hahahaha.... i don't expect Wonders for that price. But seldom i need more tele than my 200mm for animals (slow or almost not moving), the moon and so on. Fringing isn't a big problem for me..... or for Photoshop. ;-)
@@SenseiFritz I'm not sure how much experience you have so just in case I should warn if you're used to digital, digital cameras essentially simulate the photos on their display they don't show you what's ACTUALLY happening. Because this lens is very cheap it has no chip meaning your camera will likely just through a tantrum when simulating because it doesn't know what aperture it is, just turn off the simulation and get some test shots to see what level your shutter and ISO should be :) if you already know what you're doing, apologies for the useless info!
@@Xethl You don't need to apologise for anything, my friend. I'm GRATEFUL for your help. 🙏🏻
I bought this lens 2 Weeks ago and its great for that price. I like the stiff Focus ring, because it feels good when I have to Focus a small focus area. The black corners and the chromatic aberations aren` t the big of a Problem.
Cool short, too, I like your videos.
"Would you consider buying this lens"
no, my wallet cannot go in the negatives
Apart from that yes
Long telephoto lenses are no rocket science, especially without AF and IS and if you compromise on color correction and aperture.
For all I need, my very old tele zoom 70-200 f/4 (constant) is more than enough, combined with 46 MPixel to crop in.
I would get this thing for shooting the moon or solar eclipse
I think I’m going to buy it, manual focusing is a really good exercise to be present while taking the shot, and it is great to seat with a lens like that on a porch and or in a camping site and taking photos while been relaxed
I shot the eclipse with it.
Where is the photo?
That's I think the best application for this lens
U use eclipse filter. Camrea lens. Get same effect if u dont have right glasses
Yup, and that’s the only time you’ll use it.
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089 I use it for b-roll too!
Love the CS sound clip
For under $400 i would totally buy it
Only if i had $400😭
mood! 😂
Is 329
Wide open at 6.3? That's the key right there. I would like to see more examples in a less frenetic vid. But it looks like a worthwhile look. The Leica Noctilux has similar fringing, so...
for Astrophotography ... might be a nice cheap possibility to get a nebula closer to the sensor
The missing image stabilisation would bother me more than the missing autofocus. If you that tight on a budget I would look for something second hand.
Which 500mm lens with image stabilization comes for that low price second hand ? I will get one
Not a prime, but you can get a zoom that's f6.3 at 500mm and probably sharper.
Good lense for the price.
I actually have bought this lens, and when i was on a Trip in Italy with it it served me well, especially photographing smaller wildlife thats relatively close (about 5m) is a ton of fun. Especially Lizards, butterflies and the likes. You can get basically macro shots without being so close that you scare them away.
That pigeon looks high AF
Bri casually pulls out a 500mm lens 💀💀😭😭
I got it for moon photography since the subject is not that fast-moving. I really like it!
x)
I would. I still shoot with the 80s Tokina 400mm 5.6 RMC. Oddly, it appears the Ca is much better in that old Tokina
Pick them up in its old form factor on line or at yard sales ect. $50
Most of them has fungus and that causes image to not be sharp
i just bought 10 year old Sigma 50-500mm AF OS, for just little over 400€. definitely better deal than this prime lens 😁
I bought this and found that focusing was extremely difficult. The images the were in focus were good. But nailing the focus down was so hard I returned the lens.
What I look in a lens that large. 1) weight 2) sharpness 3) build quality.
For the price, it looks amazing!
Eyedropper that purple fringe you don’t just crank the slider, tune it to the specific hue
Cheap is when something saves you Time and Effort. So therefore this Lens really isn't cheap. I worry far less about the manual focusing part as opposed to having to correct lens faults in Software. Would love to see Viltrox counter with a Super Telephoto in the 300 to 400mm range at 5.6 with better Glass but still only manual. Most wouldn't mind spending a little bit extra for that.
It’s a good deal but when you zoom in the word “sharp” isn’t what I would say about it
Amazing lens
ND aperture means no control over depth of field. and I doubt that any of these sample photos were taken with that lens unless cropped significantly. It's bound to have moderate to severe vignetting, which is not evident in any of the samples. And a f/6.3 lens is awfully dim necessitating longer exposure times or high ISO which will be noisy as hell.
Especially for my crop camera, yes that's a neat lens to know about
I'd probably pick up a vintage lens at the same focal length for less. It might have a bit less contrast because of the older coatings, but should otherwise be similar.
Of course I would! I want to take a good look at the moon!
I really like the word "just"
Found it for sale $369 think I'm going to pick it up. Doing astrophotography seen a couple samples of people that used it already. Thanks didn't know it existed.
I know that Cathedral!! Local?
Peterborough right?
@@jaroslavzavesky yes sir!
Looking forward to seeing a person with this thing at the beach or in civil public. :-D
Biggest issue will be manual focussing at 500mm. Good luck photographing anything that moves
The Sigma 100-400 DG DN lens is around $570 here in Japan. Loss of 100mm but a far more usable lens for not a whole lot more money.
for the price its good, the purple line is not that bad because for the price
I've got an old Tamron 200-500mm lens that I use with my A5000 and it only cost me $80, works perfectly fine.
I usually removed chromatic aberation by masking it with 0 saturation but this makes it a lot easier
f6.3......wide open? 😁 😂 😀
Well, it is 500mm after all .........
That’s normal for 500mm
@@raudelravelo1169 lest you have some 10k lying around just to burn on a prime you are right.
NO stabilisation means you always need to carry a tripod. NO autofocus means it is not good for wildlife or sports.
Thats impressive for the price - even if it will demand that you manually focus it.
How does the slider work digitally to detect purple fringing and remove them without remove the intended purple colour in the picture?
Try crazy USSR lense "MTO-1000" or "MTO-11"
Added to my list - thanks for the suggestion!
When I was in the military we had military style text on everything. I think.
Would it be possible to get this lens for a Leica M?
Bro said 'just' before $329😭
can you try adapting this to a micro 4/3 with a speed booster? I dont know how exactly it works out but I think it would be a 710mm f4 point something...
This sounds like a great deal for this low price. Do you or someone else know how good it works on an aps-c camera? And does the lens work on dslr camera's? It would be nice to know that
Nah, the Sarblue Mak60 telescope using a t-adapter gives you 750mm in a tiny lightweight package. I mount mine upside down so I can dial the focus with my other hand while shooting. Currently it goes for $129 on Amazon. 😎
What about old MTO 500mm?
Hey man, maybe you know, I won the Hasselblad masters 2023 somehow, and Now I get the x2d 100c and 2 lenses. But Hasselblad doesnt have a 300mm or more tele. Is there another option for the xcd mount? 😅
Thanks alot!
Well for such a long focal length and low cost, can't say i'm surprised by the chromatic aberration, vignetting, and lack of autofocus. The low cost has to come from somewhere
I buy this lens.
That lens does the job right for the price.
Nope. Happy with my Sigma 60-600 fullframe DSLR on mu 77D and R8. Brilliant!
Is this in Peterborough?
So why does it not even have autofocus?😂
Because then it would be more like 1000 bucks! ;)
Heyy is that the Cathedral in Peterborough
That’s Cathedral in Peterborough I live near it lol 😂
Wait… hold a damn second here…. THERES A DEFRINGING SLIDER IN LIGHTROOM?!? I totally didn’t know this!!!!
1kmm on MFT baby
For 425$ you can get a vintage Nikkor f4 thats superior to this.
For the price, i can see a lot of people giving it a shot. Great for taking low quality images of birds and neighbors. 😂
That's a fair bit of chromatic aberration but at least it's possible to correct for
Did it have a af?
Nah, I’ll pass. I’m not a wildlife photographer and neither do I find any value in spying on my neighbors. Looks nice though. :)
Does it have AF
no need, I prefer my 500mm PF
Not no, HEEEECK NO!
Why bother? Just keep saving and get a lens that will realistically be useful for wildlife.
I bought one.
the biggest challenge with tta is how long does the cheap lens will survive before you need to throw it in the trash ….
You don't need to worry about that with this one. You could hammer in nails with it 🤣
@@TomCalton I made my TT experience and for me the built quality is super cheap. And thats OK, its a cheap lens. But I need a workhorse, something I can count on…
How abput a used 150-500(600)mm.got mine for 350€ from a camera store in good condition.
Nope. Even if it’s cheap, it’s still a waste of money because before long, you’ll quickly tire of using it because manual focusing at 500mm is irritating. The lens will just gather dust. No thanks. Use the $329 elsewhere.
No good at all! I bought a brand new Nikon 70-300mm for $200 !!! It's extremely cheap. I used it for professional purposes, it's sharp and flawless! It has Autofocus & Vibration Reduction, which means you can use it without a tripod !!! The photos taken with it look much better than with my 50mm pancake, yeah, it's true!
Ideal for my nikon d3100😅
For sure you didn't mention it doesn't have autofocus.
Lack of autofocus is a no go for me.
I got a used sigma 150-600 c with a 1.4x tc for $550. I would say that provides a ton more value than this lens.
Dark patches? There is name for that....
紫霞仙子😅
Haha wide open F6.3 😂
"military style" as the promotion image is deceptive at best. Also that text is not what any military would be putting on a piece of equipment as it would stand out far too clearly. This is clearly advertorial and not a genuine review.
Interesting. I think I would rather pay $100 more for a used Canon RF 600mm f11.
Don't mind for spying
yummy astro lens
That lens is tiny, good for shooting the moon, no?
Whilst I agree it's cheap it's not much use if there's loads of CA. I'm convinced there no ED glass in it . And it would be better if it had ED glass even it meant being twice as expensive Wouldn't buy as it stands