Suggestions on replacing system!

[AgX]

I haven't had a non-reflex 500 mm lens, but the problem is about the aperture being fixed: I can't change the aperture value, viewfinder is signifficantly darker than even f/5.6, I can't use a split-screen focusing and as a result, I often focus in the wrong place and since DOF is shallow, my subject ends up out of focus.

DOF is the same as with plain refractive lenses.
Dimness of viewfinder is basically the same as with a refrective lens, as I assume one does not consider a lens of 5.6 or faster. The front mirror though will reduce the effective speed of a catadioptric lens. On the other hand the entrance angle of light is decisive for a viewfinder and here one likely compares apple to oranges as optical design at both types vary.
The lack of incorporated further apertures is rather theoretic as in practice one would use these lenses of both types rather open. (Unless on heavy tripod and static subject.)
The main advantage of catadioptric lenses is their compactness, though there is much difference between early and late designs.

 

[M-88]

DOF is the same as with plain refractive lenses.
Dimness of viewfinder is basically the same as with a refrective lens, as I assume one does not consider a lens of 5.6 or faster. The front mirror though will reduce the effective speed of a catadioptric lens. On the other hand the entrance angle of light is decisive for a viewfinder and here one likely compares apple to oranges as optical design at both types vary.
The lack of incorporated further apertures is rather theoretic as in practice one would use these lenses of both types rather open. (Unless on heavy tripod and static subject.)
The main advantage of catadioptric lenses is their compactness, though there is much difference between early and late designs.

I would certainly appreciate a variable aperture when using my catadioptric lens with digital camera. But it is what it is, unfortunately. I agree about difference between early and later designs, my current mirror lens, Soviet ZM-5A which I used on K-mount via an adapter, weighs 1200 grams, while its later version (ZM-5SA) tops only at 620 grams and is insignificantly smaller too. However, Zuiko 500 Reflex was lightweight from the beginning - incredible 590 grams, only a little heavier than the OM body itself.

 

[AgX]

Some later versions of catadioptric lenses are much morec compact anf got lesser min. focusing distance.

The use of catadioptric lenses at digital cameras with their higher sensitivity is not topic of this thread.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Sigma 600 F8 Cat in Minolta A mount, like the Minolta 500 it's MF, compact, as long as a 300, light, depth of field is adequate for most situations, the odd looking boka can be good or bad depending on the subject, with black and white I don't notice it much at all. I think that Vivitar made there S1 Cat lens in Olympus mount, might hard to find.

 

[Ap507b]

Have been very happy with my Tamron 500mm SP Mirror lens. It's Adaptall & I have both Nikon & OM mounts & use it with both systems.

Their 2x flat field teleconverter seems pretty good to me paired with it, although admittedly I have only ever used it with a crop factor DSLR. Never tried it with film..

 

[Les Sarile]

Their 2x flat field teleconverter seems pretty good to me paired with it, although admittedly I have only ever used it with a crop factor DSLR. Never tried it with film..

An f8 lens is plenty dark and all split image focusing screens - except for two I know, would black out. I can only imagine how much darker it would get with a 2X teleconverter!

Of course this would significantly impact the OP's original requirement of being able to use faster film . . .

 

[M-88]

An f8 lens is plenty dark and all split image focusing screens - except for two I know, would black out. I can only imagine how much darker it would get with a 2X teleconverter!

What I found using my XR7 is that both halves of split-screen can give image for focusing if I move my head a little away from the viewfinder. Although even that doesn't help when it comes to f/8 lens. So I just try to hold the lens steady and focus based on matte area, or in better case - microprism collar around the split screen. But yes, it is darker than anything else, focusing is a challenge even on sunny days and I simply don't use a teleconverter with that lens: not only it makes my viewfinder unusable, it also kills the already low image quality.

 

[Les Sarile]

What I found using my XR7 is that both halves of split-screen can give image for focusing if I move my head a little away from the viewfinder. Although even that doesn't help when it comes to f/8 lens. So I just try to hold the lens steady and focus based on matte area, or in better case - microprism collar around the split screen.

The Ricoh XR7 does have a pretty bright screen but they were not purpose built like the ones in the Canon New F-1 and Nikon FM3A that will never blackout regardless of slow lens. I've tried them out on fully extended bellows with lenses stopped down and they - remarkably enough, don't blackout. Unfortunately, in relatively dark settings with wide angle lenses they are hard to focus because everything always looks in focus.

 

[AgX]

These are the laws of optics. For one benefit you have to give up on something else. There is no mirracle screen.
Thus at high-end cameras there is a range of screens to choose from.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use my 600 on a Minolta 9 with standard screen and have no issues mf in good light.
Ex

 

[cooltouch]

If you really want to change systems, then yeah, Nikon is probably the best way to go because you can use both AF and manual focus cameras -- at least the later ones. For AF, I like the F100 I recently bought. I was going back and forth between it and the F5 and finally decided on it because it was smaller and lighter and I wasn't giving up much, performance wise.

But you know, you can use fast glass with your OM system without having to buy into another system. I can highly recommend Tamron. Especially the Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF. Because it's internal focusing, you can focus quickly with it. I've done a fair amount of motorsports photography and I can tell you that my Tamron 300/2.8 was just the ticket for what I needed. With 1.4x Tamron dedicated teleconverter, you've got a 400mm f/4 and with the 2x, you have a 600mm f/5.6. So still quite fast for the focal length. Tamron TCs are also excellent quality so there is little or no image degradation when using them. Two other fast Tamrons worth considering are the 180mm f/2.5 and the 400mm f/4 -- the latter is fairly uncommon and not really necessary if you get a 1.4x TC for the 300/2.8. I bought my Tamron 300/2.8 at the big auction site and got it for an atypically low price -- $500. Usually, you'll see them in the $700-900 range, but if you're patient sometimes you can find one for less.

 

[blockend]

It occurs to me that long fast glass is so expensive that you can choose that first and add the rest of the system for peanuts comparatively.

Yes. The same is true of other lens exotica, find the value glass and fit the body its needs.

 

[KidA]

If you really want to change systems, then yeah, Nikon is probably the best way to go because you can use both AF and manual focus cameras -- at least the later ones. For AF, I like the F100 I recently bought. I was going back and forth between it and the F5 and finally decided on it because it was smaller and lighter and I wasn't giving up much, performance wise.

But you know, you can use fast glass with your OM system without having to buy into another system. I can highly recommend Tamron. Especially the Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF. Because it's internal focusing, you can focus quickly with it. I've done a fair amount of motorsports photography and I can tell you that my Tamron 300/2.8 was just the ticket for what I needed. With 1.4x Tamron dedicated teleconverter, you've got a 400mm f/4 and with the 2x, you have a 600mm f/5.6. So still quite fast for the focal length. Tamron TCs are also excellent quality so there is little or no image degradation when using them. Two other fast Tamrons worth considering are the 180mm f/2.5 and the 400mm f/4 -- the latter is fairly uncommon and not really necessary if you get a 1.4x TC for the 300/2.8. I bought my Tamron 300/2.8 at the big auction site and got it for an atypically low price -- $500. Usually, you'll see them in the $700-900 range, but if you're patient sometimes you can find one for less.

Yes, I've been looking into the Tamron suggestions. Users seem to be very happy with them.

How do the Tamron teleceonverters compare to the Olympus ones? I have a 2x Oly one.

 

[nsurit]

+1 for Tamron Adaptall SP series of lenses. I use the 180mm f2.5, 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f4 either alone or with the Tamron 1.4X or 2X teleconverters. Not auto focus and they produce good results. Worth a look! Each of these replaced a Zuiko in my kit of the same focal length. Bill Barber

 

[johnha]

Mirror lenses have the donut rings with any specular highlight, reflections on water, any circular/bulb light in the picture.
The advantage is of course, low price.

Maybe a lower price, lower weight & bulk and much less (or no) Chromatic Aberration. The fixed aperture is the biggest limitation, it either works or it doesn't, but I'd much rather shoot with a 500/8 mirror (Tamron ADII 55B) than a 500/4.5 refractor (I'm not sure how practical the various T2 mount mirrors might be).

 

[KidA]

In the case of me going with an all manual outfit, what camera mounts will allow me to fit Canon and Nikon mounts to with a simple and thin adapter? I was told a Leica SL would take Nikon F lenses with a simple adapter. But looking online, I cannot find anything.

Regardless, what other options can I go for? If the SL works, it might be an amazingly cheap substitute!

 

[Paul Howell]

I think (others will know for sure) that the Leica SL mount had a shorter lens to film register, if so then you need a balance lens with acts like a teleconverter. I had a Pentax M42 to Nikon F adaptor, it used a balance lens and was not that useful.

 

[abruzzi]

I you want simple adapters without optics in the adapter, you want a short flange distance. Then the adapter just has to space the lens the correct distance away (this is why, in the digital world, mirrorless cameras can adapt most SLR lenses. The problem is all the 35mm SLR mounts seems to be between 40 and 46 mm. Making it pretty close to fit any adapter. However, you may find a glassless adapter to fit Nikon F (46.5mm) to Canon FD (42mm).

 

[KidA]

I think (others will know for sure) that the Leica SL mount had a shorter lens to film register, if so then you need a balance lens with acts like a teleconverter. I had a Pentax M42 to Nikon F adaptor, it used a balance lens and was not that useful.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'a balance lens'. Please explain.

 

[KidA]

I you want simple adapters without optics in the adapter, you want a short flange distance. Then the adapter just has to space the lens the correct distance away (this is why, in the digital world, mirrorless cameras can adapt most SLR lenses. The problem is all the 35mm SLR mounts seems to be between 40 and 46 mm. Making it pretty close to fit any adapter. However, you may find a glassless adapter to fit Nikon F (46.5mm) to Canon FD (42mm).

Do you know of any reliable glassless adapters for the R mount to take Nikon or Canon lenses?

 

[abruzzi]

Do you know of any reliable glassless adapters for the R mount to take Nikon or Canon lenses?

Not possible to do and still focus to infinity. The flange distance for R mount is 47mm. In order to focus to infinity a Nikon F lens need to be 46.5mm from the film, or .5 millimeters closer than the R mount allows. A Canon EF lens need to be even further in the body. A 42mm it needs to be 5mm deeper into the body than R mount flange allows. The only way it could possibly work is if the flange diameter of the R mount was large enough that F or FD flange could be sunken into the body.

If you're not familiar with flange distance here is a thumbnail explanation. When a camera maker designs a lens mount one important part is the distance from the lens to film plane or the sensor. That has to be exactly the same for all cameras that use the mount because the lenses designed for that mount will be designed for that distance. If a camera places the lens too close to the film plane, the focusing scale will be off, the lens will focus past infinity and the nearest focal distance will be further away than spect for the lens, but most of the in between distances will work fine. If a camera places a lens too far from the film (as would happen if you adapt a Canon FD or Nikon F lens to Leica R) again the focus scale would be off, you wouldn't be able to focus to infinity, and you would be able to focus closer than the lens normally reaches.

to get around this, you can place optics in the lens that adjust for the additional difference, but the optics are usually not terribly good. you can also sometimes find adapters that don't care and you just live without infinity, but any good adapter places the adapted lens at the correct distance from the film plane, therefor there are no limitations. But for that to work the adapted lens need to be for a format with a longer flange distance than the camera, and there need to be enough space to be able to build an adapter.

 

[Paul Howell]

As noted by Abruzzi a long tele that wont focus to infinity is not a good option, an adaptor with a balance lens corrects the optical formula to allow for infinity focus but adds another element to the lens design which may or not degrade the image, depends on how good the glass is. Don't know if you shoot motor sports with a motor drive or not, if you do then you make to get a SL motor drive body. To shoot Nikon MF f lens get a F2 and motor drive for Canon FD, a T90, Pentax MX or if you want to good deep pockets LX, for Minolta X9, for auto focus A800si with battery grip.

 

[cooltouch]

Yes, I've been looking into the Tamron suggestions. Users seem to be very happy with them.

How do the Tamron teleceonverters compare to the Olympus ones? I have a 2x Oly one.

I don't have any experience with Oly TCs, but I'm sure they are of excellent quality. I do have experience with Nikon and Canon TCs and the excellent Vivitar 7-element macro TC. I even have conducted some comparison tests with the Tamron TCs and the results were excellent. My results were actually showing that, not only was there no image degradation, but that there was actually a bit more detail to be gleaned from images when the Tamron TCs were being used. Full disclosure: I conducted the tests using a d*****l camera, but doing so removed the issues of emulsion grain obscuring test results.

So yes, bottom line, I can recommend the dedicated Tamron TCs unequivocally. BTW, there are several Tamron SP zoom standouts as well. My favorite is the rather big and heavy, but tack-sharp, SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. It is equivalent to the superb Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED in sharpness and contrast.

As you might suspect, I am a Tamron fan -- especially with respect to the manual focus SP series. I have a rather large collection of SP zooms and a few primes. I find the Adaptall-2 Tamrons to be very handy because I own cameras in six different mounts (M42, Pentax K, Minolta MC/MD, Nikon F, Canon FD, Contax), so I've got great lenses for all these different cameras.

 

[M-88]

Olympus teleconverters have their "optimum" range of lenses. Like 2x TC is recommended to be used with 100 mm f/2.8, 135 mm f/2.8 or f/3.5, 200 mm f/4 or f/5 and 1.4x TC is recommended to be used with 250 mm f/2, 300 mm f/4.5, 350 mm f/2.8 and 400 mm f/6.3. Since I only had a 2x teleconverter and 135 mm f/2.8 from the selection, I used that specific combination and it was adequate. Not great, but much better than off-brand teleconverters will ever do. I also used that TC on 50 mm lens and it gave horrendous distortion and image quality drop, so I guess there's a reason why Olympus had suggested selection of lenses.

Haven't had Tamron teleconverter. Maybe some other day, when I get my hands on Tamron's 90 mm SP lens.

 

[cooltouch]

I can highly recommend the Tamron SP 90mm macro. I've owned mine since 1990. It's one of the sharpest lenses I own.