Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Comparison of ATX 95mm and Canon Telephoto lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 12th February 2015, 14:14   #1
rdcny
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 130
Comparison of ATX 95mm and Canon Telephoto lenses

Nice review by Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals in the USA of the Swarovski 95mm scope and the new Canon 500mm lens and the 800mm telephoto as well:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...uper-tele-lens
rdcny is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th February 2015, 15:00   #2
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,061
A pretty unfair comparison…

Mostly because of the diffraction (small f-number) scopes have a difficulty in competing with a pure photographic telephoto lens.

The scope solution has a lot more lens elements involved in the light pathway,
probably the significant central longitudinal CA (even at 40x) in the swaro is a result of that,
A bit of TLS APO "optical hybris" I would say, physical laws are hard to overcome, kowas solution I think is a bit more focused on IQ though not as convenient.

But don't forget, the swaro scope is not cheap but still just a third of the canon 500mm lens….
and significantly lighter,
but the main weakness with the swaro solution is not mentions in the article though,
the lack of auto focus,
pretty much like building a house of cards with a stick…

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 12th February 2015 at 15:14.
Vespobuteo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th February 2015, 15:45   #3
rdcny
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 130
not an unfair comparison - imo...by the way, Roger Cicala is a retired MD and Clay is a representative for Swarovski. Those are the two people who did the test...if it was unfair why would Swarovski have participated on an official level? they knew what they were doing...

people need info to make decisions - this study shows the strengths and weaknesses of digiscoping vs. using a telephoto lens.
rdcny is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th February 2015, 16:24   #4
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdcny View Post
not an unfair comparison - imo...by the way, Roger Cicala is a retired MD and Clay is a representative for Swarovski. Those are the two people who did the test...if it was unfair why would Swarovski have participated on an official level? they knew what they were doing...

people need info to make decisions - this study shows the strengths and weaknesses of digiscoping vs. using a telephoto lens.

A comparison with Kowa digiscoping equipment would have been more interesting, from the Swaro point of view...

competing with probably the worlds best lenses that costs 3-4 times the price of the scope is pretty unfair.…imo



but one interesting thing is the IQ difference at short and long range comparison,
looking at short range resolution charts doesn't say much about what happens in the real world
observing on long distance

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 12th February 2015 at 16:30.
Vespobuteo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th February 2015, 01:13   #5
Neil
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong (ex Sydney)
Posts: 10,176
Interesting comparison and a not surprising result. For a birder who takes photographs he is not going to be too swayed by this. But for a photographer who photographs birds and wants to get the best quality possible then this is good to know. Price shouldn't come into this discussion because everyone has different views about how much they want to spend for their hobby and if it's a business ( selling photos) then you most go for the best.
A major difference for me between the two approaches is you get Auto Focus with the lens and you get observing ability with the scope. I wouldn't give up the ability to scan birds out at distance for Auto Focus but I have a friend in India who does both. But he has a car and camera wallah to move his kit around.
Neil.
Neil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th February 2015, 16:46   #6
rdcny
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 130
Thanks Neil - yes for some situations the scope with camera is better...and other situations the camera with telephoto is better.

Overall it is great to see people doing more or less scientific tests (making variables such as distance to subject and lighting) equal - and then comparing results.
rdcny is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comparison of ATX 95mm and Canon Telephoto lenses rdcny Swarovski 3 Thursday 26th February 2015 18:11
Comparison between lenses Cristian Mihai Olympus 0 Wednesday 20th August 2014 18:30
Telephoto Lenses kchiasson Canon 7 Friday 11th January 2013 09:16
Digiscoping through old telephoto lenses Paul Corfield Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 2 Wednesday 9th March 2005 13:20
Add-on telephoto lenses Martin Jones The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 32 Thursday 24th July 2003 13:12

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.13764691 seconds with 16 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52.