Mirror lenses

[jeffreyg]

While I understand that the question and discussion is about 500mm mirror lenses for Nikons am I wrong in thinking that the goal is for photographing a distant subject and having it fill the frame? I don't know what your current longest lens is but have you considered a high quality 2x. The reason for this comment is that I have a Mutar (Blad) 2x that I use with the 150, 250 and 350 and get excellent results of course with a tripod and the loss of two stops neither of which bothers me. The 2x retains the minimum focus of the lenses. Just a thought.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[frank]

A long while ago I had an inexpensive makinon 250 or 300? f5.6 lens that was very compact and fun. Wish I still had it.

 

[cooltouch]

Hey Dan, would you mind very much telling us what you had to pay for your Questar 700, and when?

I'd love to own one, but I fear I could probably buy a clean used car for what they're likely selling for these days. BTW, I checked eBay and none were listed there. I've even googled it, and couldn't find any prices.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have seen photos of a zoom mirror make for the Alpa system, maybe Kilfitt as a Zoomar? I also recall that Zoomar made a 500 mirror for 6X6. Anyone with experience with either?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hey Dan, would you mind very much telling us what you had to pay for your Questar 700, and when?

I'd love to own one, but I fear I could probably buy a clean used car for what they're likely selling for these days. BTW, I checked eBay and none were listed there. I've even googled it, and couldn't find any prices.

I bought it used in 1986. $325. Its been a couple of months since I checked for one on eBay, I'd be astonished if they bring as much as $1,000 when they turn up.

Questar's little 3 1/2" telescopes go for much more. You may have confused the lens with them.

 

[pentaxuser]

I bought it used in 1986. $325. .

I can't speak for the rate of inflation in the U.S. over the ensuing years but I'd hazard a guess that $325 was serious money in 1986 in terms of wages.

pentaxuser

 

[Dan Fromm]

I dunno, Pentaxuser. I discussed whether to buy the Q 700 with my wife before I bought it. If we hadn't had a small windfall I'd not have bought it. Mind you, back then I made do with a 35 mm still kit that many posters here would see as quite minimal. Two bodies, 24, 55, 105, 200.

The US CPI (all items, national, annual avg.) increased by a factor of 2.15 from 1986 to 2014, the last full year for which data is available. I was working then, I'm retired now, and my pre-tax income is nearly 3x greater now than it was then. I think my cohort's median income kept ahead of inflation from then to now, could be mistaken. Our average certainly has.

When I think of the prices the latest most wonderful digital whatsies fetch, around $700 in last year's money doesn't seem that bad. Those of us who use old film equipment are badly spoiled these days by spectacular depreciation.

 

[JW PHOTO]

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:

Ralph,
I don't have a ton of experience with mirror lenses, but do and did, own a few. I have used Nikon, Sigma, Vivitar, Spiratone and Tamron. I've used some odd-ball off-brand named mirrors that aren't worth even remembering their names. The only two I have left are a 600mm f8 Sigma and a 500mm f8 Spiratone mirror-ultratel. The Spiratone is very well built and very sharp, but doesn't have the rear-built in filter draw like the Sigma. The 600mm Sigma is a dream to use since it's so small and pretty darn light to boot. Sigma always recommended that you at least keep a UV filter in the slot for better sharpness. I always did that until I tested my copy and found out that mine worked better(sharper) without any filter at all. Now I use it naked with no filter. The best mirror lens I have ever used was an old Nikkor 500mm f5. Nikon made an f5 mirror that was a little on the large side, but it rendered color perfect and was very sharp. Like I said, it was the best I have used and would buy another if I could find one cheap enough. I always wanted to try the Vivitar solid cats, but never did. If they are better than the Nikkor 500mm F5 they must be great. John W

P.S. I should add that the Spiratone 500mm f8 was actually made by Sigma and was also sold under the Sigma name as the Sigma-XQ Mirror Ultra-Telephoto.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When mirror lenses first came out I was interested in buying one, but then I would reflect on it and would put it off until later. After putting it off many times later never came.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Just as a matter of interest, if anyone out there does look for a Sigma 600 f8, then the filters that come with it are: Normal (that is what is written on the outside) which I believe is a UV lens, O56 (orange), R60 (Red), Y52 (Yellow), ND 4X.

It is a 6 element in 6 groups with an angle of view of 4º. Minimum focusing of 2m Maximum Magnification: 1/3 lifesize when focused at 2m. Filter size is 22.5mm and 5 filters are supplied with the lens.

Dimensions 92mm wide by 121.1mm long Weight 753g. Sigma Multi-Coating.

All from my Sigma Instruction sheet, which came with the lens.

I personally believe that the Sigma mirror lens was pretty much up there with brand name OEM stuff in it's day. The proliferation of mirror lenses in the late 70s through to the mid to late 80s reflected the market of the day. There were some quite amazing 300 (ish) mirror lenses around back then, so tiny and they packed a pretty big punch, however their quality wasn't quite the same as the Sigma lens I own, nor the Nikkor mirror lenses I hired.

I agree with JW Photo, the Sigma is extremely small and a dream to use. Friends who have borrowed it, invariably ask if I wish to sell it, it's that good.

Mick.

Edit, the Sigma mirror lens also has a large screw in hood as standard.

 

[EdColorado]

I used to have both a Canon FD 500mm f8, and a Tamron 500 f8. I did a side by side test with my A1 on a tripod shooting a few pictures with each lens. Same pictures with both. In the end it was easy to see that the Tamron was sharper than the Canon so the Canon was sold. I still have, though rarely use, the Tamron. This was of course a limited test, being a sample of one. Could be that my Canon was a bad one, but I was impressed with the sharpness of the Tamron. These days I'm more about wides which is why I haven't used the Tamron much, but I have faith that if needed it would perform.

 

[cooltouch]

I bought it used in 1986. $325. Its been a couple of months since I checked for one on eBay, I'd be astonished if they bring as much as $1,000 when they turn up.

Questar's little 3 1/2" telescopes go for much more. You may have confused the lens with them.

Well, not really. The 700mm lens is just a Questar telescope's optical tube assembly (OTA), right?

I suspect that $325 was a very fair price back in 1986. Heck, I paid close to that for a new Tamron SP 60-300mm zoom back in 1985.

 

[cooltouch]

Just as a matter of interest, if anyone out there does look for a Sigma 600 f8, then the filters that come with it are: Normal (that is what is written on the outside) which I believe is a UV lens, O56 (orange), R60 (Red), Y52 (Yellow), ND 4X.

It is a 6 element in 6 groups with an angle of view of 4º. Minimum focusing of 2m Maximum Magnification: 1/3 lifesize when focused at 2m. Filter size is 22.5mm and 5 filters are supplied with the lens.

Dimensions 92mm wide by 121.1mm long Weight 753g. Sigma Multi-Coating.

All from my Sigma Instruction sheet, which came with the lens.

I personally believe that the Sigma mirror lens was pretty much up there with brand name OEM stuff in it's day. The proliferation of mirror lenses in the late 70s through to the mid to late 80s reflected the market of the day. There were some quite amazing 300 (ish) mirror lenses around back then, so tiny and they packed a pretty big punch, however their quality wasn't quite the same as the Sigma lens I own, nor the Nikkor mirror lenses I hired.

I agree with JW Photo, the Sigma is extremely small and a dream to use. Friends who have borrowed it, invariably ask if I wish to sell it, it's that good.

Mick.

Edit, the Sigma mirror lens also has a large screw in hood as standard.

I've owned two Sigma 600s. The first one I bought in 1984 -- sold it about five years later, and wish now I didn't -- and I currently own a later model one that has the Canon EOS mount.

If I had only my 84 model to use as an example, I'd agree with you about image quality because mine was an excellent performer. But unfortunately this later model that I recently bought isn't nearly as sharp as that old one. Which is discouraging. I wonder if it was a laxity in QC, or if perhaps the machines used to produce this lens were becoming old and worn, and no longer able to hold tolerances the way they did when new.

I would never describe the Sigma 600 as small, however. It dwarfs my Tamron SP 500mm mirror.

Also, if your Sigma literature states the rear filters as 22.5mm, this may be true for your lens, but the two Sigmas I've owned and presently own use 30.5mm filters. Further, they are quite shallow so they can slide in and out of the rear of the lens on the holder for them. I tried swapping out the 30.5 on the back of my Tamron with the Sigma's and it wouldn't slide in because it was too deep. This would probably be the same case with other brands of filters as well.

Ed, about the Tamron 500mm mirror, I have the second version, the 55BB. But I've seen plenty of images taken with the first version also. My conclusions regarding this lens is it is simply one of the best mirror lenses available. Mine is as sharp as a good 500mm refractor. The refractor in the following image is a Century Precision Optics Tele-Athenar II 500mm f/5.6. The photo was shot with the CPO set to f/8. The contrast is just a bit softer on the Tamron but this is the nature of a mirror lens, and I could have bumped it up in post, but I decided not to for this image.

Taken with an APS-C 10.1mp Canon XS DSLR, 1/125 second @ ISO 100.

 

[John Earley]

Spiratone 500mm f8 lens at 1/60 hand held. I apologize since this is from an aps-c camera.

Spiratone 500 portrait. by JOHN EARLEY, on Flickr

 

[Mick Fagan]

Also, if your Sigma literature states the rear filters as 22.5mm, this may be true for your lens, but the two Sigmas I've owned and presently own use 30.5mm filters. Further, they are quite shallow so they can slide in and out of the rear of the lens on the holder for them. I tried swapping out the 30.5 on the back of my Tamron with the Sigma's and it wouldn't slide in because it was too deep. This would probably be the same case with other brands of filters as well.

I just pulled out the filter slide to check, the filter is a 22.5mm Sigma filter that screws into the slide. They are very shallow filters to boot, a quick check with a flexible plastic rule from Germany tells me they are probably 5mm in depth.

Interesting about your larger filters.

Mick.

 

[cooltouch]

Interesting about your larger filters.

Interesting about your smaller ones. I'm thinking you have a very early Sigma 600. S/N probably in the 2 hundred thousands, eh?

 

[thuggins]

I have a Tamron 500f8. These lenses really open up a whole new range of possibilities and can't be fairly compared to refractive lenses. I can easily hand hold the Tamron with a fast film, something that would be impossible to do with either my 600mm or even 400mm Zuiko's. The closest thing to it for portability is the Zuiko 200f5 with the 1.9X T-CON that Olympus made for the IS series "ZLR"'s in the '90's. The Zuiko 200f5 is widely recognized as being among the smallest lens of the FL ever produced, and even with the T-CON it only comes to about 3/4 the FL of the mirror lens.

Of course, no discussion about mirror lenses would be complete without someone deriding their "bokeh". Because arguing that one out of focus blur "looks better" than another out of focus blur is certainly the topic for a rational discussion.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Interesting about your smaller ones. I'm thinking you have a very early Sigma 600. S/N probably in the 2 hundred thousands, eh?

I had never thought of that, you are correct, the serial number does start with 2 hundred thousand. Do you know something about Sigma mirror numbers that we don't?

Mick.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Mine is as sharp as a good 500mm refractor. The refractor in the following image is a Century Precision Optics Tele-Athenar II 500mm f/5.6.

Interesting. I had a 500/5.6 T-A II that I had Century overhaul. It was a achromatic doublet with a piece of flat glass, purpose unknown, in the middle of the pipe. It had a bad central hot spot, bad chromatic aberration, and wasn't particularly sharp. Are you sure yours is really a good lens?

 

[cooltouch]

I had never thought of that, you are correct, the serial number does start with 2 hundred thousand. Do you know something about Sigma mirror numbers that we don't?

Mick.

Recently I began collecting serial number data on the Sigma 600s and I found that the serial numbers fell in four ranges: 2xxxxx, 3xxxxx, and 9xxxxx, and then over 1 million, typically 100xxxx. The earliest -- the 2xxxxx and 3xxxxx usually have their S/Ns up by the filter ring, whereas the later ones have them stamped into the body toward the rear of the lens. So far, I have found no examples with S/Ns between 3xxxxx and 9xxxxx.

I've found other variations in the cosmetics of the lenses as well. For example, sometimes you'll see a 600 with the slanted parallelograms used on the rubberized grip. These usually occur in the mid-range of S/Ns. Also, at first I thought the 600s with the metal handle for the rear filter was an early feature, but then I found later lenses with the metal handle and early ones with the same plastic handle as later models. And of course, there's all the paint variations that this lens has had, and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme nor reason to them as well. Except to say that the earliest are gloss black -- typically 2xxxxx.

 

[ericB&W]

Hi,i resume this old thread for a question.
I have intention to buy an old tamron SP 500mm f.8.
I have a nikon 80-200 N f.4,5 manual for my old nikon equipment , then for my canon digital aps i bought the tamron 70-300 f.4,5/5,6 vc usd that i find quite good for my porpuses and i use it on three canon bodies i bought in recent years , an eos 650 , an eos 600 and an eos 5 ( eos A2 in U.S.A.) .
Now i think that cropping the Tamron zoom while printing i should reach the same quality of Tamron 500mm mirror .
The question is if the Nikon zoon plus the best teleconverter as Nikon TC 200/201 can reach more or less the same quality of Tamron mirror 500mm.
I know that is not a good idea duplicate a zoom, but Nkon 80-200 was considered very good,
at the level of a prime lens. i will have just a 400mm f.9 , but i'll get best bokeh.
I'd like an advice if is better point straight to the Tamron mirror or duplicate the nikon.

 

[faberryman]

I had a 500mm mirror lens and found that many of my shots were not sharp, not from any inherent fault in the lens, but from atmospheric haze. But sometimes you need the reach, so you just have to pray for a clear day.

 

[narsuitus]

The question is if the Nikon zoon plus the best teleconverter as Nikon TC 200/201 can reach more or less the same quality of Tamron mirror 500mm.

I cannot comment on the image quality of the 500mm Tamron mirror because I have never used one.

When I need something longer than my 180mm prime or my 80-200mm zoom for shooting sports, wildlife, surveillance, or heavenly bodies, I could use my Nikon TC-17E II, TC-200, and TC-300 teleconverters. However, I prefer the image quality of my Nikon 400mm f/5.6, 500mm f/4, and 1000mm f/8 lenses. Plus, I can always use my teleconverters to extend the reach of these three long telephoto lenses.



Long Nikon Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Paul Howell]

When I posted in 2015 I had not used a mirror lens, a few years ago I bought a Sigma 600 F8 in Minolta A mount, it's a manual focus lens. The Sigma will focus very close, not quite macro but close, which can be useful, on the other side the focus travel range is long and it takes time to move from clos to infinity so not that good for action. The swirly background works for some shot, others just too distracting. With a Sigma 2X TC become F16, in bright light I can focus, in dim light, just a guess. Minolta made a 500mm mirror, might be sharper and is AF. The other option is the Vivitar 800 F11 (?) S1, made by or designed by PerkinElmer. NASA design.

 

[pbromaghin]

I used a no-name Minolta MD mount 100-500 lens and found it very difficult to focus. Lack of sharpness was also a problem that turned out to be tripod vibration. I recently found a Minolta 500mm f/8 mirror lens to run through its paces this summer.