Bower 650-1300mm f/8-16- Review- Part 1. [HD]

[ZatDudeOnline]

Why do teenagers think they have the knowledge to properly judge a lens. Most reputable lens reviews are done by men with a lifetime of photography experience. Even with my 12 years of experience, I dare not say I know enough to give a review. Grow up, then try again.

[Carlssontom]

losers lens!

[Gissur37]

Sounds like he is recording this in Jabba's Palace...lol

[toobsguy]

"it doesn't have a manual focus motor which is why it's so cheap". Actually the reason why it's so cheap, is that's it's cheap...period.

[kangaroo303]

The only reason anyone would ever buy this is to play around at 1300mm, which for the same price you could buy a telescope that collects much more light and has much better quality in the glass.

[kangaroo303]

This lens is disgusting. No electronics for anything. NO APERTURE SETTINGS?? Minimum f/8...good luck in anything other than perfect daylight...and what the heck is up with that sliding focal length????

[chargerfun34]

@kangaroo303 You dont' "need" any electronics. Their nice to have no doubt, but their not needed. Fix Aperture really isn't a problem. And uhh, f/8 is quite a bit of light. Oh and the sliding focus thing, yeah well Nikon did that and it was one of their best selling lens. Companies have been doing it for ages.

[kangaroo303]

@chargerfun34 True, no one needs fancy electronics. No one needs digital technology either, its just nice to have. As for sliding zooms, Nikon discontinued those in '98 if Im not mistaken, as oushing and pulling on the camera is NOT an effective way to maintain focus. Youre right, f/8 is a bit of light. But as a Fixed aperture, it is a f/16 at 1300mm which is NOT a lot of light. No control over DoF as far as aperture is concerned. No one needs this lens.

[kangaroo303]

@chargerfun34 Im just saying, this lens should not be taken seriously. When compared to other lenses, it is pretty much a joke. It has no practical uses that can compete photographically with other lenses other than the price. It is pretty much a toy that might give you a few hours of entertainment, but will give you worse quality than coupling your camera with a telescope anyways. Why bother?

[MrFloppywaffles]

@kangaroo303 Ya, why dont you just get a 14-24,24-70,70-200 VRII, and a 200-400 brah? I mean, are you poor or something? Not made by Nikon? DISGUSTING.

[chargerfun34]

@MrFloppywaffles Best set of lenses. Ever! I would rather have a 200mm f/2 instead of the 200-400 though.

[kangaroo303]

@MrFloppywaffles There is no practical reason to own this lens other than to have something to do for about an hour. Enjoy.

[kangaroo303]

@MrFloppywaffles No, just this lens. Id take an 800mm Sigma with teleconverter over this thing any day.

[robmov]

@kangaroo303 I'm sure 100% of people would take the 800mm Sigma over this lens, but then comes the issue with price

Sigma 800mm = £6000 new

650-1300mm = £230 new

This is not a lens for professionals.

[philippeclement]

@robmov

True, but to only get real long distance in day light, this lens is quite incredible for the price.

Ok, it wont give you the cristal pics as a 1.4 apeture but to get thing far to close, it does the job !

[rozzers13]

@kangaroo303 some of the best photos ever taken have been taken on analogues, which may i remind you, have no electronics. You also do not need aperture control on such a long lens as only a morons would use them indoors and also, cameras have settings called ISO's for that. If you don't know what ISO is then maybe you should re think having a DSLR. Finally some of nikon's most famous lenses had sliding focal lengths like that. All of what you said is your opinion, there's nothing wrong with it.

[Nubrigtube]

@rozzers13 May I add that when someone uses manual lenses with no electronics what-so-ever makes him understand light better, and trains him to know how much light is available more or less at any given situation without been depended on an electronic view full of info.

[TransparentBikes]

!HELP! dose it work for video?

[helthuismartin]

If they gonna build a 200mm F 1.8 they will become a first party.how aboud that?

[crazyasspusshole]

@helthuismartin if they could even build something like that, you'd pay more than 20k's for that kind of 'tank' for sure ;)

[christiansvideos]

Will this work well for a cannon rebel xs for taking shots of surf photography. Im shooting shorebreak at wedge so i dont need a ton of zoom but i want good shots. Will the shots come out fine or is the action to much for this lens?

[emailzforlife]

@christiansvideos you'll need a fast shutter speed, and you wont get that with this lense. get a 70-200 which is 320mm which should be enough if you want the whole wave, if not get a 400 f4

[chargerfun34]

@MissCanonGirl

Me and Jimydude1123 have worked our problems out. We are all good now! He's actually a cool dude. Wouldn't of thought it from his replys on here. But, he is. Thanks for your concern though

- chargerfun34

[jimmydude1123]

you should have sold that garbage D60 or whatever for a decent lens

[chargerfun34]

@jimmydude1123 Ha, your funny. And what kind of "decent" super telephoto can I get for $400?? Please, let me know. Because, I bought this to have a super telephoto. Not a decent lens. Kay.

[jimmydude1123]

@chargerfun34 haha well then i guess you need to pick another hobby buddy because photography gear isn't cheap. if you aren't going for a decent lens then why bother? dumbass.

[chargerfun34]

@jimmydude1123 Obviously idiot. Why not bother getting a decent glass. Uhh, because I already have decent glass. This isn't my only lens.. I bought it to have a super-telephoto. What don't you fucking get about that. I already have a prime, constant aperture telephoto, constant aperture wide-angle, I don't need anything else for what I do. Maybe you do. I don't. Ok, get that through your head. "decent" Super telphotos cost thousands, I don't need that much zoom all that often so when even waste

[jimmydude1123]

@chargerfun34 if you don't need anything else for what you do then why even bother with that thing? what do you need 1300mm for anyway?

[chargerfun34]

@jimmydude1123 Because, I wanted/needed a super-telephoto. I was going to a week long plane event and needed something that could shoot close-up, so I bought a $400 lens that I could keep forever instead of renting a real super telephoto for a couple of days that I had to return. Besides that, I've used it for other things also, Like, some astronomy photography, speed boat trials, and some wildlife spotting. A very well light. Photos turned out fine. Not great, but passable.

[jimmydude1123]

@chargerfun34 alright well i feel you on that then.

[MissCanonGirl]

@chargerfun34 Oh boy, it seems jimmydude1123 may have a little crush on you. I have watched a couple of your vids on this lens and it appears he just can't get enough of you. lol

Sorry, you may have to get a YT restraining order. lol

[neneson17]

auto focus ?

[QuantumEra]

@neneson17 Noooooooooooooooooooo

[blueboxbody]

4.46 lbs

[chargerfun34]

@blueboxbody ?

[catalin205]

@chargerfun34 it is the conversion from grams to pounds

[sendhelpbaylon]

do you have any pics with this lens :D i wanna see!

[chargerfun34]

@javcanto Haha. Kay, I'm glad you think so. Wait, do you even own this lens?

[asspilothole]

Got one of these pieces of shit lenses in a package deal that I just bought with my canon 7d..I won't even put this thing on my camera for fear that it might some how turn my camera GAY!!, I'm selling it ebay, or throwing it in the trash, cause that's all it's good for...Flea market quality, what an embarrasment

[ScotPhotography]

if anything it looks more like a canon lens then a nikon

[jfm041789]

Deadmau5

dope!!!!

:D

[Memq]

Deadmau5 all the way

[floatkingtrailer]

This lens looks like such a waste of money. f 8- 16 is possibly the worst I've ever heard of. you will get literally no bokeh but that doesn't even matter because you would have to shoot directly into the sun to let light in. unless you're shooting with the ISO like 3 stops above the highest setting. also the build quality looks terrible and im not even talking about how ugly the lens looks. the way you picked it up in the video made it seem so light and cheep

[sathish85295]

like to see some sample images..... plzzz can u upload some????

[crazykar3]

does the lense have a tripod mount?

[Calvinkoolz]

@crazykar3 Watch the video. your answer is in there.

[jackgvogel]

Deadmou5 : )

[lacrossedefense]

it converts to 4.5 pounds

[vigilant360]

bro can u post sum pictures u taken by that lens coz im thingking of buying one thnx

[vlexster]

Dude, they get pronounced [iAshitsa] and [kOnika]. Despite those misspelled words good review - but next time - put some more photos in order to show the quality of the lens ;) (I personally don't need to, cause I have one on my own, BUT it should've been a lot easier for me to make the choice whether or not to buy it if I have seen test photos before that) ;)