The Frankenlens! 2000mm!!!

Started Jun 13, 2004 | Discussions
toupsie Regular Member • Posts: 140
The Frankenlens! 2000mm!!!

(taken with a Canon PowerShot S10)

Not being satisfied with my Canon 100-400mmL IS for lunar photography and not having the cash for Canon 1200mmL, I decided to make up my own super telephoto. Sure I could go with a telescope and a T-Mount, but that isn't as portable as this setup. What I have done is buy a Rubinar 1000mm from RuGift.com, a M42 to Canon EOS mount converter, a Tamron 2x 300F-CA Teleconverter and an angle viewfinder then combined them all together with my Canon EOS 10D.

My first attempt at getting this mess to work failed with a "Err 01" every time I clicked the shutter. After some research I determined that the Tamron needed to have the contacts taped. After doing that, it worked perfectly. My understanding is that the Tamron is sending back to the 10D some confusing AF information because the other end of the Tamron has the solid metal M42 converter. Taping the contacts on EOS side of the Tamron prevents this. Can someone confirm this?

I have taken some test shots and they came out "good" but they are not what I designed this system to do. High winds outside today made the camera a little unstable on my Manfrotto but the angle viewfinder makes it a snap to focus this "frankenlens". The main purpose for this set up is to take pictures of the moon. When I get a good night, I will post my results. I am really looking forward to a clear night now.

I am just amazed it works at all. I figured that it was cheap enough to try and I could always dump the lens on eBay if it failed.
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

Paul S. R. Regular Member • Posts: 362
Re: The Frankenlens! 2000mm!!!

Take a shot down the street or something, lets some photos from this beast!

I built my own 2550MM lens for my old Point and shoot digital. I sold it with the camera.

Paul S. R.

toupsie wrote:

(taken with a Canon PowerShot S10)

Not being satisfied with my Canon 100-400mmL IS for lunar
photography and not having the cash for Canon 1200mmL, I decided to
make up my own super telephoto. Sure I could go with a telescope
and a T-Mount, but that isn't as portable as this setup. What I
have done is buy a Rubinar 1000mm from RuGift.com, a M42 to Canon
EOS mount converter, a Tamron 2x 300F-CA Teleconverter and an angle
viewfinder then combined them all together with my Canon EOS 10D.

My first attempt at getting this mess to work failed with a "Err
01" every time I clicked the shutter. After some research I
determined that the Tamron needed to have the contacts taped. After
doing that, it worked perfectly. My understanding is that the
Tamron is sending back to the 10D some confusing AF information
because the other end of the Tamron has the solid metal M42
converter. Taping the contacts on EOS side of the Tamron prevents
this. Can someone confirm this?

I have taken some test shots and they came out "good" but they are
not what I designed this system to do. High winds outside today
made the camera a little unstable on my Manfrotto but the angle
viewfinder makes it a snap to focus this "frankenlens". The main
purpose for this set up is to take pictures of the moon. When I get
a good night, I will post my results. I am really looking forward
to a clear night now.

I am just amazed it works at all. I figured that it was cheap
enough to try and I could always dump the lens on eBay if it failed.
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

Mike. Senior Member • Posts: 1,471
Re: The Frankenlens! 2000mm!!!

Interesting test, I have the 300mm version of the rubinar - I tried that with a generic 1.7x teleconverter which also gave the error you mentioned - I'll try the magic tape.

The lenses are rather good, you can remove the barrel and then shave off a metal stop if you intend to use it for macro work, this enables closer focusing.

For landscape work, lack of contrast and depth of field plus no stabilisation were the show stopper me, even at 300mm.

-Mike.

toupsie wrote:

(taken with a Canon PowerShot S10)

Not being satisfied with my Canon 100-400mmL IS for lunar
photography and not having the cash for Canon 1200mmL, I decided to
make up my own super telephoto. Sure I could go with a telescope
and a T-Mount, but that isn't as portable as this setup. What I
have done is buy a Rubinar 1000mm from RuGift.com, a M42 to Canon
EOS mount converter, a Tamron 2x 300F-CA Teleconverter and an angle
viewfinder then combined them all together with my Canon EOS 10D.

My first attempt at getting this mess to work failed with a "Err
01" every time I clicked the shutter. After some research I
determined that the Tamron needed to have the contacts taped. After
doing that, it worked perfectly. My understanding is that the
Tamron is sending back to the 10D some confusing AF information
because the other end of the Tamron has the solid metal M42
converter. Taping the contacts on EOS side of the Tamron prevents
this. Can someone confirm this?

I have taken some test shots and they came out "good" but they are
not what I designed this system to do. High winds outside today
made the camera a little unstable on my Manfrotto but the angle
viewfinder makes it a snap to focus this "frankenlens". The main
purpose for this set up is to take pictures of the moon. When I get
a good night, I will post my results. I am really looking forward
to a clear night now.

I am just amazed it works at all. I figured that it was cheap
enough to try and I could always dump the lens on eBay if it failed.
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

-- hide signature --

-Mike

OP toupsie Regular Member • Posts: 140
35mm vs. 2000mm of the same building

Paul S. R. wrote:

Take a shot down the street or something, lets some photos from
this beast!

Ask and you shall receive! Here are two photos of the same building from roughly the same place on my balcony (different days and times). It is about 6 blocks from my apartment. The red circle of the 35mm lens photo is what I am shooting with the 2000mm Frankenlens. The wind was strong on my balcony so the 2000mm photo is a tad bit blurred from lens shake. But the fact I can identify the logo on the sat dish and wires connecting it on the 2000mm is amazing when the 35mm shot shows only a little black area in the same place.

35mm photo

2000mm photo

I built my own 2550MM lens for my old Point and shoot digital. I
sold it with the camera.

With the Canon EOS 10D 1.6x focal modifier I think this setup is 3200mm!
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

c10d Regular Member • Posts: 206
fun to play?

Thats looks really fun to play with, how much you paid that lens? or where do i can i find those lens? i am just curios.

Mike. wrote:
Interesting test, I have the 300mm version of the rubinar - I tried
that with a generic 1.7x teleconverter which also gave the error
you mentioned - I'll try the magic tape.

The lenses are rather good, you can remove the barrel and then
shave off a metal stop if you intend to use it for macro work, this
enables closer focusing.

For landscape work, lack of contrast and depth of field plus no
stabilisation were the show stopper me, even at 300mm.

-Mike.

toupsie wrote:

(taken with a Canon PowerShot S10)

Not being satisfied with my Canon 100-400mmL IS for lunar
photography and not having the cash for Canon 1200mmL, I decided to
make up my own super telephoto. Sure I could go with a telescope
and a T-Mount, but that isn't as portable as this setup. What I
have done is buy a Rubinar 1000mm from RuGift.com, a M42 to Canon
EOS mount converter, a Tamron 2x 300F-CA Teleconverter and an angle
viewfinder then combined them all together with my Canon EOS 10D.

My first attempt at getting this mess to work failed with a "Err
01" every time I clicked the shutter. After some research I
determined that the Tamron needed to have the contacts taped. After
doing that, it worked perfectly. My understanding is that the
Tamron is sending back to the 10D some confusing AF information
because the other end of the Tamron has the solid metal M42
converter. Taping the contacts on EOS side of the Tamron prevents
this. Can someone confirm this?

I have taken some test shots and they came out "good" but they are
not what I designed this system to do. High winds outside today
made the camera a little unstable on my Manfrotto but the angle
viewfinder makes it a snap to focus this "frankenlens". The main
purpose for this set up is to take pictures of the moon. When I get
a good night, I will post my results. I am really looking forward
to a clear night now.

I am just amazed it works at all. I figured that it was cheap
enough to try and I could always dump the lens on eBay if it failed.
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

OP toupsie Regular Member • Posts: 140
Re: fun to play?

c10d wrote:

Thats looks really fun to play with, how much you paid that lens?
or where do i can i find those lens? i am just curios.

$235 for the Rubinar 10/100 and $194 for the Tamron teleconverter. RuGift.com has the lens for sale with the Canon EOS mount.

-- hide signature --
JMF Contributing Member • Posts: 786
Re: fun to play?

Very interesting. How much was the M42 converter? I couldn't find a price for it on the web site.

I assume it would work with the Canon teleconverters too... with the pins taped?

toupsie wrote:

$235 for the Rubinar 10/100 and $194 for the Tamron teleconverter.
RuGift.com has the lens for sale with the Canon EOS mount.

-- hide signature --

All you touch
And all you see
Is all your life will ever be.
[k a i s h a k u @ s b c g l o b a l . n e t]

pops Senior Member • Posts: 1,185
Re: fun to play?

I would like to see a few photos from the 100-400L IS shot from the same location with and without the 1.4 & 2.0 Teleconverters. Very curious as to how close that lens and setup brings the dish in.

toupsie wrote:

c10d wrote:

Thats looks really fun to play with, how much you paid that lens?
or where do i can i find those lens? i am just curios.

$235 for the Rubinar 10/100 and $194 for the Tamron teleconverter.
RuGift.com has the lens for sale with the Canon EOS mount.

 pops's gear list:pops's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS Rebel SL2 +9 more
Anders Contributing Member • Posts: 917
Re: 35mm vs. 2000mm of the same building

One thing: Are any of the 2 pics edited afterwards.

Especially if not it is quite amazing how sharp it is. I thought it would be MUCH more blurry.
If you have more please show us.

  • Anders

toupsie wrote:

Paul S. R. wrote:

Take a shot down the street or something, lets some photos from
this beast!

Ask and you shall receive! Here are two photos of the same building
from roughly the same place on my balcony (different days and
times). It is about 6 blocks from my apartment. The red circle of
the 35mm lens photo is what I am shooting with the 2000mm
Frankenlens. The wind was strong on my balcony so the 2000mm photo
is a tad bit blurred from lens shake. But the fact I can identify
the logo on the sat dish and wires connecting it on the 2000mm is
amazing when the 35mm shot shows only a little black area in the
same place.

35mm photo

2000mm photo

I built my own 2550MM lens for my old Point and shoot digital. I
sold it with the camera.

With the Canon EOS 10D 1.6x focal modifier I think this setup is
3200mm!
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

-- hide signature --

Equipment:
1 camera
Some lenses
2 eyes

Chuck Bernards Regular Member • Posts: 158
2000mm/f10

No moon shots yet. Anyome interested in cloud shots?
This lovely picture was taken with my camcorder.

mario alessi Regular Member • Posts: 115
Re: 2000mm/f10

Cool idea Robert. It's been a while. Like the pictures.

-- hide signature --

Mario Alessi

hockeynut Veteran Member • Posts: 4,268
What f-stop?

I followed the links... and can't find any reference to the f-stop? Is that the 10 from the 10/1000?

How long was that exposure of the building?

It appears from Rugift's site that they give you filters too? Or is that extra? And, is the converter to EOS mount included? I couldn't find a price anywhere.

OP toupsie Regular Member • Posts: 140
Re: 35mm vs. 2000mm of the same building

Anders wrote:

One thing: Are any of the 2 pics edited afterwards.
Especially if not it is quite amazing how sharp it is. I thought it
would be MUCH more blurry.
If you have more please show us.

These are just cropped and resized. To me it is a little blurry from camera shake. I think I can get much sharper with it.

I don't have any more pictures yet. I intended this setup to be a lunar photography platform so I am waiting for the moon to come out. Once that happens, I will be posting.

-- hide signature --
OP toupsie Regular Member • Posts: 140
Re: What f-stop?

hockeynut wrote:

I followed the links... and can't find any reference to the f-stop?
Is that the 10 from the 10/1000?

Yep, its 1000mm F/10.

How long was that exposure of the building?

1/125

It appears from Rugift's site that they give you filters too? Or
is that extra? And, is the converter to EOS mount included? I
couldn't find a price anywhere.

3 filters. The converter comes with the "Canon EOS" package or you can buy it for $20. I blew it when I ordered the lens and forgot to get the adapter. It takes one month for the lens to make it from Kirov, Russia so you better get your order right the first time! I had to wait an extra month to get the M42 to EOS mount.

-- hide signature --
Ted B. Veteran Member • Posts: 4,722
Slick setup!

Just ordered one myself (including the M42 ring). May not be an "L" lens, but it will surely be an "F" lens (fun)!

Thanks for letting us know about this.

Ted

toupsie wrote:
--
Good photography comes with experience. Experience comes from bad photography.

TJB

My Website: http://svphoto.us

bzfrank Regular Member • Posts: 199
Re: The Frankenlens! 2000mm!!!

The russian little MAKs make very cost effective and nice telephoto lenses, particulary for moon shots. Their bokeh is of course something to get used to (donut shape).

You can also leave out the teleconverter and just insert a distance piece, enlarging the focal length with out much glass in between.

Here my setup - 10D with MTO-11CA

bzfrank Regular Member • Posts: 199
Re: fun to play?

c10d wrote:

Thats looks really fun to play with

Be prepared to get you a magnifying anglefinder C however, for it can be rather challenging to find the point of maximum sharpness in the tiny 10D finder - especially with teleconverter and/or under low light.

OP toupsie Regular Member • Posts: 140
Re: The Frankenlens! 2000mm!!!

bzfrank wrote:

The russian little MAKs make very cost effective and nice telephoto
lenses, particulary for moon shots. Their bokeh is of course
something to get used to (donut shape).

Yea, this setup is lunar photography only. I don't plan to use it for anything else but novelty shots.

You can also leave out the teleconverter and just insert a distance
piece, enlarging the focal length with out much glass in between.

Do you have any problems with infinity when you insert an extension tube?

Here my setup - 10D with MTO-11CA

I think I have seen your setup before. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't part of my inspiration for the Frankenlens.
--
Cheers,
Robert
10D Photos: http://homepage.mac.com/toupsie/Photography/

Chuck Bernards Regular Member • Posts: 158
Re: 2000mm/f10

Yes, it's been a while...
Who's Robert?
Who's Mario?

mario alessi wrote:

Cool idea Robert. It's been a while. Like the pictures.

mario alessi Regular Member • Posts: 115
Re: 2000mm/f10 (Robert is an old friend)

I was hoping for Robert to notice that I recognized his name. He is an old co-worker and friend of mine. I have a 10D myself and have been wanting to shoot pictures of the moon for a number of years.

-- hide signature --

Mario Alessi

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads