New Tokina lenses for EF-M

It is very good to have options:

• Tokina SZ 300mm PRO Reflex F7.1 MF CF
• Tokina SZ 600mm PRO Reflex F8 MF CF
• Tokina SZ 900mm PRO Reflex F11 MF CF

It is promised that this new generation will be better than the 400mm from last generation.

Manual focus, no IS.

Tripod is a must. And Tokina is promising that focusing will be easier.

jackwelch wrote:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/tokina-reveals-three-unbelievably-compact-super-telephoto-lenses

Anyone going to give them a try?

In the past I have dance with the idea of buying a mirror lens but just felt they are not worth it.

These look more compact than previous models

Might be of interest...  Canon has been looking at revamping Catadioptric ('Cat') lenses recently.   This patent shows they were busy exploring alternative lenses about 5 years ago.  The Patents were allegedly for a 400mm lens, an 800mm lens and a 1200mm lens.  DPreview made a mention of this back in December 2017.

nnowak wrote:

Mirror lenses inherently suck for photography. They were bad 50 years ago and are just as bad today. New focal lengths in new mounts won't erase any of the shortcomings. It is actually embarrassing to see a company like Tokina release these things.

That's certainly the received wisdom on cats, but as ever, received wisdom mixes truths with things that aren't quite so correct.
There certainly are inherent issues with mirror lenses - doughnut bokeh, generally low contrast, slow and painful focus and so on. But it's certainly not universally true to say they're bad for photography. 
I own no fewer than 5 mirror lenses:
Centon 500mm f8 in T2 fit.

Sigma 600mm f8 in EF fit.

Vivitar Series 1 Solid Cat 600mm f8 in EF fit.
Samyang 300mm f6.3 in EF-M fit.
Tokina 400mm f8 in EF fit.
The Centon is awful. Fully deserves every word you wrote about mirror lenses. And more. It was cheap, it's a Korean made lens available under a hatful of brands, but it's very low contrast, not massively sharp, very light and pretty small for what it is. But for all the advantages of size and weight, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
The Vivitar - or PerkinElmer - is very different. It's incredibly short, but quite heavy, given the extra glass elements, and is actually a pretty decent performer. You want a 600mm lens for anything other than an RF camera, for which the RF f11 is a great choice, then this is going to be far better bang per buck than anything else - so long as it's not for action. Because focus is still not the easiest. But aside from that, I WOULD recommend this lens/
The Sigma is somewhere between the two. It's not brilliant, it's not terrible. Quite sharp in good light - it needs some contrast. Would I recommend it? Not especially, no, but as a cheap 600 for static work? Why  not?
The Samyang - well it's like a much smaller version of the Sigma. Performs similarly - I quite like it in full sunshine, not so much in low light. Focuses well enough with focus peaking. Would I recommend it? Yes, just about. Not a lot to carry if you need 300mm on an M camera intermittently.
The Tokina - I actually quite like this lens. It's a touch better than the Samyang/Sigma level, which means it's not bad at all. Seems to have a bit more contrast, it's really quite sharp - of course it's still not the easiest to focus, and doughnuts, but would I recommend this to someone who needs a small, cheap 400mm? Oh yes - if you're not using an R, in which case get the RF 100-400.
So on the strength of the 400mm, I very much welcome Tokina's new lenses - if they're an improvement, they'll be pretty decent. Are they universally useful? Of course not. But are they an embarrassment? Absolutely not, no, they're a welcome addition to the potential M arsenal

nnowak wrote:

Mirror lenses inherently suck for photography. They were bad 50 years ago and are just as bad today. New focal lengths in new mounts won't erase any of the shortcomings. It is actually embarrassing to see a company like Tokina release these things.

Those are strong sweeping statements.
I'm pretty sure there are use cases where mirror lenses like these are the best option, where reach, cost and portability are more important factors than bokeh quality or lack thereof.

Hell, even the James Webb telescope basically uses the same mirror principle. lol

Rock and Rollei wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Mirror lenses inherently suck for photography. They were bad 50 years ago and are just as bad today. New focal lengths in new mounts won't erase any of the shortcomings. It is actually embarrassing to see a company like Tokina release these things.

That's certainly the received wisdom on cats, but as ever, received wisdom mixes truths with things that aren't quite so correct.
There certainly are inherent issues with mirror lenses - doughnut bokeh, generally low contrast, slow and painful focus and so on. But it's certainly not universally true to say they're bad for photography.
I own no fewer than 5 mirror lenses:
Centon 500mm f8 in T2 fit.

Sigma 600mm f8 in EF fit.

Vivitar Series 1 Solid Cat 600mm f8 in EF fit.
Samyang 300mm f6.3 in EF-M fit.
Tokina 400mm f8 in EF fit.
The Centon is awful. Fully deserves every word you wrote about mirror lenses. And more. It was cheap, it's a Korean made lens available under a hatful of brands, but it's very low contrast, not massively sharp, very light and pretty small for what it is. But for all the advantages of size and weight, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
The Vivitar - or PerkinElmer - is very different. It's incredibly short, but quite heavy, given the extra glass elements, and is actually a pretty decent performer. You want a 600mm lens for anything other than an RF camera, for which the RF f11 is a great choice, then this is going to be far better bang per buck than anything else - so long as it's not for action. Because focus is still not the easiest. But aside from that, I WOULD recommend this lens/
The Sigma is somewhere between the two. It's not brilliant, it's not terrible. Quite sharp in good light - it needs some contrast. Would I recommend it? Not especially, no, but as a cheap 600 for static work? Why not?
The Samyang - well it's like a much smaller version of the Sigma. Performs similarly - I quite like it in full sunshine, not so much in low light. Focuses well enough with focus peaking. Would I recommend it? Yes, just about. Not a lot to carry if you need 300mm on an M camera intermittently.
The Tokina - I actually quite like this lens. It's a touch better than the Samyang/Sigma level, which means it's not bad at all. Seems to have a bit more contrast, it's really quite sharp - of course it's still not the easiest to focus, and doughnuts, but would I recommend this to someone who needs a small, cheap 400mm? Oh yes - if you're not using an R, in which case get the RF 100-400.
So on the strength of the 400mm, I very much welcome Tokina's new lenses - if they're an improvement, they'll be pretty decent. Are they universally useful? Of course not. But are they an embarrassment? Absolutely not, no, they're a welcome addition to the potential M arsenal

Thanks for contributing that, sounds like a balanced and honest opinion. I was wondering about the latest crop of mirror lenses.

I got a vintage Korean-made 300mm f5.6 lens with a set of 4 other lenses off Craig's list, total cost $50. it was a T2 mount but the other lenses were Nikon F mount.

I used the mirror lens on an outing or 2, and found its contrast low in good lighting, with unimpressive sharpness. it took a lot of post processing but I was able to get one or two 'acceptable' images out of it. After that I had no desire to use it again and went back to the EF-S 55-250 IS STM.

Later on looking at eBay I was shocked at the price I could get for it selling on eBay. I posted it for $150 and it was snapped up pretty quickly! So all in all I was happy with my purchase!

nnowak wrote:

Photato wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Mirror lenses inherently suck for photography. They were bad 50 years ago and are just as bad today. New focal lengths in new mounts won't erase any of the shortcomings. It is actually embarrassing to see a company like Tokina release these things.

Those are strong sweeping statements.
I'm pretty sure there are use cases where mirror lenses like these are the best option, where reach, cost and portability are more important factors than bokeh quality or lack thereof.

They were the best option in the 1970's, but not anymore. A small sensor superzoom camera like the Nikon P950 or Canon G3X will be no worse for image quality while being immanently easier to use.

But those P&S cameras cost much more than any of these Tokina lenses.
A better comparison would be the Canon EF-S 55-250mm against the Tokina 600mm.
I'm sure a moon's shot for example will come out better from the Tokina, hands down.
Or if I'm using the camera to document for internal studies wild life behavior's, the Tokina 600mm would also be better. Assuming they are of good enough quality.

Hell, even the James Webb telescope basically uses the same mirror principle. lol

The James Webb is not even designed to capture visible light. What is ideal for space observation is generally not what is ideal for general photography.

Infrared is still considered within the range of photography.

Show me a 600 (non-cat) lens that is 545 grams.  The best 600mm is the one you have with you...or can pack up to a mountain top.

nnowak wrote:

Photato wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Photato wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Mirror lenses inherently suck for photography. They were bad 50 years ago and are just as bad today. New focal lengths in new mounts won't erase any of the shortcomings. It is actually embarrassing to see a company like Tokina release these things.

Those are strong sweeping statements.
I'm pretty sure there are use cases where mirror lenses like these are the best option, where reach, cost and portability are more important factors than bokeh quality or lack thereof.

They were the best option in the 1970's, but not anymore. A small sensor superzoom camera like the Nikon P950 or Canon G3X will be no worse for image quality while being immanently easier to use.

But those P&S cameras cost much more than any of these Tokina lenses.

Those were just two examples that came to mind. Copies of the G3X are available in the $400-450 range. A Nikon P900 with a 24-2000mm equivalent zoom is in a similar price range. A Nikon B700 with a 24-1440mm lens is around $300 and it weighs 160g less than the Tokina 900mm.

Would be interesting to make comparisons. But those have less pixels, smaller sensors and mediocre video quality.

A better comparison would be the Canon EF-S 55-250mm against the Tokina 600mm.
I'm sure a moon's shot for example will come out better from the Tokina, hands down.

Handheld or on a tripod?

At those focal lengths you need a tripod with both. The OIS helps but can’t do miracles.

Or if I'm using the camera to document for internal studies wild life behavior's, the Tokina 600mm would also be better. Assuming they are of good enough quality.

Again, handheld or on a tripod?

Hell, even the James Webb telescope basically uses the same mirror principle. lol

The James Webb is not even designed to capture visible light. What is ideal for space observation is generally not what is ideal for general photography.

Infrared is still considered within the range of photography.

Infrared is not visible light.

Still belongs to the realm of photography.

It produces pictures/photos.

A tripod comes along anyway despite the lens.

nnowak wrote:

photo_rb wrote:

Show me a 600 (non-cat) lens that is 545 grams. The best 600mm is the one you have with you...or can pack up to a mountain top.

First example I came across... Canon Powershot SX740 HS is 299 grams and goes to the same 960mm equivalent. It even has autofocus and stabilization.

Not the answer to the question I asked.

I believe the Powershot has a 172mm lens, not 600mm and I don't think it will cover APS-C.

photo_rb wrote:

Show me a 600 (non-cat) lens that is 545 grams. The best 600mm is the one you have with you...or can pack up to a mountain top.

I can do 500mm at around the same weight with  the EF 55-250 IS, including Rexley-Kiron 2X TC and EF adapter. At F/11 admittedly, but with IS.

The 300 cat at 235g looks very light and compact for hiking with. I'm looking forward to the reviews.

nnowak wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Mirror lenses inherently suck for photography. They were bad 50 years ago and are just as bad today. New focal lengths in new mounts won't erase any of the shortcomings. It is actually embarrassing to see a company like Tokina release these things.

That's certainly the received wisdom on cats, but as ever, received wisdom mixes truths with things that aren't quite so correct.
There certainly are inherent issues with mirror lenses - doughnut bokeh, generally low contrast, slow and painful focus and so on. But it's certainly not universally true to say they're bad for photography.
I own no fewer than 5 mirror lenses:
Centon 500mm f8 in T2 fit.

Sigma 600mm f8 in EF fit.

Vivitar Series 1 Solid Cat 600mm f8 in EF fit.
Samyang 300mm f6.3 in EF-M fit.
Tokina 400mm f8 in EF fit.
The Centon is awful. Fully deserves every word you wrote about mirror lenses. And more. It was cheap, it's a Korean made lens available under a hatful of brands, but it's very low contrast, not massively sharp, very light and pretty small for what it is. But for all the advantages of size and weight, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
The Vivitar - or PerkinElmer - is very different. It's incredibly short, but quite heavy, given the extra glass elements, and is actually a pretty decent performer. You want a 600mm lens for anything other than an RF camera, for which the RF f11 is a great choice, then this is going to be far better bang per buck than anything else - so long as it's not for action. Because focus is still not the easiest. But aside from that, I WOULD recommend this lens/
The Sigma is somewhere between the two. It's not brilliant, it's not terrible. Quite sharp in good light - it needs some contrast. Would I recommend it? Not especially, no, but as a cheap 600 for static work? Why not?
The Samyang - well it's like a much smaller version of the Sigma. Performs similarly - I quite like it in full sunshine, not so much in low light. Focuses well enough with focus peaking. Would I recommend it? Yes, just about. Not a lot to carry if you need 300mm on an M camera intermittently.
The Tokina - I actually quite like this lens. It's a touch better than the Samyang/Sigma level, which means it's not bad at all. Seems to have a bit more contrast, it's really quite sharp - of course it's still not the easiest to focus, and doughnuts, but would I recommend this to someone who needs a small, cheap 400mm? Oh yes - if you're not using an R, in which case get the RF 100-400.
So on the strength of the 400mm, I very much welcome Tokina's new lenses - if they're an improvement, they'll be pretty decent. Are they universally useful? Of course not. But are they an embarrassment? Absolutely not, no, they're a welcome addition to the potential M arsenal

So, to summarize, best case, the image quality is "decent", but you still need to deal with a lousy manual focus experience, ugly bokeh, and a lack of stabilization. The lenses are unusable for anything that moves or in anything other the bright daylight.

Apologies, I forgot that using words like "decent" might lose their cultural significance when read by a non British person. We tend to use understatement rather than hyperbole, because hyperbole simply makes one look ridiculous and untrustworthy, your original post being a case in point.

"Decent" from an Englishman is high praise. (I was going to say "quite high praise", or "pretty high praise", but realised that would suffer from exactly the same phenomenon...) - it's not "Outstanding", which would be top level, but it's within the bounds of "excellent", the next tier down. 7.5-8/10, if you wish. And I would happily use the Vivitar or Tokina in any light levels, the Samyang too with some slight reservations.

Focusing these things is actually a lot easier on mirrorless cameras than it ever was on DSLRs, thanks to image peaking.
Not universally useful, as I've said. An embarrassment? Don't be a silly sausage.