Olympus 1,600 mm for $150, can this be real?

[Vautrin]

So I was browsing on Amazon.com for stuff for my Olympus Evolt 510 -- window shopping more than anything else, when I saw they're selling an 800-1600 mm lens for $150.

Since the EVOLT is a 4/3, that's like 3200 mm focal length for $150. It's not a lot of money, but would the lens be any good?

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-420-1600mm-Telephoto-Olympus-Digital/dp/B000YGF1FO/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_2_2[/ame]

 

[epp_b]

No, this thing is a joke. These things pop up all the time on eBay and other auction and sales sites, but I'm surprised that Amazon has the gall to be selling this piece of junk. It's not worth the box it's packaged in.

Specs here: http://www.opteka.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=8

This is push-pull lens (you push and pull the focal length barrel in and out rather than turn a ring) and it undoubtedly has unprecedented aberrations and distortion of every sort. The real gotcha is that it is f/8 - f/11, making it completely useless for any purpose for which you might use a long telephoto. But that's not all, the joke goes even further. They include a 2x teleconverter, which robs the lens of two stops of light. It then becomes f/13 - f/22.

So, the answer is: you get what you pay for.

 

[stsinner]

Anybody buying Olympus is a joke...

But seriously, it's available at Amazon, so it's obviously not a joke.. Someone would have to order it and not get it before I would believe that it wasn't real.. I've been very satisfied with my Amazon purchases..

 

[Mitica100]

Stay away from Opteka! Really far away...

 

[benhasajeep]

It is only being sold on Amazon site. It is not being sold by Amazon. It is being sold by 47st Photo on the Amazon site. Which has been hocking these kiddie toys for a while now. They are going after the people who don't know any better. The people that see the big numbers and small price.

In the past I did fall for the $100 500mm cat lens. Think it was Promaster. When I got my first Nikon I was like I want a big lens. And ta da there was the Promaster 500mm cat lens for $129 I think at the local camera store. It was useable, but other than just looking through it, thats about all it was worth. Lots of grain in the pics. Thats when I learned glass and coatings make a big difference in lenses.

 

[usayit]

A tube with low quality glass.... that's all it is...

 

[Steph]

Anybody buying Olympus is a joke...

:scratch: Hmmm. Interesting.

 

[JerryPH]

Mirror lenses are VERY low quality and VERY slow. You get what you pay for.

 

[Steph]

Mirror lenses are VERY low quality and VERY slow. You get what you pay for.

This is not a mirror lens but the rest of your comment is true: 'you get what you pay for'.

 

[Overread]

Ever since I have seen these I have wanted to try one - just to see what its really like!
But -- I kinda want someone else to spend the cash its a little much for a paper weight in my opinion

 

[skieur]

I have the Opteka Slide Duplicator and there was no problem with shipping and delivery. It also works as advertised.

The telephoto lens is manual focus, so a tripod would be necessary and I did not see a tripod mount mentioned, but perhaps I missed it. As a push/pull focus it was said in one review that you would need to focus on something perfectly still. It would also take a little time to get the focus perfect. An f.8 to f.11 to 800mm with a 2X extender means f. 16 to f.22 at 1600mm. means shooting in bright sunlight only or with very slow shutterspeeds. The quality is a question mark. The centre area is probably sharp but as it goes out towards the edges...without the lab tests that magazines do on regular lenses, we really don't know.

This lens is for a photographer who recognizes its severe limitations, is gambling on it producing acceptable shots and has a particular use for it on a tripod, where set-up speed is not important.

skieur

 

[Steph]

Ever since I have seen these I have wanted to try one - just to see what its really like!
But -- I kinda want someone else to spend the cash its a little much for a paper weight in my opinion

The quality is a question mark. The centre area is probably sharp but as it goes out towards the edges...without the lab tests that magazines do on regular lenses, we really don't know.

Somebody posted pictures taken with this lens before, and they were not good. Even the centre of the frame was not sharp and chromatic aberrations were horrendous. Check the thread here. No need for a magazine test to see that the quality of this lens is really low.

 

[Overread]

hmm I missed that thread -though its interesting that such cheap lens can get resuts similar to what I can get for a lot more (though I don't seem to have the CA problem)
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131121

 

[epp_b]

Mirror lenses are VERY low quality and VERY slow. You get what you pay for.

Mirror lenses can be good and there are a few as fast as f/5.6, which is at least usable. But, at that point, they start to get pretty expensive, so why not just buy a proper lens?

 

[skieur]

Mirror lenses can be good and there are a few as fast as f/5.6, which is at least usable. But, at that point, they start to get pretty expensive, so why not just buy a proper lens?

This is NOT a mirror lens guys.

skieur