Panasonic 100-300 @300mm f/6.3 vs Alibar 300mm f/6.3 mirror lens

Hi,

For sometime I've had GAS for the Tokina 300mm f/6.3 mirror lens. Just curious how it would be to use a mirror lens and how the images would be. But, since I already own the panasonic 100-300 lens, I couldn't convince myself to pay €280 ~ €300 just for the fun. So I ebay'ed and looked but didn't buy.
Then I read Thedolf's review of the Alibar 300mm f/6.3 mirror lens. It looks more like the samyang mirror lens, so no exif but that's oké with me, and about two weeks ago I finally gave in.

In case you are curious too, here are two pictures taken @ 300mm f/6.3 from the same spot and the same bird with both lenses:

panasonic 100-300 @300mm f/6.3, IS on, autofocus, ooc jpg

Alibar 300mm f/6.3 mirror lens, no IS, MF, ooc jpg

Both shots were taken handheld on a panasonic G6 body. The panasonic with autofocus and IS on, the mirror lens (ofcourse) MF and no IS. Not fair, but a real world situation.

Quite a difference in angle. Either the panasonic is not really 300mm at it's end or the alibar is more than 300mm.
Other than that it is a nice toy but on a non-stabilised body, hand held, not my choice. I think it will go better with my olympus E-PL5 with ibis. So the long lens (panasonic) will go with the G6 (that's why I bought it, for better handling the "heavy and long" lens) and the mirror lens will go with the E-PL5. (whitch now also has a 300mm lens better suited for it's size)

If you want a full review of the alibar 300mm f/6.3 mirror lens I refer you to Tedolf's review, I have nothing more to add to that review.

Thank you for your consideration, but where is Thedolf's review? Link?

Nice comparison.

But the one from 100-300 looking darker than that from your mirror lens. Would it be because 100-300 was shot at 1/1000" f/6.3 whereas Alibar was shot at 1/500" f/6.3?

According to reports, generally mirror lenses would be less sharp but having more beautiful bokeh.

The booked of the mirror lenses is perhaps beautiful (beauty is in the eye of the beholder!  ) but it is certainly strange: highlights have usually a doughnut shape.

Why does the mirror lens shot have the EXIF as ....

"Tokina 2.8 28mm"

Also a very quick lens change when you still need to manually focus a lens. Change lens then manually focus in 3 seconds ?? Gees, I thought I was fairly quick at it.

All the best.

Danny.

nzmacro wrote:

Why does the mirror lens shot have the EXIF as ....

"Tokina 2.8 28mm"

Also a very quick lens change when you still need to manually focus a lens. Change lens then manually focus in 3 seconds ?? Gees, I thought I was fairly quick at it.

That's minutes, Danny.

All the best.

Danny.

-- hide signature --

Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

Sorry, my wrong [blush] I mispelled the name [/blush] hard to search then.

Link: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3721347

I'm not sure but it is a possibility, half the time means less light entering the lens.

But since they are so different in design I really can't tell how that will affect the picture in the end. I simply set the camera to aperture priority and set the panasonic to f/6.3 and let the camera sort it out.

The lensname will probably be a user mistake at uploading to galery, I corrected it in the galery not sure if/when the change will effect the already posted picture.

Martin.au wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Why does the mirror lens shot have the EXIF as ....

"Tokina 2.8 28mm"

Also a very quick lens change when you still need to manually focus a lens. Change lens then manually focus in 3 seconds ?? Gees, I thought I was fairly quick at it.

That's minutes, Danny.

All the best.

Danny.

Doh !!! Old man posting late at night should know better Martin My mistake and now it makes sense.

All the best next door.

Danny.

Dreeke wrote:

The lensname will probably be a user mistake at uploading to galery, I corrected it in the galery not sure if/when the change will effect the already posted picture.

Ahhh, I see. Sorry about the lens time change as well. Martin corrected me on that My mistake for reading it wrong.

There are good mirror lenses and there are bad ones. I've seen shots from a Minolta / Sony mirror lens that are simply superb and its also the only AF mirror lens. So a lot of it comes down to what you pay, you get.

All the best and interesting to see.

Danny.

nzmacro wrote:

Dreeke wrote:

The lensname will probably be a user mistake at uploading to galery, I corrected it in the galery not sure if/when the change will effect the already posted picture.

Ahhh, I see. Sorry about the lens time change as well. Martin corrected me on that My mistake for reading it wrong.

There are good mirror lenses and there are bad ones. I've seen shots from a Minolta / Sony mirror lens that are simply superb and its also the only AF mirror lens. So a lot of it comes down to what you pay, you get.

All the best and interesting to see.

Danny.

Danny - any good legacy lenses you would recommend in the $400-700 range? (used).

I have the panny 100-300 so probably something with more reach.  This would be for backyard birds and on a tripod

thanks

bradevans wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Dreeke wrote:

The lensname will probably be a user mistake at uploading to galery, I corrected it in the galery not sure if/when the change will effect the already posted picture.

Ahhh, I see. Sorry about the lens time change as well. Martin corrected me on that My mistake for reading it wrong.

There are good mirror lenses and there are bad ones. I've seen shots from a Minolta / Sony mirror lens that are simply superb and its also the only AF mirror lens. So a lot of it comes down to what you pay, you get.

All the best and interesting to see.

Danny.

Danny - any good legacy lenses you would recommend in the $400-700 range? (used).

I have the panny 100-300 so probably something with more reach. This would be for backyard birds and on a tripod

thanks

Howdy Brad. The first one that comes to mind is the Canon FD 400 F/4.5 in that price range.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/400mm.htm

From what I've read you will get CA in certain conditions, but fairly easy to fix in post processing. I've never used one, but for me, that's a darn good focal length on m4/3. If you go with that lens, make sure it comes with the tripod collar. I've seen a few on Ebay where that tripod collar is missing !!

Tokina and Sigma also have the older MF 400mm lenses. ATX in the Tokina and APO in the Sigma. Those have elements that are corrected to a certain degree. My guess would be they still have a certain amount of CA or purple fringing. Now days though in software, its not quite so bad. I started in power boat racing in 1986 and that was using the Sigma 400mm F/5.6 APO. Then I went to the Sigma 500 F/4.5 APO and still used today along with the Canon 500 F/4.5L. The Sigma even though its an APO, still has slight CA compared to the Canon 599 F/4.5L and the Canon is sharper, but not by a heck of a lot.

My thoughts would be the Canon FD 400 F/4.5, even though I've never used one, just going by shots I've seen from them and reading what others have said about them.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54619024

http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-400-f4-5-ssc-first-shots-t37012.html

http://www.mu-43.com/threads/55629/

Don't forget that even with long lenses, the closer you are to the subjects, the more details show up. Just because you have a long lens doesn't mean it will resolve fine details at a long distance. With what you have in mind there, you should be fine.

All the best Brad and there are bound to be other good options as well.

Danny.

bradevans wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Dreeke wrote:

The lensname will probably be a user mistake at uploading to galery, I corrected it in the galery not sure if/when the change will effect the already posted picture.

Ahhh, I see. Sorry about the lens time change as well. Martin corrected me on that My mistake for reading it wrong.

There are good mirror lenses and there are bad ones. I've seen shots from a Minolta / Sony mirror lens that are simply superb and its also the only AF mirror lens. So a lot of it comes down to what you pay, you get.

All the best and interesting to see.

Danny.

Danny - any good legacy lenses you would recommend in the $400-700 range? (used).

I have the panny 100-300 so probably something with more reach. This would be for backyard birds and on a tripod

thanks

Howdy Brad. The first one that comes to mind is the Canon FD 400 F/4.5 in that price range.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/400mm.htm

From what I've read you will get CA in certain conditions, but fairly easy to fix in post processing. I've never used one, but for me, that's a darn good focal length on m4/3. If you go with that lens, make sure it comes with the tripod collar. I've seen a few on Ebay where that tripod collar is missing !!

Tokina and Sigma also have the older MF 400mm lenses. ATX in the Tokina and APO in the Sigma. Those have elements that are corrected to a certain degree. My guess would be they still have a certain amount of CA or purple fringing. Now days though in software, its not quite so bad. I started in power boat racing in 1986 and that was using the Sigma 400mm F/5.6 APO. Then I went to the Sigma 500 F/4.5 APO and still used today along with the Canon 500 F/4.5L. The Sigma even though its an APO, still has slight CA compared to the Canon 599 F/4.5L and the Canon is sharper, but not by a heck of a lot.

My thoughts would be the Canon FD 400 F/4.5, even though I've never used one, just going by shots I've seen from them and reading what others have said about them.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54619024

http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-400-f4-5-ssc-first-shots-t37012.html

http://www.mu-43.com/threads/55629/

Don't forget that even with long lenses, the closer you are to the subjects, the more details show up. Just because you have a long lens doesn't mean it will resolve fine details at a long distance. With what you have in mind there, you should be fine.

All the best Brad and there are bound to be other good options as well.

Danny.

Thanks very much Danny. Your pictures and your willingness to share your skills and knowledge are a gift to this forum

Be well
Brad