Test of 500mm Nikkor Reflex: The discussion in Focus peaking on Z6ii & 500mm Nikkor mirror lens led me to get this lens from KEH. It arrived quickly so I first mounted it on the Df. It...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The discussion in Focus peaking on Z6ii & 500mm Nikkor mirror lens led me to get this lens from KEH. It arrived quickly so I first mounted it on the Df.

It comes with a 39mm clear filter behind the rear element that I can't remove (don't have the tool for it) and I can't attach a Cut filter over it so I can't use the lens with A7 II monochrome That's not something I would care to do anyhow since I can get the same resolution from the Z7 converted to B&W and reduced to 4000x6000 pixels.

Hand held is not a problem in daylight since I used a high ISO. IBIS would make this easier.

It's not easy to focus so I had to take several continuous shots while moving the focus ring. Focus peaking om a mirrorless body would be more convenient.

I'm thinking about getting a Z6 II or an A7 III to get back to 24MP color. For the kinds of shots I might want to get with the 500mm lens I don't really need any more than the Df's 16MP.

Distant subject
Distant subject...

(Download)

Nearby subject without distracting highlights

(Download)

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

selmslie wrote:

The discussion in url=https://www.uglyhedgehog.co... (show quote)

Back in the late 80s I bought a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. That lens came with a rear clear filter already installed and a set of 4 additional filters. I believe it was two ND filters along with orange and yellow filters for BW.

The literature that came with the lens explained that the rear filters were a part of the optical system and that there should always be one in place.

You may want to do some research to see if the Nikkor had similar requirements.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

selmslie wrote:

The discussion in url=https://www.uglyhedgehog.co... (show quote)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

flip1948 wrote:

Back in the late 80s I bought a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. That lens came with a rear clear filter already installed and a set of 4 additional filters. I believe it was two ND filters along with orange and yellow filters for BW.

The literature that came with the lens explained that the rear filters were a part of the optical system and that there should always be one in place.

You may want to do some research to see if the Nikkor had similar requirements.

The lens looks a lot like the one I owned 40 years ago. That one came with five filters that were easily switched. That was in the film era and it was a bear to use with my Nikon Fe or F3 unless the sun was shining brightly.

I tracked down the manual and it indicated that the UV filter is the default and that if it is removed it must be replaced by one of the alternate 39mm filters (yellow, orange, red and 4x ND). None of these came with this lens although it's in otherwise excellent condition as advertised.

Nikon cautions not to replace the UV filter with another brand since, being at the back end of the lens, a difference in glass thickness might cause optical issues. That also explains why I shouldn't stack a cut filter behind the UV filter - besides, the threads are deliberately different.

I'm OK with leaving the UV filter in place since I can't remove it. I'll probably never find a UV/IR cut filter for the A7 II monochrome that meets Nikon's requirements.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here are a couple more handheld with the Z7 and reduced to 24MP.

This afternoon is cloudy and dark but the IBIS and focus peaking helped a lot. There is a bit of noise from the higher ISO.

Focusing on the bricks was much easier with focus peaking

(Download)

Nearby subject still has a very shallow DoF but the oof portions are just blurred, no visible donuts

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

[deleted]

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

flip1948 wrote:

Back in the late 80s I bought a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. That lens came with a rear clear filter already installed and a set of 4 additional filters. I believe it was two ND filters along with orange and yellow filters for BW.

The literature that came with the lens explained that the rear filters were a part of the optical system and that there should always be one in place.

You may want to do some research to see if the Nikkor had similar requirements.

My thought as well on the filter and that is why it comes with it attached.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

selmslie wrote:

The lens looks a lot like the one I owned 40 years ago.

Based on the s/n it's probably from 1983, exactly the same model that did not work well with a film SLR and not much better with an DSLR.

It's finally well matched to a mirrorless body although autofocus would have been helpful.

markwilliam1

selmslie wrote:

The discussion in url=https://www.uglyhedgehog.co... (show quote)

I sold my Minolta 500mm AF mirror lens years ago due to the horrible bokeh it produced. Loved the lens for it AF abilities though. Seems this is a problem with mirrored lenses that have a distant background.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

markwilliam1 wrote:

I sold my Minolta 500mm AF mirror lens years ago due to the horrible bokeh it produced. Loved the lens for it AF abilities though. Seems this is a problem with mirrored lenses that have a distant background.

I sold my original copy soon after I bought it forty years ago. It didn't work well with a film SLR. I just acquired the same lens a couple of days ago. It works well with a mirrorless camera even though it's manual focus, partly because of IBIS. At 2 pounds it's a lot easier to handhold than my 5 pound 150-600 Tamron.

Mirror lenses do not have a hard stop at infinity because they are not stable under different temperatures. But once the lens is at ambient temperature they should work well.

Nikon doesn't mention a temperature range beyond which it does not perform optimally. This one seems to be fine here between 70F and 100F.

It doesn't have a problem with distant backgrounds but it's not a lens I would use for landscapes. And although you can focus close to the camera, the DoF becomes so shallow that you might as well use a more normal focal length and take a couple of steps closer to the subject.

As for bokeh, it's something you need to look out for. Unless there are lots of tiny specular highlights outside of the DoF you should be OK.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

selmslie wrote:

I sold my original copy soon after I bought it for... (show quote)

Wouldn't focus peaking help with the focus regardless of temperature?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Architect1776 wrote:

Wouldn't focus peaking help with the focus regardless of temperature?

Yes, and so would autofocus. That's not what concerns me.

The lens produces a very sharp image from corner to corner. That means that the image is relatively flat at the sensor.

But when the focus changes with temperature, will the image still be flat on the sensor? If not, the corners might go get blurry or show some chromatic aberration.

I have never seen a test of these lenses. It may be a non-issue.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

selmslie wrote:

Yes, and so would autofocus. That's not what concerns me.

The lens produces a very sharp image from corner to corner. That means that the image is relatively flat at the sensor.

But when the focus changes with temperature, will the image still be flat on the sensor? If not, the corners might go get blurry or show some chromatic aberration.

I have never seen a test of these lenses. It may be a non-issue.

"Mirror lenses" have a number of benefits. Front surface mirrors add no chromatic aberration to the optical path. Since most of the heavy optical work is done by the mirrors, the IR focus point doesn't move around like it does on refractive lenses. But they are optimized for focused images...everything in the frame needs to be the same distance away, although depth of field issues are related more to the extremely long focal lengths, just like with refractive lenses.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

larryepage wrote:

"Mirror lenses" have a number of benefits. Front surface mirrors add no chromatic aberration to the optical path. Since most of the heavy optical work is done by the mirrors, the IR focus point doesn't move around like it does on refractive lenses. But they are optimized for focused images...everything in the frame needs to be the same distance away, although depth of field issues are related more to the extremely long focal lengths, just like with refractive lenses.

Exactly! Mirrors cannot mess up the most important aspects of the image.

Nevertheless, there is still some minor cleanup that the rear end of the lens has to do to get the image projected onto the sensor. So long as those few optical stages don't mess up the work of the mirrors the image should remain free of any abberrations.

Nevertheless, there is a huge amount of movement on the distance scale (about 3/4") between the infinity mark and the hard stop. Maybe that's just overkill or maybe it's to get it to focus properly on top of Mt. Everest or at the north and south poles in the dark.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

selmslie wrote:

The discussion in url=https://www.uglyhedgehog.co... (show quote)

I got a good used Minolta 500/8 reflex that has AF ability on the E mount when using the appropriate Sony-supplied mount. Its AF is accurate and even fine-adjustable but it's very slow, noisy. My reasoning for having this lens is simple. It's very short and light and provides at least 750mm equivalent focal length on my ɑ6500.

Yes, bokeh stinks. No, it's not good for BIF. But sometimes I get lucky. I've tried carrying long zoom lenses and the weight + size has been a barrier. My usual camera is an RX10m4 but this combination is longer and sharper and has superior image quality when I get lucky. I'd want the Nikon if I could find a good copy and could use it on my Sony E mount. Mirror lenses have their place IMO. Oh, btw, this Sony has sufficient in-body image stabilization to make using such a long lens hand-held feasible. It's one of the main reasons I upgraded from the "6000".

(Download)