Mirror lenses

[Liamisnowon]

What would be a good choice of mirror lens for EF mount or EFS? Would you consider a review?

[Oren]

As much as I heard, they are not that good at all.

[peety3]

Mirror lenses give donut-shaped out-of-focus highlights, and some/many/all don't have an aperture. You end up with a fixed f/8 lens, so you'd better understand the exposure triangle well to make your shots work.

[piiooo]

Mirror lenses give donut-shaped out-of-focus highlights, and some/many/all don't have an aperture. You end up with a fixed f/8 lens, so you'd better understand the exposure triangle well to make your shots work.


Also, you have to focus them manually, which is another thing to take care of when taking picture. The advantages are size, weight and price. They work best when yoursubject is not moving too fast.


I used to own a 500mm 8.0 mirror lens 15 years ago, along with my trusty ol' Zenith [:P]

[Jon Ruyle]

Also, you have to focus them manually, which is another thing to take care of when taking picture. The advantages are size, weight and price. They work best when yoursubject is not moving too fast.


Hold on. If the ones made "for ef mount" are manal focus and have no aperture control, what is the point of being "for ef mount"? I guess it will correctly report f/number to the camera for metadata. And I guess you don't need an adapter to attach the thing. But one's options might widen if one doen't require "for ef mount", and it doesn't seem that one loses much.






As much as I heard, they are not that good at all.





Perhaps it is better to say that they have issues. There is no reason a high quality mirror can't give just as good in-focus images as a refracting lens.


But yes, bookeh will be lousy if you have a big central obstruction (which compact ones must have). And if you compare a $500 mirror lens with a $5000 refracting lens, it shouldn't be surprising if the $5000 lens does better.


Here is a review ("http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html) comparing canon 500 f/4 with tamron 500mm f/8 reflector. Guess what? He says the canon is better :) But it seems to me the reflector, with its portability and low cost, does have its place.

[Bryan Carnathan]

Hi Liamisnowon,


Thanks for the suggestion - they are always appreciated. For the reasons already mentioned here, the mirror lenses are rather far down on my to-do list.


Regards,


Bryan

[peety3]

Hold on. If the ones made "for ef mount" are manal focus and have no aperture control, what is the point of being "for ef mount"? I guess it will correctly report f/number to the camera for metadata. And I guess you don't need an adapter to attach the thing. But one's options might widen if one doen't require "for ef mount", and it doesn't seem that one loses much.





Perhaps they should call them E mount, then. However, most folks would think "it won't fit my camera", since most folks aren't buying the TS-E lenses, and it's often called "EF mount" in the wild.

[Liamisnowon]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Thank you all for your comments. I should have given you more information so you could give a more specific answer, so here it is...<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Yes the mirror does have a limited niche but I think my needs suit that niche. Occasionally I like to take shots of a subject such as a distant city skyline at dusk. I would be using a tripod, shooting in Manual and stopping down for DOF. These considerations wipe out a lot of the disadvantages of a Mirror lens (I think). Sometimes the compression offered by the long focal length is what I'm wanting.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]I have a 350D so the crop factor is helpful for getting some extra reach. I'm looking at a Sigma 600mm FD mount Mirror and I can get an adaptor on eBay. Manual focus is not a big deal. Auto focus will probably be challenged by the low light as will my eye during MF, mirrors are rumoured to be dark anyway due their design. Manual is OK, I can probably do a better job than the AF in these situations.


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Quality; acceptable sharpness and overall IQ is what I'm looking for. I know that is subjective but whatever would cause the average person to say "hey that's a nice photo!" is what I'm looking for. Not a big ask, I hope.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]So what I'm asking is; providing I shoot within the limitations of a Mirror lens, what lens would be the pick of Mirror lenses suitable for a 350D and the IQ afore mentioned?<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]I haven't found much info on the net to help me with this so that might be my answer right there!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] If they&rsquo;re crap just give it to be straight, I can handle it ;-)<o:p></o:p>

[Fast Glass]

Minolta made a 800mm f/8 mirror lens of good image quality, and if you can find the super rareMinolta 1600mm f/11 itwould besuper cool too. I have a Minolta 600mm f/6.3non-mirror and it hasGREAT IMAGE QUALITY, I saw one of these on ebay for about $1000 not too long ago. I paid $200 for my mint condtion lens.

[Jon Ruyle]

I wouldn't have thought a guy named fast glass would be interested in such lenses. [:)]

[Jarhead5811]

Check this out at PopPhoto.com ("http://www.popphoto.com/): ProOptic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror: Lens Test ("http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/ProOptic-500mm-f-6.3-Mirror-Lens-Test)(It's $159.95 atadorama.com ("http://www.adorama.com/PRO50063CA.html?searchinfo=ProOptic+500mm+f%2f6.3+ Mirror))...not my cup of tea but there it is.

[db_ch]

I do have a Walimex 500mm f/6.3 which is awful but still pretty decent ,-)


I mean I did manage to shoot some cool pics with it and some of them even handheld. It does mount to my Canon EF cams with a so called T2-adapter. There are loads of different adapters available for many camera makes.


There's my facebook group "Cheap &amp; Affordable Equipment Photography"


http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=10322131620&amp;ref=ts


If you browse to the last page, 12 or so, there are a bunch of pics taken with the lens (cat, landscape, church, etc). The bokeh is awful but then again the pics lost even some of their "quality" through fb-upload..


Obviously there's a pro version out now - sorry, the website is in German only, I guess:


http://www.foto-walser.biz/shop/Artikel/2715/83/Fuer_AF_Kameras_walimex_pro_500_6_3_DX_Spiegeltele _fuer_Canon_AF.htm


Not sure if those walimex lenses are available in the us or where ever. Got mine in Switzerland, Germany does have a market for them, too.


Price was around US$ 240 (CHF 250 or so)...


I am now more than happy with my Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS and I hardly ever use the Walimex anymore. But - the Canon is a different (price) league then, isn't it ,-)

[peety3]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana; color: black;"]I would be using a tripod, shooting in Manual and stopping down for DOF. Auto focus will probably be challenged by the low light as will my eye during MF, mirrors are rumoured to be dark anyway due their design. Manual is OK, I can probably do a better job than the AF in these situations.


<span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana; color: black;"]Quality; acceptable sharpness and overall IQ is what I'm looking for. I know that is subjective but whatever would cause the average person to say "hey that's a nice photo!" is what I'm looking for. Not a big ask, I hope.





LensRentals says that their Sony (Minolta/Sony-mount) 500mm f/8 lens is very sharp and has little distortion (mirrors shouldn't have chromatic aberration, etc.). However, they say it's a fixed-aperture (i.e. your choices are f/8 and f/8, no other) lens, so there is no stopping down for DoF. You may be dealing with hyperfocal distance so it shouldn't matter anyway. You'll likely need manual focus, regardless of time of day, for multiple reasons: 350D won't autofocus with f/8 lenses, and an FD-mount lens is made for an in-body focus mirror, which EF-mount cameras would never have.

[Liamisnowon]

You are all very helpful, thanks. I have looked at all the material you have refered and considered carefully your comments.There can sometimes bea fine line between getting 'something for nothing' and 'bang for your buck'. Without the opportunity to actually try before I buy, I don't know how close I am to kidding myself into thinking I can get 'something for nothing' (cheap lens reach with acceptable IQ).


The lack of opportunity to try one of these lenses will probably cause me to reconsider other options. For example: 70-200 f4 L + 2X extender would probably yeld better results while also greatly expanding my photo options. Cost may be higher but so is the re-sale. This combo will should also give more predictable IQ for someone such as myself that can't try lenses befor buying.


I also have a friend who is interested setting up a tripod on the beach and photographing his mates surfing, so he is looking on with interest.

[Jon Ruyle]

These reflecting lenses are small because they fold the light path, but also because they are slow.


Another option is a slow refracting (not reflecting) lens. One can buy an 800mm f/10 telescope (not reflecting) for $400. Not much heavier than a canon 400mm f/5.6. Would require a strong tripod for long exposures, though. (I don't know how it would compare to the reflector, not as portable, better bokeh no doubt, but I dunno about false color with this inexpensive glass... probably not too bad at f/10)