The focus system is very different, but very smooth. The light was too low (late afternoon) to try handheld shots, which should be no problem. When I attach the bg1-grip, balance is perfect for handheld shots. Focussing on a tripod is a little strange (focus with the grip and lock focus with the big button on top, again strange but very easy.
Beware this beast is BIG. with sunshades, camera and the focussing rail fully extended it's close to 1 meter. I would not like to show myself on a air show with this bazooka lookalike. Toine On 3/14/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. That was fast from purchase to online photos ;-) > > The results showed indicates that Novoflex did know what they where doing. > The centre is sharp, no dough. I detect slightly less sharpness at the edge > (at the wire the bird is sitting on). But that's a non issue in this kind of > photographing. > What really strikes me is the bokeh. Very pleasant, IMO. And that's > important when isolating a bird. > > How much was your lens, complete with adaptor? > And what about the focus system? Is it significantly better than regular > focus mechanism, or is it just a "smart ass" feature? > > I was _this_ far from making a "Buy it now" bid an a Tokina 150-500/5,6. Now > you have made me indecisive. LBA is a troublesome decease ;-) > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Toine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 14. mars 2006 20:11 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Novoflex any good? (Was:Advice on long glass for, "photodoc > > on beachbirds") > > > > Tim, > > Today I made my first pictures with the newly acquired Novoflex 600. > > http://360.leende.net/novoflextest > > click on the pictures for a larger file. All shot wide open (f8) or > > one stop down, 800 and 1600 ISO on a tripod with the ball head > > unlocked for quick shooting. Minimal unsharp mask in photoshop. > > I am impressed: no visible chromatic errors and razor sharp (including > > the edges). The 20-30 year old design specs of Novoflex perfectly > > match a digital body (allready cropped). > > Highly recommended. The only minus is the size and weight of this > > beast. The price makes everything light as a feather :) > > Toine > > > > On 3/13/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I decided not to go for Novoflex. Not because I think they are bad, but > > > because of the problems with adapters. > > > But on my way to this conclusion I read a bit. If I'm not mistaken > > Novoflex > > > had a rather odd, but sensible designing philosophy. They are mainly > > > designed for shooting wildlife. Wildlife photographers wanted better > > > focusing. A focus system that made the photographer able to follow a > > fast > > > moving subject. (That's an enablement;-)) They also wanted to make high > > > quality glass. High quality glass is expensive. To prevent prising > > > themselves completely out of the marked they based the design on the > > idea > > > that wildlife shooters most of the time cropped the frame. And this is > > where > > > it gets odd. Based on this Novoflex decided didn't have to think about > > edge > > > performance. The result is, state of the art centre performance, and > > crappy > > > edges. Does this sound familiar? Yeah, it does to me. Now digital lenses > > are > > > designed after the same criteria. > > > > > > If this is true, this is most likely the reason why the lenses have very > > > good reputation among some old-timers, and other will not touch them > > with > > > gloves. > > > > > > Anyway. The "elders" on list know a lot more about this than I do. > > > > > > I have decided against Novoflex for the moment. But I am curious about > > how > > > they perform, both optically and "focuscally". Please drop a line, and > > show > > > some results. > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > > > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > > > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Toine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 12. mars 2006 20:43 > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: Novoflex any good? (Was:Advice on long glass for, > > "photodoc > > > > on beachbirds") > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > It was my lucky day today and found a Novoflex Pigrif C 600mm. The one > > > > in your ebay link is older. The biggest problem is finding a pentax > > > > novoflex adapter (it's labeled penta). My first test in the backyard > > > > looks very promising. In fact I'm impressed so far. On a istD I don't > > > > see any big lens errors during "pixelpeeping". I don't have any long > > > > pentax glass to compare this oldie against. > > > > Now I only need to find time to shoot some wildlife. > > > > Toine > > > > > > > > On 3/4/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > John Forbes recommends looking for a Novoflex lens. I know nothing > > about > > > > the > > > > > system except that it looks like a prototype Russian "sniper > > shotgun". I > > > > > also have vague memory of seeing some adds in some older magazines. > > To > > > > me > > > > > they looked like toys then. > > > > > > > > > > Is John onto something, or has he lost it? > > > > > No offence, John, just trying to add some humour to a rather boring > > > > post. > > > > > > > > > > He is referring to something like this > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Novoflex-5-6-400mm-T-Noflexar-Fast-shot- > > > > lens_W0QQitemZ > > > > > 7595235104QQcategoryZ3340QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > > > > > > > > > > Follow up question. What should I look for? As I read the ad above, > > it > > > > needs > > > > > an adaptor. Am I right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > > > > > > > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > > > > > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
