Idle Mind

Boojum

Well Known Member
Followers
5
Following
0
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Posts
419
Likes Received
210
Name
Sandy
Country
United States
City/State
Astoria, Oregon
Yes, an idle mind, or its vestiges, are the Devil's playground. I dug out the old Tamron 500.0 mm f/8.0 mirror lens and was screwing around with it. Yeah, too many toys and too much time. Blame it on the virus. This is a blossom of some sort a few houses away. Not bad color and definition for an old mirror lens, first iteration of this model, too. Hand-held so it could be sharper.


DSC00093.JPG
  • ILCE-7M3
  • ----
  • 1/160 sec
  • ISO 250
 
Last edited:
Curses to you my friend! I've been thinking of grabbing one of those lenses for fun for a while now. Talked myself out of it . . . . then you post. Drats!

Too many toys??? Is that even possible???? Oh, wait, yeah, that's what my wife tells me all the time. More drats!
 
Curses to you my friend! I've been thinking of grabbing one of those lenses for fun for a while now. Talked myself out of it . . . . then you post. Drats!

Too many toys??? Is that even possible???? Oh, wait, yeah, that's what my wife tells me all the time. More drats!

I paid $138 for it on eBay. It is the first iteration. The second is supposed to be better but lacks the lens barrel support for tripod attachment.

Here are a couple more:



Mine are all hand-held.

Reviews. There are others. For the money it is hard to beat.


 
Thanks for sharing the info. I was looking at one for a few rare times I wanted some reach and didn't want to pay for a lens that cost several times what I paid for my whole a6000 kit. As someone who's quite familiar with optics, I fully understand, as far as quality is concerned, you get what you pay for, but for me, its about playing and experimenting with the hobby. I haven't purchased one because I realized I already have a couple things I can play with for now. One is a similar lens, an old Meade 97d Maksutov spotter/lens, that I picked up cheap at a swap meet, that has at best, so-so optics, but it's f/11 with a 1000mm fl. Not exactly camera friendly. It's also designed for .965 eyepieces which means it'll vignette heavily. The second option is my "portable" APO refractor telescope which @f/7 and 658mm would be better, although quite a bit bulkier.

The Tamron is still attractive because it better meets the specs of the bulky refractor, with the portability of the spotter/lens and I'm ok with the cost if it doesn't work out. You got me thinkin' again.

Meade Mak spotter:

IMG_20210819_095259550.jpg

IMG_20210819_095322305.jpg
 
After reading the linked articles I see that the Tamron has internal optics to flatten the field. The second mirror in the optics has a fairly steep curve (magnification) introducing field curvature at the focal plane. - a bad thing for a flat camera sensor. If used visually, the eye can compensate for the differing focal points - somewhat. My big telescope is of the uncorrected design. When doing astrophotography, an add on reducer/flattener is usually used.

Knowing this, the Tamron is even more attractive to me.

Tom
 
I think I got a lot of bang for my buck. A filter for it would cost as much as the lens. At $138 it was a bargain and I do have fun with it now and again. Yes, the depth of field is shallow and, yes it is hard to focus. But careful fiddling will get it focused. This pic of the stern of the Regatta is sharper.

L1000129.JPG
  • LEICA M (Typ 240)
  • not selected
  • 1/1000 sec
  • ISO 200




Here is a link to the pic on Flickr if you wish to zoom on it: https://flickr.com/photos/sandynoyes/50622441157/in/album-72157716960219062/lightbox/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top