DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
The 400 alone...
is at any rate MUCH better than my old Olympus OM 300/4.5 with the Oly TC.
is at any rate MUCH better than my old Olympus OM 300/4.5 with the Oly TC.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Astroscope + DSLR = Gallery! (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter cango
- Start date
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I have never said that a Canon 500 or 600 was worth 20x times as much Dan - lenses are subject to the rule of diminishing returns the same as most things in this world. But to say that the SW80ED is as good or even better than a big white is absolutely ludicrous to me but then we all have our opinions :t:
Comparing lenses of different prices is a subjective thing. Take the case of a lens like the Canon 400/5.6 when comparing it to say the Canon 600/4 MkII which cost some 10x more - some folks are willing to pay the premium for the extra quality/reach but they are not necessarily saying it is 10x better. To others they would never even consider paying the extra price.
From my own experience I have used a Canon 300/2.8 and the SW80 and while I am quite pleased with the SW results it is no way as good as the Canon, that's for sure.
Leaving alone my own experiences I can only go by what bird images I have seen from other folks with Astroscopes ,both on this forum and on other web sites and although I have seen a few nice shots there is nothing out there to compare with a good shot taken with the Canon 500/4, 600/4 or even 800/5.6. IMHO.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Obviously agree about cost Jules as the astroscopes are excellent value for money (especially if you cannot afford the 'real thing'
) but I have not seen any evidence myself that the astroscopes beat them on IQ. At the end of the day I can only go by the images I am seeing on sites like this and other around the web, and I am yet to be convinced that they even come near. OK I could easily pick a nice astroscoped shot and compare it with a poor 600/4 shot but that would prove nothing.
Last edited:
The most comprehensive digiscope vs long lens evaluation I've seen is here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/scoping-out-digiscoping
The summary:
If you want to make prints or present large images on large screen, there is no substitute for a good telephoto lens. Digiscoping, even with the best equipment, doesn’t come close.
However, if you want to record telephoto images to show as online jpgs or video, digiscoping provides many advantages: smaller size, greater magnification, and lower cost.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/scoping-out-digiscoping
The summary:
If you want to make prints or present large images on large screen, there is no substitute for a good telephoto lens. Digiscoping, even with the best equipment, doesn’t come close.
However, if you want to record telephoto images to show as online jpgs or video, digiscoping provides many advantages: smaller size, greater magnification, and lower cost.
You cannot compare like that, I think. Only way to compare is to do side by side comparison with same camera, same distance same all etc (as much as it is possible of course) I, personally haven't seen such a comparison, so I don't have a clue if an astroscope is on par with the big white canon lenses, or not.
You will obviuosly see much more stunning pics of eagles in flight catching fish etc, with a big white lens, because of the AF, and the fact that there are much more of them out there, of course. But that has nothing to do with the lens image quality in itself, but the whole systems ability, of course.
(and yes - this is a gallery thread - but I have long ago given up keeping it "clean" LOL ;-) on the other hand I think of it a a long good place to hang out, for us all
)But that is also not relevant here, since we don't do THAT kind of digiscoping.
I'll stick my neck out here - But please do not get offended or interpret Paul in such a way. From what I've learnt here, I know he did not mean anything by it -at least not the way you think.
Seeing forward to see more pics from you.
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
The 20x better was meant to be tongue in cheek! You are absolutely right about the rule of diminishing returns. At the top you pay a LOT for very slight improvements. The differences are much greater on the lower end.
I myself would very much like to see some objective comparisons of say a WS 80/600 and a Canon 600, or 400+TC.
Of course, one of the huge advantages you would have with the Canon is the superb AF. At such long focal lengths the slightest focus error can ruin an otherwise good shot.
I myself would very much like to see some objective comparisons of say a WS 80/600 and a Canon 600, or 400+TC.
Of course, one of the huge advantages you would have with the Canon is the superb AF. At such long focal lengths the slightest focus error can ruin an otherwise good shot.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I fact Dan, with a new Canon 600/4 MkII costing around £11,000 against the £300 I paid for the SW80ED it is more like 36x difference in cash:eek!:
P.S. 18 new post in this thread today has livened things up a bit if nothing else!
Last edited:
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
The test I saw was posted in this forum a few years ago and showed a side by side test of the Canon 600mm and a 600mm scope. It wasn't an SW80ED but it was a similar spec. The photographer took photos of the same static subjects without teleconverters, then with the Canon 1.4X and 2x TC's. The close up crops showed good sharpness thoughout with the scope where as the Canon got softer. I've tried on a few occassions to hunt down the post with the link but as some threads go on for quite a few pages I haven't managed to find it yet.
Paul.
Paul.
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Obviously agree about cost Jules as the astroscopes are excellent value for money (especially if you cannot afford the 'real thing'
Roy, I didn't write that "astroscopes beat them on IQ". I wrote "...the telescopes beat them easily on cost and reach."
I'd like to compare a photo taken with an APS-C sensor Canon camera with a 600mm Canon Lens and a 2.0X TC with a 2000mm FF eq. photo of the same image taken by Paul on an astroscope. IMO, we could have a surprise. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'll never be able to test one of those cannons...
Your comment about diminishing returns is right on the money. And this is not just about photography...
IMO, the greatest advantage of the big white lenses is ease of use. Instant and accurate focus, stabilized and a much much much better keeper ratio.
Last edited:
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Ah, yes....keeps us old farts on out toes, eh?!
For £11,000 you could get a SW80ED AND a car to drive it around in!o
Paul, if you ever find it, post it. What I have seen so far from my SW has been impressive. The simplicity of the optical system has a lot going for it, especially with the good ED glass.
For £11,000 you could get a SW80ED AND a car to drive it around in!o
Paul, if you ever find it, post it. What I have seen so far from my SW has been impressive. The simplicity of the optical system has a lot going for it, especially with the good ED glass.
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Jules, I do not know about 2000mm but I would take the Canon 600/4 + 1.4x tc (840mm) against the SW80ED + 1.4x tc (840mm) any day - both would be 1344mm FOV on my 1.6 crop camera. I have not even tried a 2x tc on my SW80 as I have been under the impression from the likes of Paul that it is a step too far ( I will try sometime though as I do have a 2x tc).
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Please do and show us the results. It will be a meaningful test.
I'm sorry you did not find it useful.
It seemed pretty much on target to me, but clearly there are other opinions.
Additional guidance/explanation/clarification would be appreciated and helpful.
Please don't take it the wrong way.
The test was about spotting scope(s) vs telephoto lens. This, being the "astroscope" section, has some things in common with spotting scopes, but also (and perhaps a bit more) more in common with a telephoto lens (without the AF, of course) - as we shoot in so called "prime mode". That is, telescope directly attached to dslr camera - as if it were a telephoto lens, though manual focus only. Without eyepiece and erecting prisms.
This is why I thought the results might not quite apply here (with astroscopes).
However, nowadays things have been evolving fast, with new adapters making traditional spotting scopes attach to dslr the same way we do with our astroscopes. And of course, an astroscope (with it's original intended form of use), is a spotting scope when adding a prism and eyepiece.
I truely hope you did not get offended by my earlier post.
Paul Corfield
Well-known member
I've tried a lot of 7 elelment 2X teleconverters, probably at one time or another I've tried every variant that has been made and never been all that impressed with sharpness compared to using a 1.4X and cropping. I've not splashed out on any of the big name ones though such as Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sigma apo etc. Once I discovered the three element telenegatives from old zooms to be sharper and better corrected than my Kenko Pro 1.4X I gave up on teleconverters completely. Telenegatives work in a very similar way to teleconverters but the scope doesn't need the extra glass elelments that a teleconverter has. On the other hand putting a telenegative on the back of a camera lens doesn't work all that well and I think the rear lens groups in a camera lens have something to do with that. Using a telenegative group on the scope is mimicking how it would be working inside a zoom lens.
I like to always work towards using the least amount of glass to capture an image. To use more glass and still capture a good image is generally where the costs start to go out of control.
Paul.
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
I've tried a lot of 7 elelment 2X teleconverters, probably at one time or another I've tried every variant that has been made and never been all that impressed with sharpness compared to using a 1.4X and cropping. I've not splashed out on any of the big name ones though such as Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sigma apo etc. Once I discovered the three element telenegatives from old zooms to be sharper and better corrected than my Kenko Pro 1.4X I gave up on teleconverters completely. Telenegatives work in a very similar way to teleconverters but the scope doesn't need the extra glass elelments that a teleconverter has. On the other hand putting a telenegative on the back of a camera lens doesn't work all that well and I think the rear lens groups in a camera lens have something to do with that. Using a telenegative group on the scope is mimicking how it would be working inside a zoom lens.
I like to always work towards using the least amount of glass to capture an image. To use more glass and still capture a good image is generally where the costs start to go out of control.
Paul.
Very interesting. 2 questions about this analysis Paul.
1- What about barlows ? How do they compare to TCs and TNs ?
2- How should the parts be ordered between the camera and scope ? Spacers and TC or TN ? Would a spacer between a TN and the scope increase magnification ?
Thanks for your help.
Hi Cango,
Thank you for the helpful clarification.
The initial focus was indeed on astroscopes, but as usual on BF, the thread 'evolved' somewhat, so comparisons with spotting scopes took over the discussion.
That said, it seems intuitive that a lens designed to provide an optimal image across a 35mm sensor would be much more challenging to build than something that serves the human eye. So presumably the crux is the sensor the scope or lens is designed for. Or is that another misunderstanding?
Thank you for the helpful clarification.
The initial focus was indeed on astroscopes, but as usual on BF, the thread 'evolved' somewhat, so comparisons with spotting scopes took over the discussion.
That said, it seems intuitive that a lens designed to provide an optimal image across a 35mm sensor would be much more challenging to build than something that serves the human eye. So presumably the crux is the sensor the scope or lens is designed for. Or is that another misunderstanding?
Last edited:
No, I think you're right. the two are made for different uses, so that has to have some effect, I think.
