User ID

Money talks. Nonlemmings pay serious $$ for the good ones.

markwilliam1

Sure they are! Makes me wanna go out and buy donuts!

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Its not correct to say that mirror lenses are not the greatest IQ. There is nothing wrong with IQ. Its only the donut shaped Bokah that is of concern. And in fact, they are even immune from CA. Here is one that I played with this morning. Topaz has just released the ability to call Gigapixel AI directly from Lightroom which is what I wanted to try out. So I took this image of this aircraft, cropped it in Lightroom and resized it by 4x in Gigapixel AI.

Second image is the original.

(Download)


(Download)

Canisdirus

You are thoroughly confused...they aren't exactly in demand.
They also are not ...expensive...downright cheap in fact.
Which goes along nicely with not being in demand.

Whatever floats your boat...but don't think they are sought out by anyone with serious coin. They aren't.
Far better albeit more expensive alternatives. Far better...

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...that is some fine software. I've used it a few times and always get a "wow" when it's done its work...

markwilliam1

Deleted

User ID

Not as wealthy as you. For me $1300 for a 250/5.6 is serious $$. Thaz the consistent going rate (I read only sold listings).

Somehow you declare yourself an authority on bokeh. News flash: A well washed brain does NOT confer authority on its support vehicle.

The majority of UHH types will prefer airbrush style of bokeh. That alone spells out what’s NOT cool.

Airbrush bokeh has a use. It’s handy for a casual headshot against a distracting background. Basically a one-trick pony, not a global aesthetic ... except acoarst for well washed grey matter.

Canisdirus

I already stated it's not a desirable lens for those with coin. Not sure why you find that a sore spot.
Mirror lenses have good image capabilities...but are NOT know for desirable bokeh. Just another fact you don't like.
Oh well...
If I were wrong...mirror lenses would be flying off the shelves...and...they're not.
In fact...only Sony has built one in the last decade for their A-Mount. They didn't bother creating one for their E-Mount cameras...why?...because Sony knows exactly how many they sold in the A-Mount.
Not worth doing.
Nikon? Stopped making them.
Canon? Nope...
Sigma? Stopped making them.
Tamron? Stopped making them.

You better get on the horn and let them all know how brain dead they are...

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

These comments are all true. The mirror lens is a niche product. It allows someone to get a long lens for a low cost, and the IQ is actually quite good (ignoring the donut bokeh of course ).

There is another low cost route that has no donut bokeh problem. But it will require a tripod and it will require manual focusing (and the good news here is that it has a fine focus adjustment). But the image quality is very good.

Refer to this Astro-Tech scope for $399: https://www.astronomics.com/astro-tech-at80ed-3-1-f-7-ed-refractor-ota.html

Here is an example taken with the smaller AT60ED (now discontinued) that is a 60mm objective which is 360mm FL at f6. A Sony A7iii was used in this example showing no bokeh problem with a very inexpensive astro scope. Zoom in all the way on the cropped image and look at the insect on the flower.

The first image is not adjusted and is as originally loaded into Lightroom with the exception that I had pulled the sharpen slider all the way to zero since I have found that denoise AI, which was used on the 2nd image, works best if Lightroom does not try to do some of the sharpening.

Note: There are a lot of cheaper scopes available that are more toys than scopes that can have a camera mounted to it. The Astro-Tech scopes are the lowest cost scopes I have found that have great quality and are designed to work with a camera. The camera needs a T-Ring adapter.

Sample of some T-Rings from eBay.com: https://www.bing.com/search?q=camera+t-ring&cvid=ffefbb25cead4ba591670d21ef4f323a&pglt=771&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

Original

(Download)

Cropped and treated with Denoise AI

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Nice results. I have both a Nikkor 500 f/8 and a 1000 f/11. They work rather well on my digital Nikons, and of course my F.

Here are a few with the 1000. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-648058-1.html
--Bob

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Back when I was shooting film, I tried a number of different mirror lenses. Most were disappointing.

One I really liked was the Tamron SP 500mm f/8, an Adaptall2 lens. Interchangeable mounts for it are widely available for almost any old or modern SLR/DSLR. (I use a vintage Tamron 90mm Macro Adaptall2 macro lens that's currently fitted with an Canon EF-M mount... previously fitted with Canon EF mount, Nikon F mount. I've also got Konica K/AR, Canon FL/FD, and Pentax PK Adaptall mounts.)

There were two versions of the Tamron 500mm mirror lens... I had the earlier one (#55B) that incorporates a tripod mounting ring, which was handy. Buying it used, cost was about $160 with the tripod mount, original case, set of rear-mount filter (30.5mm, if memory serves), even the original 82mm lens cap. I just had to add the Adaptall, which I already had in several system mounts from using a variety of other, excellent Tamron SP Adaptall lenses. The lens' hood was missing... but I was able to find an OEM replacement for $40. Eventually I added some additional ND filters to be able to "stop the lens down" more. It came with a one-stop ND.... I think I recall adding 2 and 3 stop.

That Tamron 500mm had some of the best image quality of any mirror lens I tried (Tamron also made a 350mm f/5.6 Adaptall mirror, but they're rare. I only was able to borrow one briefly... it's an excellent lens too). Following were shot with that lens and make very good 8x10" to 11x14" prints (from slide film... I usually used Ektachrome 200 with that lens).

Shoe billed stork...


Snowy egret...


That second shot illustrates how the out of focus highlights rendered by the Tamron were less "donut-like" than is common with this type lens. I also really like the lens' color rendition and images made with it were reasonably sharp, though care had to be taken to avoid camera shake blur. The lens was so light and small, it's easy to forget how challenging 500mm can be to hand hold! I got in the habit of at least using a monopod with it and that, or a tripod, helped a lot.

Another thing I found with the Tamron was that it seemed to be pretty accurately an "f/8 lens". Some of the other mirror lenses I tried out seemed to be a lot darker than they were rated... "f/8" looking more like "f/11" in many cases.

The Tamron 500mm also was a surprisingly close-focusing lens... to within about five feet (my modern Canon 500mm f/4L IS USM can only focus to about 16 feet, at the closest). I don't know what level of magnification that rendered, but it was "near macro" and makes for some interesting effects. Close focusing such a long focal length can really obliterate a background, as you can see in the image below, where there was a fence and wall about 15 or 20 feet behind the flower.

Orange canna, back lit...


The Tamron 500mm did not work well with teleconverters. I also wasn't a fan of having to remove the Adaptall mount to install the rear mounted filters. But it could take 82mm filters on the front (though I never used it that way). The matched, screw-in lens hood for it was nice and deep, and can be reversed for storage. If I recall correctly, the later version of it (#55BB) didn't have a tripod mount, which I wouldn't want to be without!

I only stopped using and eventually sold my 500mm Tamron after purchasing a 300mm "normal" telephoto and a 1.5X teleconverter that worked very well together. The 300mm and 1.5X were more versatile and gave similar image quality.

At a store once I saw a Nikkor 500mm that looked very similar to the Tamron, aside from a non-interchangeable lens mount and some other cosmetic differences. I always wondered if Nikon had outsourced and rebranded a Tamron. It was good enough.... comparable to some of the best mirrors (such as the Canon FD and Minolta MD). If I were looking for a mirror lens today... or making a recommendation to someone shopping for one... I'd put the Tamron SP 500mm f/8 model #55B right at the top of the list of candidates.

Finally, when shooting with this lens you should be using fully Manual exposure or Aperture Priority AE or Manual + Auto ISO AE. DO NOT use Program AE or Shutter Priority AE modes, both of which the camera needs to adjust the lens aperture to utilize (and nearly all mirror lenses have non-adjustable apertures). Aperture Priority AE changes the shutter speed as needed for exposure. Manual and Manual + Auto ISO AE both work too, because there's no change being made to the aperture. Also avoid any "full AUTO" point n shoot modes and most "Scene" modes like "Sports", "Landscape", "Portrait", etc., which all may require an adjustable aperture too. Using vintage lenses like the Tamron, it's also necessary on some cameras to set them to "shoot without lens", if the lens isn't "recognized". (I used a "chipped" Adaptall on my EOS DSLRs that communicates with the camera. The one I use now with an EF-M mirrorless camera doesn't have the chip, so I have to set that "shoot without lens" override in the menu.)

It's pretty easy to set most mirror lenses fully manually too, since they are fixed f/8. Out in full sun, simply use the "sunny 16 rule" and adjust two stops. "Overcast 11" means one stop of adjustment, while "shady 8" doesn't need any adjustment at all. Just vary your ISO and shutter as needed. (In case you forget, "sunny 16" just means setting f/16, then adjusting your shutter speed to be the reciprocal of your ISO... such as 1/100 with ISO 100. Since the lens is two stop faster than f/16, you would adjust the shutter speed two stops, to 1/400. Since it's a 500mm lens, it might pay to bump up ISO a little, to be able to use an even faster shutter speed... ISO 200 would allow 1/800... ISO 400 would allow 1/1600 in full sun. Of course, on a mirrorless with exposure preview in the viewfinder or a live histogram, it might be even easier.)

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Wish I could see them in downloadable form to really get a good look. Years ago mirror lenses were seen as being not that great, but I can see how things could improve. Maybe even electronic corrections in the camera could be done to make them even better?

By the by, a tripod can be a bipod or a monopod by simply retracting one or two legs. You don't need to remove a leg.

Riggson Loc: Tucson, Az

Somewhat off topic, but my favorite mirror lens is the Vivitar Solid Cat made by Perkin-Elmer. The Solid Cat was designed by the same man who designed the corrective lens for the Hubble.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I have the Minolta AF 500mm ... I like it just as much as my Hog Leg Sony 150-600mm

User ID

And f/0.95 lenses make you hungry for some cotton candy ??