Check out my latest video : • Zhiyun Smooth Q - Does... Huge lens: amzn.to/2mVefdP tiny lens: amzn.to/2nc9skr Sony a6500: amzn.to/2nisAxX Lens used in this video: amzn.to/2nilwBx Tripod: amzn.to/2niuQ8q Bendy Tripod:amzn.to/2ob7Xnw
TO ANSWER IF IT SUCKS OR NOT: It doesn't suck for the price. I was impressed with the sharpness that could be achieved. New $87 link: amzn.to/2p3Sbgn (the last one went up to $120)
Christopher Burress it looks pretty decent at 500mm (when watching on my phone, anyway). But it's pretty atrocious at 1000. The only use at 1000mm would be for surveillance of some sort. Thanks for the video! Definitely an interesting lens.
It does look atrocious at 1000mm because of the heat-shimmer in the atmosphere. a still image would remove that element. I'm not defending the lens, just adding some insight.
Depends on your location. Remember the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "viral" prank? Black box with wires dangling from it attached to a bridge... Boston: under lock-down - same thing in SF nobody gives a shit.
@ wackerr, lol, "Let's see, over here we have a police station, then a nuclear power plant, over there is the Governors mansion, a church and lastly my ex-wife walking the dog" yeah sounds legit :-D
When the first sample picture of his wife came up I literally said wow, pretty impressive sharpness. I suppose considering my expectations were very low.
Heck even with low expectations that was INCREDIBLY impressive. The city shots were less impressive but that's mainly due to atmospheric effects, the actual air puts a limit on the sharpness that can be achieved, but the portraits literally blew me away. I was in no way expecting to be able to discern individual hairs, there's very little or no chromatic aberration at all... Unbelievable deal for certain situations.
*Perfect! I can secretly film my crush without him calling the cops now. I hate it when he pranks me like that smh. We're actually married; he just doesn't know it yet! Wish me luck guys!*
@@jimmyhidalgo2680 Oh you don't get the joke don't ya. People like you are just stupit. I only open those comments to see people like you writing dumbshit :D
Actually at 500mm it didn't look to bad at all. 1000 was pushing it; though I think the heat in air had a huge part to play. It reminded me of what its like to look at the moon through a large dobsonian telescope, where the atmosphere creates a moving fluid like distortion.
That's going to happen with any lens when there is a large heat gradient in the atmosphere. I don't generally take any long-distance photos, or use any telescope before allowing the optic to reach atmospheric temperature for just that reason. A closed lens takes longer to reach equilibrium than an open optic (such as a reflector telescope) does.
For the price, that's a pretty good lens! I had been using a Schmidt cassegrain 500mm lens on a Nikon Ftn some time ago, and it was just about as good as the lens you used in this video at 500mm. The 2X magnification reduces the quality of the photos. The interesting thing about these long lenses is that in hot weather, the heat distortion becomes very obvious. Very well presented, and a pretty good deal for $81!!
Largest refracting (read "telephoto")lens in the world is Yerkes Observatory telescope (40") with a focal length of 19,400 mm (63.64829 ft)! The format is 8"x10" so the DX "equivalent " would be about...29,000mm?? Long...
Native Texan, no, there's a very clear super thin upper left circular arc section outline to the left of the round AT&T logo carved into the concrete and a diffuse unevenly darkened patch of concrete, like moisture damage, in the lower part of the same circle and they certainly don't disappear. The circle is about the same size as the logo too. It looks like they had the logo moved to the right. Similarly, dark spots to the right of the current logo spell "&T".
I stand corrected. In my honest defense...i wasn't lying. When I first posted that reply, I watched multiple times to be sure. I swear to god it disappeared a few seconds later. 110% positive. I just rewatched all the scenes with that building, nothing. Didn't disappear. I'm going to chalk it up to monitor issues I guess. I dunno. But it DID disappear a few seconds later every time originally. *shrugs*
lightningwave I actually have a similar lens and took a picture of the moon that didn't turn out half bad. I used crop mode so it was effectively 1500mm. You can see it here instagram.com/p/9VLNY0Sk_c/
Airplane Emoji Thanks a lot for the link, looks quite good :-) Is this with editing afterwards or straight out of the camera? And do you have a link to the full size file by any chance?
lightningwave you don't need this long of a lens to take great shots of the moon. I took this image with a sigma 70-300mm cropped in post. instagram.com/p/BSzfsH9DWNg/
mirror lenses are also fun for this. i had a 500mm one with a x2 teleconverter. But the image quality was terrible, this lens looks a little better, but it's hard to objectify quality on a RU-vid video.
Yeah I agree. Personally I don't think I've ever seen a 2X converter that worked good. If you can find the exception, please let me know if you know of a 2x converter that works amazingly. 💟✅👍
I guess you can expect seeing a planet made of 99% chromatic aberration and 1% atmosphere. As for the moon, depends on the phase. Full moon - Most likely chromatic aberration all around the edge, and too bright to get any natural color and depth. Crescent - chromatic aberration along the edge, the rest too bright except for the darkest visible parts left. New moon - most likely just chromatic aberration.
Here we go, someone who gets it. I've had dozens of comments telling me that I have wasted my time and money and should do something more productive. Well, it worked out didn't it....
@@ChristopherBurress I wouldnt say you wasted your money exactly but you do get what you pay for and a lens like this is fine for amateur photography but if you were doing a professional job then higher quality would be expected and you'd probably wouldnt get away with using an 80 dollar lens. It all depends on the use of the product. If you're just starting out then it's a good tool to get some practice on but eventually it's not going to do the job you're looking for as you progress.
@@AmazingKevinWClark Are you serious? This man invested $80, made a video with the lens that now has over 2million views, I'd say he's gotten way more than he paid in the money made from youtube along
Various companies have been selling this same lens for probably at least 20-30 years. I have one from the 90's and used it for several shoots and always impressed by the lens for the price I bought it for like 25 years ago it more than paid for itself probably 100 times over. I wish all lenses were like this one.
I think brutally might be a strong word, it was filmed in a kitchen with hard surfaces everywhere, a wooden table, and I microphone about 14 inches away. No camera gear was harmed in the making of this film.thanks for watching though!
People bash cheap lenses, But if you compare a $100 lens to a $1500 lens, you'll see minor improvements all across the board. at the cost of another fourteen lens's. it's just not worth it unless you're a full time professional.
+Probably Not A Chicken there we go, some common sense! Some comments here bashing it aren't considering the fact that this is a 500mm lens, and I would NEVER spend $2k+ on a lens that would be this specific of a use case. So no matter how bad the $100 version is, it's better than any alternative on my radar.
@@ArthurEmbleton and you have your reasons for that just like he has his reasons for a 100dollar glass. The only question should be what do your pictures look like and what type of work do you do?
See that vibration in the video, well that's the reason I bought a remote control for my Nikon camera. When you are using it on a long zoom, the least camera movement is magnified. (PS. The price in Australia was close to $350.00. plus postage. Why is Australia called the lucky country again? And of course, there is also a 10% tax on top of that).
As a professional photographer, I was expecting horrid things, LOL! The big drawback is starting at an f/8, that's where more expensive lenses exceed. But other than that, it was really impressive! I figured barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting would be really bad. But for an $80 zoom lens, this really surprised me! I have a 500mm lens that cost me $500+, and while I can see the limitations of this lens, it wasn't a $500 Olympus lens, LOL! The one that really impresses me is the lack of barrel distortion. I figured the 1,000mm views would really show this flaw, but the lens did very well! If you didn't tell a professional photographer, they would be hard pressed to judge this lens badly. Although chromatic aberration is present, it isn't that bad. In fact, most wouldn't even notice it. And vignetting is almost non-present! One has to look at the really bright scenes to see it, and only when one looks close can it be noticed. This lens really blew me away! And I'm hard to please, LOL! P.S. The CCD needs cleaning. Telephoto lenses really bring out the flaws in a CCD's cleanliness, LOL!
When you get to really long lenses over distance, your single shot quality is often limited by the atmosphere, not the lens. Up closer, though, the cheaper ones probably have a super long minimum focus range, and show their weaknesses.
Thanks for the video. One of the things that never fails to disappoint is: When someone tests a zoom lens, they never tell us how far the camera is from the subject. Seeing 500mm and 1,000mm means nothing to the viewer because we can't tell how far you were from the AT&T sign to appreciate how clear it looks at 1,000mm.... If you test zoom lenses, it would be greatly appreciated if you could add the distance between you and the object. Thanks again for discovering unique items for the Sony A6x00.
There must be a factory somewhere in Asia that churns these lenses out, and it's been doing it since the days of film cameras and wet processing. I've seen them with a dozen different brand names but the performance was always the same... slightly muddy image with less than ideal contrast, which was not ideal with film. Digital however makes these lenses great value for money as any shortcomings can be corrected somewhat in post. Another advantage of these lenses is you'll get to see how much use you'll have for a long lens without spending, and possibly wasting, a lot of money.
With a 2x teleconverter, you lose 2 stops. (1,4x would be 1 stop). Forget 1000mm. You should use a solid tripod and a protected place where is no wind, then you are safe.
Good video. Getting back into the hobby after a 25 year absence. Fighting GAS already. Had to subscribe after seeing the parking garage and downtown you went to. Good to find a local on here. Thanks.
If you look at large lenses, cheap to expensive, the tripod mount goes to the lens instead of the camera. Especially when shooting football, they have massive zoom lenses with heavy glass. Try to hang that lens from the camera without being supported, and you'd mess up the mount hole.
looks pretty decent. impressed, considering it's 80 bucks. people, keep in mind that some of the softness is ineviteably linked to atmospheric refraction. 1000mm lens+tele cropped by the sensor to 1500mm, is going to pick up serious air turbulence.
You say dirty sensor or a dirty lens - I say "dirty" air. Looking at a very distant object with 1000mm lens means looking through a significant mass of air that contains pollen, vapour and other tiny particles. In Beijing you wouldn't see a shit at 1000mm focal length. :D
Dirty air LOL. Atmospheric pollution will cause a loss of contrast with distant objects but it's not going to cause a spot that's in a fixed location with in the frame. And, unless you're using VERY narrow apertures, contaminants such as dust simply don't show up on long lenses. What we're seeing is dust/dirt on the sensor, simple as that.
+ David Bohota "You say dirty sensor or a dirty lens - I say 'dirty' air." Not able to understand the question? Try again. Freeze the video at 7:40 and look at the lower right corner, just above the "@1000mm" text. See that black spot? And if you look further, there are several other similar spots all across the frame, but smaller/fainter. That's what he's asking about, and that's NOT "dirty air." It's dust specks and/or oil spots on the camera's sensor.
Not dirty air... Look at 7:40 and beyond as already stated... Not only the black speck but mid right aide there are hair(S)/fibers on the sensor.. At least 2 of them... Large ones too...
Funny that I saw a Dish Network dish on the AT&T building. It's pretty telling when the company that owns DirecTV doesn't use DirecTV. I guess they would know best.
+BassPlayerAvailable I think that if you are wanting some serious reach and don't want to spend a couple grand this is totally an option that I would recommend.
Minus the fact that it's not automatic, the image quality is actually really decent. I'm half tempted to make the purchase now, this video gave me some confidence in this lens.
Nay, i think he accidentaly put the text on the footage, nest both of them, then warpstabilized it. Usually the text shouldnt be stabilized altogether but it do make sense in this context.
dave091790 it shouldn't look any worse than this does, just the shake from the camera will probably be worse. If it's on a weighted tripod though it should be very similar quality in both stills and video.
If there's an adapter, it should be possible without any problems. Because of that small sensor, only the sweet spot in the center of the lens is used.
My fear of heights would make this video completely different. You : *stood near wall* "We've got a church down here" *leans camera over the edge* Me : *stood spot on in the center of the car park* "We got a nice safe wall right there, and juuuuust over that wall we're not approaching is a hill we're not photographing"
Worth mentioning, in case no one else has: this lens has a preset aperture, two rings. One ring "sets" the aperture, and the other must be closed down just before taking a still exposure, or while doing video to actually closed the aperture to the F-stop you have chosen. Leave it open so you can more accurately focus, but remember to work up (on Manual) your exposure settings with the pre-set ring closed, then re-open to frame, and focus and close ring just before exposure or filming. Added problem is every time the lens is touched it creates vibration. For a still photo wait 10-30 seconds for jitters to stop. For video plan to shoot 10 seconds of "waste" footage before action. I see your camera has in-body image stabilization, sensor-shift. Does that help?
1000mm in urban environments is really tricky. The air convection becomes really noticeable. For wildlife work, and long distance stuff in clean air its not bad. Need the WiFi remote trigger though. Besides bird hunting, I really haven't found a use for the 1000mm capability (I own 6" and 9.5" telescope's so astronomy work gets done with those). 500mm... Now, that's a lot of fun. For $80.00 its worth it I think. Its a lot of fun, and if while you are playing it gets mangled you haven't lost next months mortgage payment.
Wow, watched most of the video thinking “that looks familiar” before I realized it was 30 minutes from my house. Good review though, maybe fun to look at the moon with the kids if we can avoid breathing on the tripod.
1:45 It's a locking nut, thread it further on to the hood, thread the hood onto the lens until it is oriented in the desired direction, then turn the locking ring off until it locks against the lens and holds it in the right direction.
Christopher Burress you're kidding.. 35 feet. I've got a built-in 1000mm lens on my camera that focuses within roughly 10-12 feet? never bothered to check accurately, but damn. that's a lot further than expected.
Spiratone was selling these back in the 60s and 70s. I had a 400mm for my Miranda. They are called "pre-set" aperture where you have to use the second ring to actually stop down. When you remember. And the T mount lives on!
I have heard that above 50mm or so is great for capturing peoples faces, do you think there is enough compression at 1000mm to compliment people’s appearance? ;)
It looks good for the money. Clearly the fact that it's a plastic bodied lens group means that it doesn't have enough mass to dampen vibrations, but mass is easy and cheap to add. I'm actually considering buying from this company to replace a lens that was stolen a few decades ago. It was a mid-range (in terms of quality) zoom lens (105 - 205mm) that my dad found at a garage sale for $25. It had no chromatic aberration at any setting. The find of a lifetime.
You might have a lot of experience with handling extremely long objects but I'll bet you generally don't hold them still for very long though. Nice profile pic BTW.
It seems like it could bring something pretty unique. Reminds me of establishing shits of cityscapes from 80's films, always seemed a bit flat and creamy, excellent for playing with a look.
I found mine at a thrift store for 10 bucks without all the extras. 14 dollars for a t-mount to canon later... my wife stole it and shot Eagles all day with it. Oh well. She says it shots well.
