400 or 500 mm L Lens vs. Older Mirror Reflex Designs

Gary, you have trotted out your test a couple of times over the last 10 months... ONE set of test shots on a subject with not enough detail to make a reasonable comparison.. having viewed your test, I believe you missed the focus with the mirror lens.. don't know how far away from the car your setup was - guessing it was about 100' or so - I can get that level of detail from my lens handheld at 1/180 - the DOF would be just over 2 feet at that range..

NOTE TO OTHER POSTERS - I am not saying that the Mirror is the end-all-be-all, just that most of these so-called 'tests' get stacked against the Mirror by the tester who wants to (possibly) justify the cost difference of their L lenses... I am not bashing the quality of L glass, and freely acknoledge that they are a 'better' solution - HOWEVER, IMO, until one gets into very high pro level shooting, or one has a HUGE discretionary income, the differences do not outweigh the costs... the true test would be to just USE the silly thing for a while and see what results one gets! We hear a ton of commentary on these forums about how great AF lenses are..... ... BUT do you really think that great shots simply cannot be made with MF gear? AF makes things 'easier' - not necessarily 'better'... just look at the wildlife shots in NG prior to the mid 1980's - those were old MF design lenses, with probably poorer quality than current 'good consumer' glass..

END OF RANT**

Cheers,
Scotty
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

Free the Images
Best Light**

Scotty:

I still have my old Sigma mirror, and you may encourage me to play with it some more, or to do some additional tests. I don't yet have any L lenses (just used borrowed L glass for the mirror tests), and do not have an agenda to justify their cost. I am interested in getting more reach., especially as it is difficult to get past 400mm on a typical budget, as noted by excal and others.

I welcome your tests, ex. versus upres, please post them.

Gary:

I did not intend my commentary as insult to you personally. Your motivations are your own, and I respect that you in all likelyhood performed the test in good faith.. my commentary/rant was more intended at those (and they know who they are) who simply denounce Mirror lenses without actually USING the tool.. I do not personally spend time shooting test photos or viewing at multiple % crop..

I cannot post images here as I have no personal web space (by choice), however I am happy to email you directly a shot or two taken with my Sigma (as shot, RAW or jpeg: no PS at all) so you can draw your own conclusions from real-world use... note please that my lens is newer and does not need an adapter for EOS mount (lens came with it (EOS from factory), purchased new this past spring).. perhaps some of the degradation you experienced was from the adaptor?

I also do not have any L lenses.. as a hobbyist, I cannot justify the cost (more than my truck!) for a 600/4 or 300/xx+TC combination.. for long-distance shooting, one needs a big lens.. for me and my use, f/8 is not a huge limitation.. and as has been pointed out many times, long lenses are usually used wide open, so having the ability to stop down is not really an issue..

The most important factor with using any lens is to learn its foibles.. how it reacts with various lighting situations, angles etc... I see many posts made by people who take a couple dozen shots with a lens and then they make a pronouncement on its quality.. they simply do not take the time to work with it.. learn it... play in different conditions.. I have taken maybe 750-1000 shots with my Sigma, and yes, most have gone in the trash bin.. as have most of my shots with other lenses... my point is that I now have the measure of the lens in question, and can pick it up with confidence and use it to its full potential...

If you are interested in carrying on the conversation, kindly email me directly, using the link in my profile.

Cheers,
Scotty
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

Free the Images
Best Light**

ScottyNV said:

Gary, you have trotted out your test a couple of times over the
last 10 months... ONE set of test shots on a subject with not
enough detail to make a reasonable comparison.. having viewed your
test, I believe you missed the focus with the mirror lens.. don't
know how far away from the car your setup was - guessing it was
about 100' or so - I can get that level of detail from my lens
handheld at 1/180 - the DOF would be just over 2 feet at that
range..

NOTE TO OTHER POSTERS - I am not saying that the Mirror is the
end-all-be-all, just that most of these so-called 'tests' get
stacked against the Mirror by the tester who wants to (possibly)
justify the cost difference of their L lenses... I am not bashing
the quality of L glass, and freely acknoledge that they are a
'better' solution - HOWEVER, IMO, until one gets into very high pro
level shooting, or one has a HUGE discretionary income, the
differences do not outweigh the costs...

Click to expand...

the HUGE difference far outweight the cost..I am not a pro and I started with cheapo consumer lenses..I woudl have never even considered a mirror lens because they are too soft for my taste. There is not even a point in doing photography if everything you will produce is of less than third grade and all your photos are seriously lacking detail..at least not in the birding or wildlife field.

if you want a lens for capturing subjects that have no detail, or it does not matter if they are soft and dreamy, then that's fine, but if you are into birding and wildlife, there is absolutely no point capturing images that are totaly lacking detail. when you do that type of photography you soon realize that this is not even worth doing.. not worth the trouble finding the subjects, not worth the trouble hiking long hours to do so..not worth the time spending money traveling to return with very poor quality images.

but hey..it's your life..and you have only one to live..so if you want to spend it taking poor quality images and ruine good opportunities, then it's your choice.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

ScottyNV said:

Gary:

I did not intend my commentary as insult to you personally. Your
motivations are your own, and I respect that you in all likelyhood
performed the test in good faith.. my commentary/rant was more
intended at those (and they know who they are) who simply denounce
Mirror lenses without actually USING the tool.. I do not personally
spend time shooting test photos or viewing at multiple % crop..

I cannot post images here as I have no personal web space (by
choice),

Click to expand...

however I am happy to email you directly a shot or two

ScottyNV said:

taken with my Sigma (as shot, RAW or jpeg: no PS at all) so you can
draw your own conclusions from real-world use... note please that
my lens is newer and does not need an adapter for EOS mount (lens
came with it (EOS from factory), purchased new this past spring)..
perhaps some of the degradation you experienced was from the
adaptor?

Click to expand...

I would love to see that. can you send me a 100% crop (not a resized image please, no resample) that had not been processed wide open of a detailed subject at a good distance (30 feet or more) at [email protected]

ScottyNV said:

I also do not have any L lenses.. as a hobbyist, I cannot justify
the cost (more than my truck!) for a 600/4 or 300/xx+TC
combination.. for long-distance shooting, one needs a big lens..
for me and my use, f/8 is not a huge limitation.. and as has been
pointed out many times, long lenses are usually used wide open,
so having the ability to stop down is not really an issue..

The most important factor with using any lens is to learn its
foibles.. how it reacts with various lighting situations, angles
etc... I see many posts made by people who take a couple dozen
shots with a lens and then they make a pronouncement on its
quality.. they simply do not take the time to work with it.. learn
it... play in different conditions.. I have taken maybe 750-1000
shots with my Sigma, and yes, most have gone in the trash bin.. as
have most of my shots with other lenses... my point is that I now
have the measure of the lens in question, and can pick it up with
confidence and use it to its full potential...

If you are interested in carrying on the conversation, kindly email
me directly, using the link in my profile.

Cheers,
Scotty
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

Free the Images
Best Light**

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

Daniella,

I sent you a RAW shot of a Kingfisher in late October in regards to another similar thread both of us were participating in.. and your reply to me was that you found the result to be lacking in detail (compared to your L lenses) - perhaps this discussion should properly relate between Mirror lenses and reasonably good quality - similarly priced - consumer glass?? Please all note that I have nowhere claimed that my Sigma is as good as an L.. simply that it is an option, particualrly if budget is an issue!

Cheers,
Scotty
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

Free the Images
Best Light**

Right you are. I myself spent quite a few hours operating a Perkin-Elmer FT-IR back when I was in school.

Very funny post by the way!

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/