Reading mode: Light Dark

Mirror Lenses

Go to last post
C

Chris Dennehy

Leading Member
Messages
649
Reaction score
2
Location
Tralee, IE
Occasionally I need a lens of about 500mm or so, I do not want to carry around a Bigma or similar lens and a mirror lens with it's light weight and relatively small size seems to fit the bill.

Any ideas on which K mount one to buy or to avoid.

Thank you.
--
CD
 
The Tamrom 500mm f8 is one of the best and most common. It uses the Adaptall lens mount so look for one being sold with an obsolete mount and fit a Pentax K fit mount. No need to look for a KA mount (getting very expensive) as there is no aperture to control, just use Av mode.

There is also a good but rarer SIgma 600mm f8.

I assume you know all about the drawbacks of these lenses - doughnut bokeh, relative lack of contrast etc. Despite their light weight they still need good support. They are slow lenses and this will make it difficult to get high shutter speeds unless you embrace high ISO working.

--
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/steephill
 
If you want to take "serious" pictures I'd stay away from mirror lenses. Sure they're better than nothing and yes, they are somewhat lighter but to my mind they're more frustration than anything else.

If you can't afford a better lens then a mirror lens will work as an "interim" solution but if you're only thinking mirror because you're worried about weight then perhaps you should stick to shorter shots...

--
Keith...

Look at the picture, not the pixels...
http://www.lkeithr.zenfolio.com
 
On e-bay and similar websites there are always quite a few to find under different brands. They are better suited for occasional fun (a bird, the moon) than for serious photography, although the most impressive astronomic telescopes use the same principle. Quite killing for me is the demand for manual focus where you get focus errors 1:1 back in your image (unlike focusssing at full aperture and then close the diaphragm). Probably focussing in magnified live view reduces this problem in todays camera models.
 
I recall a lens from Vivitar many years ago. It was a Series I lens call a Solid Cat. Got rave reviews at the time, but was expensive. I haven't seen one in many years though. Anybody remember that lens?
--
I'm thankful to still be able to * .
    • add your favorite activity here.
 
As steephil has replied, the Tamron is about the most common good performer. I have one and whilst doing my background digging it seems that the model 55BB is better than the model 55B. Both models crop up regulalryl on the bay and go for around GBP 100 - 150.

I used it to replace my Centon model which was smaller and lighter. Do I take better pictures with the Tamron than the Centon? well, can't say I do really. Centons (which is a badge, not sure who makes it but I guess the same design comes under several badges) go for about GBP 30 on the bay.

Cheers,

Rod

--
All I want is a digital back for my trusty K1000 . . .
 
Another option is a consumer xx-300mm zoom plus a teleconverter. I tried my Sigma DL 70-300 with a Kenko Pz-AF SHQ 1.5X. Those two together cost me 60$ (lens used, TC new).

Compared to something like a Bigma, the result is not sharp, nor contrasty, and I have never used the combination for anything. Still, the lens actually does autofocus (backing off to 250mm reduces hunting, but in good light it works even at full 300mm), has no donut bokeh, has aperture control, and image quality does seem much better than the mirror lens samples I've seen.

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/
 
First of all thank you all very much for your informative replies, much appreciated.
steephill said:
http://mirrorlens.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
Most interesting site, thank you for the link
steephill said:
And one of my own where I compared three mirror lenses. I will re-do this one with the K7 when the weather and light improves in the Spring.
Click to expand...
I see that hope still springs eternal.
steephill said:
godfrog wrote:

Another option is a consumer xx-300mm zoom plus a teleconverter. I tried my Sigma DL 70-300 with a Kenko Pz-AF SHQ 1.5X. Those two together cost me 60$ (lens used, TC new).
Click to expand...
steephill said:
Compared to something like a Bigma, the result is not sharp, nor contrasty, and I have never used the combination for anything. Still, the lens actually does autofocus (backing off to 250mm reduces hunting, but in good light it works even at full 300mm), has no donut bokeh, has aperture control, and image quality does seem much better than the mirror lens samples I've seen
Click to expand...
I had originally considered adding a teleconverter to my Tamron 70 - 300mm but the general opinion that I could find was that teleconverters were not worth it as the image degrades too much.

The problem I have is that quite large numbers of wading birds as well as geese arrive this time of year and there is no cover around them, get within a hundred yards and they're gone.

I had also looked at a number of second hand zooms around the 400mm mark but most of the reviews complained about softness at the 400mm end which got me thinking about mirror lenses.

Back to the drawing board I think.
--
CD
 
Chris Dennehy said:
First of all thank you all very much for your informative replies, much appreciated.
steephill said:
http://mirrorlens.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
Most interesting site, thank you for the link
Chris Dennehy said:
And one of my own where I compared three mirror lenses. I will re-do this one with the K7 when the weather and light improves in the Spring.
Click to expand...
I see that hope still springs eternal.
Chris Dennehy said:
godfrog wrote:

Another option is a consumer xx-300mm zoom plus a teleconverter. I tried my Sigma DL 70-300 with a Kenko Pz-AF SHQ 1.5X. Those two together cost me 60$ (lens used, TC new).
Click to expand...
Chris Dennehy said:
Compared to something like a Bigma, the result is not sharp, nor contrasty, and I have never used the combination for anything. Still, the lens actually does autofocus (backing off to 250mm reduces hunting, but in good light it works even at full 300mm), has no donut bokeh, has aperture control, and image quality does seem much better than the mirror lens samples I've seen
Click to expand...
I had originally considered adding a teleconverter to my Tamron 70 - 300mm but the general opinion that I could find was that teleconverters were not worth it as the image degrades too much.
Click to expand...
The image does degrade, but it seems to me that it does not degrade to the point of being as bad as a mirror lens :) I will add that I do not own a mirror lens and have only compared to samples I have found around the web, on sites like Flickr etc.
Chris Dennehy said:
The problem I have is that quite large numbers of wading birds as well as geese arrive this time of year and there is no cover around them, get within a hundred yards and they're gone.

I had also looked at a number of second hand zooms around the 400mm mark but most of the reviews complained about softness at the 400mm end which got me thinking about mirror lenses.

Back to the drawing board I think.
Click to expand...
Another thing to consider is a superzoom camera, the SX30 IS goes out to 840mm equivalent (a 500mm mirror lens on a APS-C camera would be 750mm equivalent). Image quality seems to be way ahead of the mirror lenses, you can look at some samples at Flickr. There are plenty of shots of the moon with mirror lenses, but none seem to be close to a good superzoom, such as this with the SX30:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tedsla/5203331304/

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/
 
I have just one comment:

http://picasaweb.google.com/pano180/WhichIsBetterASuperzoomCroppedFrom200To500mmOrA500MirrorLens#

The comparison is between a Centon f8 mirror lens and a Sigma 18-200, cropped to the same fov. The Sigma is hardly a stellar lens, but at £160, a bit of a bargain. I use the Sigma, I have just sold my Centon f8 mirror on ebay. I got back what I paid for it (£50) so if the images in the link above do not put you off, at least you should be able to get your money back when you discover how inconvenient and dire mirror lenses are. Almost any 200-300mm zoom is likely to be better quality than a mirror lens (imo), if you want to save money buy a reasonable 200-300 second hand or manual focus and just crop the image.
 
Disagree with many of the posts in this thread. I have the Tamron 55BB and have had great results, some making it into PPG. On safari in Botswana the results easily beat my 55-300 for sharpness. The idea that a consumer zoom plus TC would be better than a good mirror lens beggars belief. Yes they require patience and practice. But buy a good mirror lens and use it with care, and you'd be surprised at what it can do. It will however require a much steeper learning curve. There are some samples in my gallery on this site - see the elephant or hornbill for example

--
http://jonschick.smugmug.com/
 
The mirror lens shot was taken at half the shutter speed of the Sigma. Unless a very good tripod was used for both shots this is hardly a fair comparison. I don't recall the Centon being regarded as a good example of the type though, there are better mirror lenses out there.

--
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/steephill
 
That was the Perkins-Elmer solid cat (as in catadioptic). A very good lens with good contrast mainly due to no internal loss of light due to air-to-glass surfaces.
Kent Gittings
 
There are a few good ones out there. In spite of that they all suffer from a few issues based on the design. Everything has a hole in the center of the light cone caused by the central obstruction. That is why you get the OOF doughnuts in bokeh. Another is that the actual amount of light entering the camera is lower than the indicated F-ratio, also due to the central obstruction, so in reality F8 actually equals F9.5.

Still there are several excellent mirror lenses out there that will lend themselves to great shots if you can avoid the issues. Reflections on water can be terrible due to the bokeh also beware of shooting in recent rain or dew conditions unless you can keep the water reflections out of the shot.

Best 2 mirrors I've used were the Celestron C-5 Telephoto, the older 750mm F6 version, and the Questar 700mm F8. Some of the Russian ones are decent also. Of course the Tamron is good and some of the larger Sigmas including the 600/8 and the 500/4 (a real monster) can be decent.
Kent Gittings
 
steephill said:
I don't recall the Centon being regarded as a good example of the type though, there are better mirror lenses out there.
Click to expand...
I believe you are right but when I sold my Centon and replaced it with the Tamron, the last shot I ever took with it amazed me, I had never had such a good clear shot from it. I was going to post it but it's not in my gallery and I'm at work right now. The Tamron is supposedly a much better lens but I haven't noticed an improvement in my images - surprise :-)

The Centon is smaller and lighter than the Tamron and less than half the cost (used).

IMO with the coming of digital and the ability to raise ISO and PP out the poor contrast etc, mirror lenses are much more useful now than they were with film.

Cheers,

Rod

--
All I want is a digital back for my trusty K1000 . . .
 












Hope these give a reasonable idea of what you can do if you use the lens with a bit of care. Focussing is the hardest thing (the lion is softer than I would like, which is because I didn't quite focus accurately) but perhaps better to show what you can reasonably expect, rather than only pick out the very best examples that I've got.

Jon

--
http://jonschick.smugmug.com/
 
Jon, your images just go to show that you cannot discount mirror lenses outright. Very well done.

I also disagree with many of the posts in this thread. Mirror lenses if used properly can be quite useful IMO.

Cheers.

Ron

--
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'

'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx
 
I've got a 500mm that's simply too fat (diameter) to fit onto a K10D because of the on-camera flash which overhangs the front of the camera body. Also have a 300mm that's not as large and fits ok.

(I have used the 500mm attached to a 2x teleconverter which moves it far enough away from the camera body to clear the overhang; results weren't great, but that could be down to the TC and/or operator error rather than the mirror lens.)

--
Duncan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top