I've had this lens for over 30 years - originally used on a Minolta 7000, more recently on Sony and Minolta digitals; used it a lot at the Bournemouth air shows (2008-14) with no problems; got it out today and find it has developed a somewhat "cloudy" image throughout its range as can be seen here, at 400m The same view using my Minolta 500/f8 AF I've tried using a lens cleaner, no change, any suggestions? What sort of costswould be involved in having it cleaned, or shoud I consider a S/H Tamron 150-600? (£850?)
Probably the best answer. I had an old Sigma 70-210 f2.8 some years back that had the same problem, cleaning it cost about £100 IIRC but the problem came back fairly quickly...
It will either be a hazy element for which there is no cure or deposits on the glass. Either way it's not a high value lens and isn't financially worth fixing, an excuse to look for something new.
The Tamron 150-600 has arrived, quick check on a number plate at the far end of the car park seems OK, from the weight methinks it will have to live on the monopod Might take a screwdriver to the 80-400 see if I can achieve anything.
Good luck with that, I find monopods unusable for anything airborne. A pile of screws, metal parts and glass not being the desired result?
Does sound the most likely option. I had a Canon-fit 80-400 some years ago - although generally well-made, it had a few horribly cheap touches, the AF switch sticking out as the nastiest. The flimsy bits made me worry about how well built the lens was overall, TBH.
Unless you are lying flat on your back with your feet on a wall. But indeed not so practical in that case.
Mike - Do you have a ball head? No, not a personal question I've got one that I use on my monopod when using a big lens Ball Heads - Wex
I use the Manfrotto tilting head (234RC) when I use a monopod with a long lens and I’m likely to be in one spot for a longish time. All my telephotos have tripod mounts so the camera will will rotate thru’ portrait to landscape. I can’t get on with a monopod under the base of a camera. The 234RC seems to be on offer at the moment. I also use the Manfrotto 393 as a gimbal support on a tripod. It is supposed to be a monopod head but is too heavy for that purpose in my view.
I also have an ancient Tokina 80-400 that appears to be fine, although I've always found it produces images with less contrast that modern lenses at the long end of the zoom so a quick 'levels' adjustment with my (less ancient) copy of Photoshop Elements 7 easily correct this. It is 'all metal' construction, is very solid and probably heavier (about a kilogramme) than a modern plastic one would be. This is a shot taken on a dull day in January, at 400 mm and F11, merely resized without any other adjustments. A few moments with PE7 would tidy up the colour fringes and brighten up the image. When first using it with an APS-C DSLR I found by experiment that colour fringes were minimised at F11, but never had any colour fringe problem using it with a 35 mm camera body and Kodachrome. If we get colour fringes when using old lenses on a digital camera body the temptation is to blame the lens, but I suspect the problem is the physical depth of the digital sensor compared with the thickness of film emulsion.
I use the Mafrotto 685B mono (put foot on base and pull it up) https://cdn.manfrotto.com/pub/media...1e774dca205198565016e92bdb88ad55/6/8/685b.jpg and the 222 head https://static2.nordic.pictures/576646-thickbox_default/manfrotto-ball-head-222-joystick.jpg
Having a play with the Tamron 150-600, someone conveniently parked in the vivitors slot at the far end of the car park, this shot at 600mm Then I thought wonder how it is with a 2X convertor, autofocus was a bit iffy, partly due to being a bit overcast so gave it a bit of manual help, this at 1200mm, looks like I need a steadier hand Also tried the 2X with the Tamron 18-250, that AFs OK (and it's a lot lighter weight) how often does one need 1200 anyway,
