All images © Bob Atkins

7.jpg

This website is hosted by:
Host Unlimited Domains on 1 Account

5.jpg

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Web www.bobatkins.com
*
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 12:45:05 AM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by Bob Atkins
For Photography, the Canon 500mm lens is very similar to the Televue Genesis. I've tested the two side by side. However the Canon wins out in terms of size, weight and convenience (as well as having a variable aperture, autofocus and image stabilization!). I didn't test field flatness, just resolution in the central region of the image.

However in an absolute resolution contest (e.g. splitting close double stars) I suspect that the Televue would win. A lens really doesn't need to be (and rarely is) diffraction limited wide open. The limitations of film and digital sensors mean they don't need 1/10th wave optics.

I do have a way of putting an eyepiece on a FD Canon 500/4.5L converted to an EF mount (see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/Lens-scope-adapter.html) that I have and it makes an excellent telescope. However it's limited to 0.965" eyepieces because there's not enough back focus distance to get a 1.25" diagonal and eyepiece in there. I don't have any high quality short focal length 0.965" eyepieces to do resolution tests with the lens.

Field flatteners are for photographic use, often when you want to shoot with a full frame 35mm or Medium format camera. They are often used with telescopes which just have a doublet or triplet objective. I think the Genesis is pretty flat field without a flattener, because the second doublet flattens the field as well as shortens the objective focal length (i.e. act as a reducer for the ~1000mm fl of the objective doublet) and compensates for chromatic and seidel aberrations. I'm not sure if there's a field stop between the front doublet and the rear doublet in the Genesis, but I haven't ever looked at it closely.

 2 
 on: July 21, 2014, 11:59:36 PM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by klindup
The Parracor is a doublet that can be used with a Newtonian telescope to correct for coma.  In the current Televue  Petzval design the rear doublet is an integral part of the telescope and cannot be removed.  I believe that they used to sell another model (NP102)  where the rear doublet was an optional extra.   However as Bob says, one of these scopes weighs around 10 lbs and is 26 inches long so is not really portable.  And that goes without the bulk and weight of the tripod which is even heavier.
I am curious about one thing though.  Canon use more elements in their 500mm.  OK it is f4 and much shorter and double the cost.  How does the Canon offering compare in image quality with a Televue such as the NP101?
Ken

 3 
 on: July 21, 2014, 04:56:56 PM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by mjperini
TeleVue makes great stuff.
So in a Petval view camera lens we two doublets -one on either side of the iris, in the TeleVue , no iris bit the doublets are much further apart (correct?)
The rear doublet in the TeleVue is is the second half of the Petzval Objective and  different than a "field flattener"  TeleVue brand name Parracor I think-- is that correct?
Is the only purpose of the field flattener to make the image plane coplanar with the sensor? or is it for visual observation too.
And is the field flattener different yet again from the focal reducers I see for SCT's ?

I own a 24" f/11 Apo Artar which is also a 4 element design, is it also Petzval derived?

And finally speaking of high quality four element systems, I seem to remember Leica having some very simple (as in few elements) telephotos, An early Telyt or maybe Tele Elmar??  I can't find it at the moment but I thought it had only 4 elements  would that have been a petzval derived design?

Thank you for this education ; -))

 4 
 on: July 21, 2014, 03:39:07 PM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by Bob Atkins
That's the classic Petzvel lens design which was developed in the mid 1800s. It's what Televue use on their short refractors like mine 500mm f5 and the newer 540mm f5.4. They also use a fluorite element in the correction doublet to better suppress chromatic aberration.

The objective is actually a long focus doublet and the rear doublet not onlt coorects aberrations but shortens the final focal length.

It does make a very fine camera lens, but, as I can tell you from carrying one out to Yellowstone many years ago, it's very long and rather heavy for a 500mm lens.

 5 
 on: July 20, 2014, 11:18:13 PM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by klindup
The other way that seems to. work well is to use  ELD glass in the doublet at the front and then to mount  two more elements at the rear to flatten the field and to  reduce the focal length.  This gives a nice 540mm f 5.4 that is aberration free.  It has a wide field  of view and also makes a very sharp long focus lens for terrestrial photography.  It is bigger and heavier than a Canon equivalent lens, especially with its tripod and is of fixed aperture.   If you can work with these limitations you have a superb telescope and  camera lens in one package.  If you go to the Televue website you can see examples of some of the results people have achieved with one brand of such a telescope.

Ken Lindup

 6 
 on: July 20, 2014, 10:47:11 PM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by Bob Atkins
I don't see why it's not a viable design, though they don't give details of the precise optical configuration. The singlet objective would have chromatic aberration, but that could presumably be corrected by the rear lens group. Both the mirror(s) and the rear lens group could correct the Seidel aberrations.

Seems like it would make a very nice planetary telescope. At 2400mm and f12 it's a little slow for photography and wide field views might be tricky. Sounds pretty nice though and the price is certainly well below what you'd pay for an 8" refractor with a conventional doublet or triplet objective using exotic glass or fluorite.

I have a 4" f5 (500mm fl) Genesis APO (with a fluorite corrector element)  which is a nice compact scope and works well for photography and wider field viewing. It's still reasonably portable too.

 7 
 on: July 19, 2014, 06:37:02 PM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by mjperini
Bob,
As a Boy I was an Amateur telescope builder / assembler, and have always had an interest, although I've done almost nothing with it for many years.
I did purchase a little 80mm f/7.5  with a 2" focuser for my house in Montauk pt NY which can be fun.
But I do occasionally read stuff with the vague Idea of someday upgrading to something better -but not crazy maybe a 4" Apo (Which seems to be a bit loosly used by some manufacturers)
Then I came across this  http://www.zerochromat.net/features.html
They claim true Apochromatic performance from an 8" / 203mm f/12  double convex singlet corrected by mirrors and a rear lens system.
Not that I'm thinking of buying one, but is this a scientifically viable design ? They claim a Strehl ratio of 0.995.
Huh?

 8 
 on: July 18, 2014, 08:34:07 AM 
Started by mjperini - Last post by mjperini
I am a stills photographer, my Wife & Daughter are stills photographers who shoot weddings and events.  They shoot RAW exclusively. My wife's primary camera is a 7D which she uses with the 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. She wanted a lighter backup camera so we bought  a 70D with 40mm and 18-135 STM lenses.  They have not done any video professionally and probably don't plan to, but would like to be able to quickly capture some high quality video clips on occasion.
The 70D is a very nice camera. Since it has one custom setup function on the mode dial I was wondering the following:
What is the best way to set the camera up for video, and can it be done unser C on the mode dial so that she can move instantly from Av or Tv Stills work to an ideal video setup by just switching to C
If this has been covered somewhere else just point me there, thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

 9 
 on: July 16, 2014, 01:19:16 PM 
Started by Frank Kolwicz - Last post by Frank Kolwicz
Thanks, Johnny, but at some point you have to make choices.

I've got the lens back and there is some improvement, especially versus the poor optical performance I got after the last "fix", but the lens is nowhere near as good as an old, beaten-up one I rented last year - that lens produced beautifully sharp images 9 times out of 10, mine only produces barely acceptable images 1 time in 10. Analysis of the image files shows that focus is bouncing all around the subject, even a high-contrast black and white grid target in full sun, which should be the easiest thing for AF to grab onto.

Using LiveView, things are better, but that's no help with moving subjects as the focus is too slow and sometimes hunts the full range of focus before settling down and that takes a couple of seconds while the subject walks out of the frame and has to be found again and focus hunts again, etc.

It's a total waste of time to send it back again, Canon is uninterested in or unable to bring this lens back to how it performed when new and I think this may be the general case for the supertelephotos: break them and good luck to you in restoring optical performance. Mechanically, yes that works, but optically. . .

The way things stand now, I can't rely on getting any kind of critical focus with one or two frames; if I can't shoot at least a couple of dozen, there is little likelihood of finding a usably sharp image. Now I have to try to find uses for unsharp images, as that is what I have, mostly with this lens or hope to use my 100-400 instead, which can be relied on to get good focus almost every time without LiveView.

 10 
 on: July 15, 2014, 11:03:13 AM 
Started by Frank Kolwicz - Last post by Johnny
What a mess!!!  Huh Don`t give up!  Smiley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10