M42 with Canon 300mm Fluorite

[avandonk]

Testing the new (old) lens the Canon 300mm F2.8 Fluorite.This is a single JPG 1min exposure at F2.8 with nebula filter ,ISO 1600 no guiding, in camera noise reduction on.Size reduced by running through Noiseware.No other processing.
Moon at 80%.

This lens is almost as good as the Canon 300mm F2.8L, the difference is very marginal as it has very slightly more CA.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/avandonk/m42.jpg

It looks like the whole saga of getting it here from the US was worth it.

Bert

[iceman]

Incredible for a single shot! Image stacking a few and processing them! Would be an awesome widefield.

[avandonk]

Yes this picture was just a test to see how good (or bad) the new Canon300mm F2.8 Fluorite lens is. The moon was 80% and I did not have any guiding.See other pic of Moon taken with this lens in solar system.Here is a picture of the of the lens temporarily mounted with some 110mm mounting rings.

Bert

[iceman]

Awesome looking setup. You'll get some amazing widefield shots once the milkyway is up again.

[atalas]

Nice Bert !

[[1ponders]]

Nice shot Bert. I'd hazard a guess that you've snagged yourself a winner lens there.

Did I read somewhere you were going to be renting this lens out to IIS members. What's your monthly hire charges :evil:

[ving]

thats a super looking widefield of m42/3 there! :)

and you know what, I even like the light blue sky in contrast to the black we normally see :)

[avandonk]

I intend to make this lens available to any member of IIS for a nominal fee that will go to support the site.I have to iron out the mounting to make it more universal. The two 110mm mounting rings look like a good start.Unless someone can come up with a better alternative.

The good thing about this lens is it will be easy to make a T-mount adapter so any SLR or DSLR or even a cooled Astro CCD will work with it as it is fully manual. There is room for filters in the rear.Here are some pics of the rear of the lens.To fit my 20D I just superglued a canon T-mount to the Arriflex retaining ring.I am going to get a universal T-mount made with the Arriflex retaining thread and an internal thread to take 48mm Filters or 32mm (1 1/4" eyepiece).The lens takes 40.5mmm rear filters already.I have yet to work this out.

Bert

[xelasnave]

Way to go Bert. I would love one of those for wide fields. Very impressed.
alex

[avandonk]

The colour is what gets through the nebula filter, mainly moon light pollution and some of the usual light pollution.I did not adjust RGB levels in Photoshop which can get the background back to 'black'.

Bert

[ving]

still like it the way it is tho bert :)

[avandonk]

You are all welcome to try it out when I get it all sorted.From the wide field you posted you have a darker sky than me, and your 'light' rig should easily carry it.
The whole point of getting this lens was for general use, because it was high quality, adaptable to most cameras as it's fully manual.My 300mm F2.8L is too valuable to me to use when ever there is a chance ie no moon and clear skies.

I still see Icemans words 'before we all rush out and buy expensive telephoto lenses etc' when I first posted that picture of Carina.This is my way of solving this problem.There is nothing like capturing your own pictures even with all the problems to overcome. Otherwise we would just look at Hubble pictures.
I have just used the experience of nearly forty years of playing with and looking at high quality lenses to track down this hidden gem.Unfortunately the FD version of this lens is difficult to convert for anything but use with an FD camera and they are rare.This lens is extremely rare especially in this condition. I consider it a bargain for what it is capable of.
These movie conversions were specially selected lenses off the production line so they are far better than average.I took the risk of it being as good as the seller said and won, as the sellers description was accurate.There are people who still have integrity and honesty.
The trouble with fluorite elements is if water vapour gets to them they can deteriorate (go cloudy).They are normally sealed in a nitrogen atmosphere.

What do I get out of this? The satisfaction of getting a very nice old lens and working out how to convert it so it produces images by many keen amateurs that could not or would not waste resources (money) on something so specialized. Especially after already spending the kitty on a decent telescope! Plus it keeps me sane, OK as sane as last week.

Bert

[Striker]

Great stuff Bert.....but we want longer exposure's and multiple's...dont keep us waiting...lol

By the way you have the 300mm secured to your EQ6 it looks like you trying to find the best way to secure it....wont the canon tube ring fit.

[avandonk]

No it is incompatible.

I am using the rings from the telescope that usually carries my 300mm F2.8L to hold the Canon 300mm Fluorite.Must go and see Roger.

Heres a pic no guiding (stars bigger than usual) six 2min shots, ISO 1600, moon 80%, nebula filter.Stacked with registar adjusted in PS.

This is a small pic.

[Striker]

Thats looking real nice Bert....

[avandonk]

I can't wait to see what some of you can do with this at a dark sky site.Or at least darker than mine.

This lens is almost as good as the Canon 300mm F2.8L. You really have to look to see the difference.I am very pleased with it.Best $2.2K Aus I ever spent!
Does not sound like much if you see what you can get for that money in telephoto primes.

bert

[Striker]

I'm just waiting for you to go on your next holidays Bert.

You still leave the key under the door mat...lol

[avandonk]

You only have to ask and when I get this lens all sorted you can try it out.

Remember my eight brothers and now 34+ nephews and nieces.The nieces are the worst they get you with guile.Ask anyone who has a daughter.

bert

[davidpretorius]

all going a bit over my head as the first and only camera i have ever owned is my toucam.

so from a noobie, that is a fantastic wide field image. Well done.

I will get back to you in 3 or 4 years as i move into the canon dslr realms

thanks for posting!

[TidaLpHasE]

:)Great images Bert, the color is awsome.

[xelasnave]

Gee I thought there was about 6 grand there. I would rather invest in one of those than a refractor with double the price tag
alex

[astroboy]

Excellent image Bert , just shows there are some excellent lenses out there for anyone willing to hunt them down and take a chance.
There are also some crap ones , my worst being a Pentax 800mm F4 ( yes F4 ) looked impressive but is only usfull as a boat anchor ( it was 20 KG )
Now trying a Nikon 180 F2.8 ED with Sbig ST8i and HA filter so far so good.

Zane

[avandonk]

You may be getting confused here are both lenses.White one a Canon 300mm F2.8L about $6-7k Aus. new. Black one Canon 300mm F2.8 Fluorite an earlier version of the white one.
The white one has one Fluorite element and two ED elements.Super APO?
The black one has one Fluorite element and the usual glass available at the time.
The white one only works with a Canon camera as it is all electronic even in manual mode.
The nice thing about the black one is that it is manual and can easily be converted to work on any DSLR or SLR as it has an Arriflex mount. This is not the FD version.The FD version cannot be used with later cameras without an extra lens element to allow focus at infinity.This generally ruins the optical quality.
The Canon 300mm F2.8 Fluorite with the Arriflex mount is extremely rare.They were made by Canon for the motion picture industry where quality mattered not price.

Here's some info on early Canon lenses
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/earlyfdlenses/300mmfd.htm



Bert

[avandonk]

The Pentax should work OK with H alpha, surely it can focus at one wavelength
bert

[astroboy]

Its some years since I had the lens and I was keen on film photography at the time and used a 77mm 25A drop in filter for B&W with a Pentax 6x7 and tech pan, the biggest problem was the lens wasn't sharp , particularly off axis had just about every aberration I could think of and then some.
Had to stop the lens down so far ( F8 ) it was no point using a 20KG lens when my old Genisis would out perform it.
Had a Pentax 400 F4 for the 6X7 it was very good.
Don't know how Johnny Horn got a great comet shot with his 800 F4 tried to email him before I bought the lens but no reply.