I got interested in mirror lensesas in a 500mm f/8 for my Nikons.Any experience in image quality and overall value for money:confused:
Mirror lenses
-
A
- Thread starter RalphLambrecht
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
-
Want to Buy Jobo 3005 expert tank for 5 sheets of 8x10
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
only jam filled.
When I Austria I had a doughnut with apricot jam. OMG. Heaven in a doughnut!
I have a 500mm f8 mirror lens. I don't know who made it, as it's branded "Porters" (the drug store/camera shop). It's every bit as good as my Soligar 450mm f8 regular lens. Both have been great for birds, racing cars, etc. As cliveh said, you have to like doughnuts, and not the jelly filled ones. (jjphoto, a doughnut with apricot jam would be heaven in a doughnut). The boka is circles - actually kind of neat if you don't overdo it. The other drawback is there is no aperture control - always wide open. For action shots, like race cars, etc., that's fine. Otherwise, there is no control of depth of field. Oh, and mine focusses very close - about 3 ft. I've used that advantage some tool. I like mine, and the price was right off eBay.
Yes, if you use a mirror lens, you can't mind the OOF donuts. Often, however, if the background is far enough away, the donuts can be quite small -- insignificantly small, in fact. Here's an example:
Image taken at Willow Springs International Raceway, circa 1986, with a Canon F-1 and a Sigma 600mm f/8, Fujichrome 100. Note the very small donuts in the background of the image.
As for a good 500mm lens for the money, I recommend the Tamron 55BB. That is the second version that Tamron made, which is allegedly better than the first version. But I've seen lots of pics from the first version and I have to say that they were very good. I own the 55BB and my experience with it is it rivals a very sharp refractor lens. It is an impressive optic.
The Sigma I used to own which took the above shot was an excellent lens, but I have learned since that these big Sigma mirrors can be of varying quality. I currently own a later model one than the one I used for that photo, and it isn't nearly as sharp of an optic. So, although Sigma did make some impressively sharp 600 mirrors, there is some inconsistency, whereas I haven't found this to be the case so far with the Tamron 500mm mirrors.
Image taken at Willow Springs International Raceway, circa 1986, with a Canon F-1 and a Sigma 600mm f/8, Fujichrome 100. Note the very small donuts in the background of the image.
As for a good 500mm lens for the money, I recommend the Tamron 55BB. That is the second version that Tamron made, which is allegedly better than the first version. But I've seen lots of pics from the first version and I have to say that they were very good. I own the 55BB and my experience with it is it rivals a very sharp refractor lens. It is an impressive optic.
The Sigma I used to own which took the above shot was an excellent lens, but I have learned since that these big Sigma mirrors can be of varying quality. I currently own a later model one than the one I used for that photo, and it isn't nearly as sharp of an optic. So, although Sigma did make some impressively sharp 600 mirrors, there is some inconsistency, whereas I haven't found this to be the case so far with the Tamron 500mm mirrors.
I'd put up with those doughnuts, cooltouch. Great pic
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a Mamiya 500mm Reflex for my M645, (as well as an adapter for my Canon system), and I like mirrors. I don't mind the doughnuts, as they can be controlled somewhat by your position, and can be used artistically. The quality of even the cheap mirror lenses seems to be acceptable (much better then an equivalent refractor type).
I would imagine the Nikon would be on par with the Canon/Mamiya/Minolta/Sigma/Tamrons/etc., if not better.
Value for the dollar, I don't think you can go wrong with a mirror if you want/need the reach.
I would imagine the Nikon would be on par with the Canon/Mamiya/Minolta/Sigma/Tamrons/etc., if not better.
Value for the dollar, I don't think you can go wrong with a mirror if you want/need the reach.
I bought a F/8 500mm Nikkor mirror lens, but rarely used it due to the fixed aperture, donuts, and uneven exposure and sharpness. A f/5.6 400mm conventional Vivitar serves me better in all respects except for those measly 100mm.
If you like donuts without filling.
Their definite advantage is cheaper and lighter. Three frames of film (Lomography 100) showing the foreground and background OOF characteristics. This one from a Soligor 500mm C/D lens.
The Vivitar 600 mm Series 1 has gotten what seems me to be the best reviews over the years, it was made in the U.S.
My mirror lenses bokeh runs circles around yours!
If you can tolerate the bokeh circles, a reflective [mirror] lens is much less expensive than a refractive lens but with a much larger diameter.
Who made the Questar? I dont think Questar made lens.
The Questar is consistently regarded as one of the best small format telescopes ever made. But because of this, you're gonna pay big bucks for one, too. That Vivitar 600mm is a solid cat lens. It was made in the US by Perkin Elmer, the same folks who built the optics for the Hubble Space Telescope.
Yes, the same company that produced a near-sighted spacecraft mirror that needed correction lenses.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,794
- Format
- Multi Format
Funny, I have one. Yes Questar made a 700/8 photographic objective. See https://www.cameraquest.com/questar.htm
Please try using Google before asking questions.
I cannot comment on the 500mm f/8 mirror lens but I have had much success with the Nikon 1000mm f/11 mirror lens.
Nikon F2 + 1000mm f/11 mirror lens by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Ralph, there are two 500mm mirror reflex Nikkor lenses that I know of. The older one is longer than the later, about 15cm long compared to about 11cm long. The first model uses filters in the rear, which must be in place to make the lens work correctly, I think they may be the 39mm filter size that goes in some of their telephoto lenses. I dont know if their later unit requires a rear filter, but probably does.
I myself have a Sigma 600mm f8, wonderful piece of equipment. Focused at infinity it is 12cm long, according to my rule. It uses 22.5mm slip in filters, one of which must be inserted to make the lens work correctly.
I have used the first model Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror lens with a monopod at a motor race track very successfully with a motor drive equipped camera. I couldnt afford the Nikkor, but having hired the Nikkor and liking it, I started looking then came across my Sigma 600mm f8, which was very affordable in comparison.
It is surprisingly light and compact, focusing is very easy and obvious, and exactly the same as the Nikkor I lusted after. Shortly after I picked up my Sigma around 1982, Nikon came out with their later 500 mirror reflex Nikkor lens. I also used that lens and it was closer to the size, shape and working mannerisms of my Sigma.
They are a wonderful way to have great drawing power combined with minimal weight and size. Bang for your buck, they are, in the right conditions, unbeatable.
My Sigma has a very slight blemish on one of the internal mirrors, as a result of that I picked it up for $180 instead of the going rate of around $300 back then. I thought Ill give it a go and see what happens. As it turned out, that blemish is still there, and hasnt enlarged in the 33 plus years I have owned it. The blemish doesnt seem to affect my negatives, including when I have used the lens on a tripod for a bust portrait type of image.
You may find on the outer edge of the main mirror, which is the one you see as you look straight down the barrel, there are slight blemishes. These blemishes do seem to appear on mirror lenses, just like blemishes appear on mirrors in bathrooms and wherever else one has a mirror. Providing they are not too big, mine are about 2-3mm from the edge to where the blemishes end, I think you should be alright.
Look down the barrel and hold the lens at an angle, then focus on the centre of the optic and inspect (within reason) the second main mirror. Turning the lens around in an elliptical manner will let you see/inspect most of that mirror, as well as it can be inspected anyway.
As mentioned, highlights are circular, it is not that big a deal, the in-focus part of ones image is the big deal. I used my Sigma and the hired Nikkors at a time I was shooting almost exclusively colour. Mostly, not always, I would burn the highlights in under the enlarger, I am sure you may have a slightly different way of doing this to any images you may capture, if you pick up a mirror lens.
If the price is right, go for it, they are quite a powerful fun thing to play with.
Mick.
I myself have a Sigma 600mm f8, wonderful piece of equipment. Focused at infinity it is 12cm long, according to my rule. It uses 22.5mm slip in filters, one of which must be inserted to make the lens work correctly.
I have used the first model Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror lens with a monopod at a motor race track very successfully with a motor drive equipped camera. I couldnt afford the Nikkor, but having hired the Nikkor and liking it, I started looking then came across my Sigma 600mm f8, which was very affordable in comparison.
It is surprisingly light and compact, focusing is very easy and obvious, and exactly the same as the Nikkor I lusted after. Shortly after I picked up my Sigma around 1982, Nikon came out with their later 500 mirror reflex Nikkor lens. I also used that lens and it was closer to the size, shape and working mannerisms of my Sigma.
They are a wonderful way to have great drawing power combined with minimal weight and size. Bang for your buck, they are, in the right conditions, unbeatable.
My Sigma has a very slight blemish on one of the internal mirrors, as a result of that I picked it up for $180 instead of the going rate of around $300 back then. I thought Ill give it a go and see what happens. As it turned out, that blemish is still there, and hasnt enlarged in the 33 plus years I have owned it. The blemish doesnt seem to affect my negatives, including when I have used the lens on a tripod for a bust portrait type of image.
You may find on the outer edge of the main mirror, which is the one you see as you look straight down the barrel, there are slight blemishes. These blemishes do seem to appear on mirror lenses, just like blemishes appear on mirrors in bathrooms and wherever else one has a mirror. Providing they are not too big, mine are about 2-3mm from the edge to where the blemishes end, I think you should be alright.
Look down the barrel and hold the lens at an angle, then focus on the centre of the optic and inspect (within reason) the second main mirror. Turning the lens around in an elliptical manner will let you see/inspect most of that mirror, as well as it can be inspected anyway.
As mentioned, highlights are circular, it is not that big a deal, the in-focus part of ones image is the big deal. I used my Sigma and the hired Nikkors at a time I was shooting almost exclusively colour. Mostly, not always, I would burn the highlights in under the enlarger, I am sure you may have a slightly different way of doing this to any images you may capture, if you pick up a mirror lens.
If the price is right, go for it, they are quite a powerful fun thing to play with.
Mick.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |