Photography with a 500mm mirror lens. What is it like to use? With beautiful & bizarre photos.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- Mirror lenses are relatively compact and affordable, compared to conventional telephoto lenses. What are they like to use? What are the pros and cons? How good are the results?
This video featuring the Tamron SP Adaptall 2 500mm f8 Tele Macro lens should be of interest to anyone who has never owned a mirror lens. Plus, for owners of mirror lenses, it presents some inspiring and bizarre photographs to review.
Here are time links to the different sections:
00:00 Introduction
01:59 How a mirror lens works
03:39 The Tamron SP 500mm’s design
05:02 Long distance photography
08:18 Street shots/portraits
10:16 The moon and stars
11:45 Close-up shots
13:39 Bokeh - the good/bad, including "horror bokeh" at 14:12
15:43 Donuts
18:00 Conclusions
If you’d like to contact me direct, or make a contribution to my channel: simons.utak1@gmail.com
You can see more of my photos with many different lenses on Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/page1 - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Here are time links to the different sections:
00:00 Introduction
01:59 How a mirror lens works
03:39 The Tamron SP 500mm’s design
05:02 Long distance photography
08:18 Street shots/portraits
10:16 The moon and stars
11:45 Close-up shots
13:39 Bokeh - the good/bad, including "horror bokeh" at 14:12
15:43 Donuts
18:00 Conclusions
It is so refreshing to see a lens review that shows actual pictures through the whole video. Many reviewers just record themeselves talking to the camera, cutting back and forth constantly to show their own face and barely including any footage from the lens.
I couldn't agree with this statement more! Though we did get a glimpse of Simon in this video. LOL!
exactly...I watched a video where a guy was explaining how to find owls and one of the signs would be pellets under their perch or nest...as he was supposedly standing above the pellet but he haven't shown how they look like but felt more important to film his face
They don't want to be judged and think they're a news broadcaster 😅
I like having a little video because it can help give context to shots, especially in street photography. But a bunch of youtubers do way way too much fluff vs shots.
So true! The subject of the video is the lens; make sure the ratio of subject-to-face time is at least 10:1!
Holy hell I love that horror background. This is the actual premise of any number of movies--you've found the lens that reveals the awful truth of the world. Like your search for swirly bokeh, you must now devote this channel to identifying situations where you can achieve that effect. I love it so so much.
I'm working on it!
I have a Takumar 28mm that only opens to f3.5, but it's almost a pancake, has lovely smooth transitions to out-of-focus areas, and, after midnight, reveals the weeping ghosts of spurned brides.
Yeah, I like it too. What a great look
The amount of example photos is just amazing
A 500mm mirror is my go to street photography lens, although I've taken some good blossom and flower shots as well.
Advice on using them - forget overcast days, colours just wash out, as also happens at higher iso's. You need bright strong sunshine. I rarely go above 400 iso, and 1/400 th second. Use dark areas in the background to emphasise the contrast and saturation of colour, mirror lenses can create chiaroscuro like no other lenses, you need to channel your inner Rembrandt. Find a vantage point and sit down or lean against something until you've cracked the tiny depth of field, exhale slowly and gentle on the shutter button. Best advice, don't give up, when I first went out with one 90% of the shots were out of focus, then 80%, you feel you're getting somewhere when its 50/50. Shoot on continuous and adjust focus by grip pressure rather than turning your wrist. Ignore the LCD. You can't use it to check if your shots are in focus. You won't know until you've got it on a monitor, as the depth of focus is miniscule.
Its addictive because it isn't easy, there's a Zen attitude required, accept failure, move on.
Got one with a T2 to Minolta adapter on my Sony. Using it mostly for astrophotography and as a finder for my telescope. It came with three non-colored filters to compensate for the lack of an iris.
I'm surprised how sharp the lens got when you really nailed focus with a decent shutterspeed. I agree with your conclusions. They're tempting for their small size but they look very difficult to use effectively.
The donuts at like 16:30 are trippy, looked like something from the intro to a 1970s police drama or something.
Got myself a russian Maksutov 500/F8 at ebay for 80 bucks AFAIR, 18 years ago, and working with it taught me patience, using the tripod and the cable remote ... and a lot of insight in the physics and characteristics of different optical systems.
And as it's M42, it fits on all my interchangeable lens cams.
Definitely a must have.
Got the same one. I'm using it not very often, but put it on an adapter and my Fuji and shot the full moon at midnight. Was very pleased with the results.
Thank you, that was fun from start to finish, including the large helping of doughnuts! I enjoyed the commentary immensely - informing yet very tongue-in-cheek at times. Now I'll have to watch a few more of your videos, Simon.
I love the Minolta AF 500 F8 (also have the rebadged Sony version) - a 500mm mirror lens with autofocus, originally for Minolta / Sony A-mount. I use it on my A7iii with a Monster Adapter LA-EA4r which gives me tons of autofocus points and eye / animal AF. Very lightweight and compact. Works well as a casual wildlife / airshow lens.
omg, focus is the most tricky part of this lenses, it surely is incredible to have autofocus ones !
Yeah, it was unique lens. The last time I see and touch that lens was 178 years ago, when sony just release their first DSLR (A100?)
@@wilsonxyz92 The Minolta AF 500 F8 was released somewhere around 1989, the rebadged Sony version (which appears to be identical, may have updated lens coatings) was released in 2006. It was limited to one central AF point on Sony SLT cameras, but thankfully the modified Monster LA-EA4r adapter allows me full sensor AF points and eye AF, etc
@@aaronramos6056 Yes, it is great to have AF. It's a small and lightweight lens, easy to pack into a camera bag "just in case" i see wildlife
As usual, informative & well produced Simon. Thanks!
excellent video - one of the finest 'talks' on the subject of mirrorless lenses that I have seen -- thank you
As a wildlife photography, never have been a fan of mirror lenses. It's also hard to justify the downsides of them when great vintage long telephotos can be had for little money that are superior to any mirror. Just my two cents
Got any examples of vintage long telephotos you'd recommend?
@@Amusia727 plenty! Nikkor 600mm AIS, Nikkor 500mm F4 P, Nikkor-H f4 300mm, Any of the Heinz Kilfitt lenses. They made a few 400, 500, and 600mm. Novoflex 400mm, get the one with the grip and shoulder stock, makes for very steady shots. Anything from Meyer Gorlitz. Tamron made a 400mm f5.6 that I've been using almost exclusively for a year adapted to a Sony a6000. It's great, lightweight, easy to handle and focus. They're a bit rare though. You'll find the very slow f7 before you do that. Even the f6.3 is better but also rare to find.
You shot a really diverse collection of inspiring photos with this lens! A great review for sure
Love your videos, keep them coming
Thank you Simon for a very interesting video at your usual exceptional standard. It looks like quite a challenge to pull off an excellent photo which would make it all the more satisfying. You’ve whet my appetite! I will look out for a bargain copy. Thanks again.
Your Exhibit A is a magnificent shot - the human race unmasked - and you've nought to be complaining of. Really good vid. I've one of these disasters myself - not the Tamron, although I've got the SP 90 and a couple of other SP and they're very good - mine's a MTA 550 f/8.5 from 1971 and it's a shocker. It's so preposterously uncooperative that I've decided never to part with it - my life's goal is to get one good shot (plus, even if I paid someone to take it off me, I'd still feel I'd ripped them off). Just weighed it: 1245g of Soviet Decline. Best results at comparatively short range... and the penny's just dropped - next outing is ICM: Perfect. Cheers and all the best. PS - thanks for the donut section... I've a belly-ache from laughing - great stuff.
I have the vivitar iteration and like it for certain things...like the moon where it shines. The donuts make for very interesting motion graphics composite work if you like to do your own backgrounds etc.
Your city examples are very convincing arguments for this lens - thanks for sharing
Thank, this was really educational.
I bought a Chinon 500mm a few weeks ago. Haven't had a real opportunity to use it, but I was quite impressed with it. Great review, it was very inspiring 👍
Great video! Exhibit A really made me chuckle. I've got one of these and I gave up using it as a camera lens (long lenses aren't my thing) and converted it into quite a useful spotting scope.
Great video!
Very nice narrations 👍
thanks, very helpful and informative. Great video
I own an identical lens, which I use on my Fuji X-T5 for 750mm equivalent reach. (Yikes!). Its raison d'etre is that you can carry it around if you're willing to make a few sacrifices. The biggest sacrifice is that it's really hard to focus unless you have it on a tripod, because the image jiggles around too much. Lean against something solid or carry a monopod. For moving objects, use continuous shooting, and some shots will be in focus. I get good pictures of birds that way. It's pretty sharp, if you nail the focus and use a high shutter speed, though not as sharp as a modern lens. An equivalent crop from my Fuji 70-300 is just as sharp, perhaps mostly because of good IS, but it's a lot heavier hanging around my neck.
Take a mirror lens for a walk around the neighborhood. Your new ability to photograph distant people and things will expand your photographic vision, especially if you typically take a lot of cell phone pictures.
I bought one of these new in the 80s to take on a safari. I only took it with me once and coughed up for a 300/2.8 before my next trip! When film was a finite resource, a hard to focus lens wasn't my friend... Excellent review by the way, it looks like you had a lot of fun and produced some very interesting images.
Great review as always. This one was particularly fun. I came for the donuts. However, I was glad that you didn't sugar coat your opinions. Well done on picking up this interesting lens at a car boot sale and bringing it back to life. Before watching I was thinking that this is another lens that I'll need to purchase. I've never owned a mirror lens, though had used one in the past. Back in the day they gained popularity because of their compact design. Having seen the simple optics of your mirror lens - this would partly explain the resulting images. The donut Bokeh can be attractive in the right conditions. Though wasn't at all prepared for the 'living dead' horror film rendering. Wonderful set of images and final conclusion. Once a lens gets beyond 200mm then it really needs to be auto-focus. Thanks once again, really enjoyed your English sense of humour.
I think that if you're interested in long manual lenses on a budget you end up acquiring this lens at some point. For me, I ended up with a pentax system and manual vintage lenses for mostly budget and masochism purposes. I got my hands on a copy of this lens somewhere along an ultimately expensive series of "budget" lens purchases that occurred between growing frustrated with a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 and finally landing on a Pentax A*-series 300mm f4. I was never sure if my frustrations with my Tamron 500mm SP were due to poor camera skills or a slight defect with the lens. I ultimately convinced myself that the mirrors may not be quite aligned and (over a few drinks) had a trial-and-error session of tapping the middle front mirror gently with a hammer to try to fix things up. The lens now sits on my shame shelf of lenses that are still functional but too compromised to feel good reselling.
Thanks much for this. I appreciate the careful work & analysis. I'm sure you know that these were originally made as visual telescopes, the most famous being the Questar. The small size as a telescope is usually 90 mm. Diameter. Cameras have been attached to rhese since film was all there was. A variant, known as the Schmidt-Cassegrain, has been used for astrophotography for decades. Questars are meant to be adapted to cameras, but they are outlandishly expensive. Celestron & Orion make similar and very nice clones of the Questar. One thing worth noting is that the ASTRO styles are all at least f/10, and often f/12-14, but typically have a much better focuser, which focuses very well. Thanks again. Great video!
I have the Tokina version of this lens for Canon FD Mount, I've not used it on my AE-1 yet but I did use it with an adapter on my Canon M50 Mk2 and it was kind of a sharp learning curve getting good shots out of the lens. It was a fun time though, so I can't be too mad. I bought the Tokina 500mm mirror lens for $100 + shipping on eBay. I did learn something about this lens in the video: I didn't know about the 35.5mm filter at the base! So thank you, Simon
Your observations are mine. I have both Tamron 500's. I did not know that the earlier was optimized for distances and the later for closer. Good to know. I have had the same focus and motion problems on an A7M III. I got an adapter for an X2D and will try it on that, a strange combination. However, it does have great IBIS so that will help if I can focus the 500's. Another good review, thanks for the effort. Cheers.
Just bought my 2nd mirror lens last week. I love their portability, the challenge of using them, and the unique effects they produce - although, I mostly only use them for wildlife and motorsports photography.
The messy bokeh and donuts are not to everyone's tastes, although these can be scaled back with editing. But in an ocean of perfect, Instagram-ready photos, sometimes uniqueness is a good thing.
Currently I own a RMC Tokina TM500 f/8 (PK mount); and, my new acquisition, the Super Paragon 300 f/5.6 (M42 mount) - both adapted to EF for my DSLR.
My background is in astronomy, and these sorts of retroreflective designs are very common in modern telescopes. Designs depend on the geometry of the mirrors (eg. the Cassegrain-Schmidt design uses spherical mirrors with a corrective lens to reduce aberrations). For example the VLT ("Very Large Telescope", yes that's its real name) uses what's called the Ritchey-Chretien design. Almost all research telescopes nowadays use reflective designs because they're so much more compact like you mentioned, which matters a lot more when you've scaled up the optics to the size of a building! Seeing these kinds of optics in a camera lens is incredibly cool
These are fun lenses, I've used the Tamron on a film SLR. back in the early eighties and spotting one for cheap on eBay finally bought one. 500mm on an APSC sensor is quite a stretch add a 2x Tele converter and it becomes ridiculous, and great fun.
Great video, thank you. I actually bought the non-macro version of this lens some time ago. It is really only useful for flat image fields IMHO. I’ve not used it for street photography, but I like the idea - will try that! And Astrophotography! Lets not forget: most telescopes (at least for amateurs) are mirror lens units, so this may be the best use for it!
Great review. I found it hard to focus and you do need good light, but it really is a fantastic and versatile tool.
Tamron also made a 350mm F5.6 mirror lens which is supposed to be a bit sharper, but also suffers from low contrast. I have both the 500mm and 350mm and I love using them. For birdphotography on the go they are a dream, especially during hikes, where a heavy telephoto is just too much of a weight to carry around and under the right cirumstances it takes just beautiful pictures, with its surprisingly nice color rendition.
The dark aperture is a pain but on sunny days you can at least compensate relatively well for it, the real problem is the focus which is as mentioned in this video incredibly difficult to nail. I have so many slightly out of focus shots which would have been great if they were just in focus.
I have the Vivitar solid catadioptric lens on its way now and am looking forward to trying it out.
Very interesting. I'm sure you will squeeze the very best out of this lens. For me, I struggle enough with my Takumar 200/f3.5 beast to get good to decent images. Though mine doesn't have the tripod collar. I' think I'm good at the 200mm range.
Another great video Simon, thank you for that!
I still have my very, very old Canon 500mm mirror f8 - and got an adapter for my Fuji x-t5. You have me anxious to try that combo this Spring, though with the focal length increase, I'm not sure what to point it at. It's actually surprisingly clean too. Oh, I really just shoot for b&w.
I have the old Reflex-Nikkor mirror - it's bigger and heavier than the Tamron - and can be surprisingly sharp. There are several generations of this lens, and I have the larger one with the orange ring. It's supposed to be the best optically of the old mirror bunch. I have gotten a couple of fantastic shots with it - but it's got to be precisely the right shot and conditions. The last time I pulled it out - I utterly failed to get anything useful. Usually, I do better than that, but this is the only type of lens I have (out of a collection I've built over 40 years) that can leave me without a single shot I'm happy with. It's a true test of skill and patience to use. As with yours ... but half again larger and twice the weight.
The 2 ways I've had the most success with this lens are at long distance (train tracks, power poles etc.) and close with no bright specular highlights in the background. I did some work in a graveyard with this lens that gave me wonderfully uncomfortable fractured bokeh from gravestones and straight trees in the background.
I also have the Tokina version - mine is utterly useless. While it "focuses" at well less then 2m, it's so soft close up you might as well be shooting through a pillowcase. It doesn't get its (extremely mediocre) maximum sharpness until the subject is at least 100m away.
One other thought - The Nikkor makes a pretty good lens for shooting the sun/moon - especially as for someone as budget conscious as I am, the 85mm filter size makes getting the ND and IR/UV cut filters quite a bit less painful than for my long zoom. I tried to make it longer, but it purely hates my 2x FD teleconverter, so 1000mm photography just doesn't work. It's simply unable to focus well through it.
Great review. I always wanted one of these back in the day, but could not afford one. Sigh. Gear envy!
Something to keep in mind with longer focal lengths is that modern cameras are really designed for autofocus: older cameras had parallax focusing screens that made focusing way easier. It's amazing how much easier my old Canon A-1 is to focus longer lenses. As for suitability for astrophotography, this is essentially just a maksutov/sct with a 62 mm aperture and a focal length of 500mm. There are some great telescopes of this type out there, so the design by itself isn't a deal-breaker.
I enjoy my copy of a 500mm mirror lens for years and I enjoyed your video. One of my best worst lenses.
Thanks for another excellent video.
I have not considered a mirror lens because of the donuts, however I can now see a limited application using the images at around 16:49.
These could be used in a two shot composition in camera, where the lens is replaced for the second shot with a conventional portrait lens.
As for stars, you should try it on the south downs using astrotracer 3 where you could easily exceed 60 seconds and negate the f8 aperture.
It looks like a fun lens.
Thank you for the video. I have a couple of mirror lenses, and I take them out once in a while. They are fun to use. I use them on my Sony A7ii with the TechArt Autofocus adapter so I can autofocus. Focus peaking works for stationary objects, but if the object moves it's difficult to nail the focus. The TechArt adapter is very accurate.
A thorough and insightful review -- thanks!
Picked one up for shooting video (mirror lens, different brand) -- found the fixed aperture **really** limiting: both for total exposure (25fps, so stuck at 1/50s shutter; can't put on an ND filter), and the inability to control the depth of field.
Still a fun lens, though.
I have one too and it came with the adapter for a Sony A-mount. All for £60 and in pristine condition. Fun to use and it has produced some pleasing results on FF and APSC.
I can do this with my 1250mm, 90mm objective, Maksutov-Cassegrain spotting scope from Celestron. Has a claimed f/5.3, but it seems darker. Works like an APS-C lens in vignetting terms, so it's effectively a 2,000mm lens. With the T-adapter, ring adapter, and my Canon 70D, the rig is pushing 7 pounds and an unwieldy 2 feet in length, but it does have some serious reach. I have never tried it in a donut-producing environment, but I bet it can make some tasty ones.
@ 9:20 - I found the in-line lense mounted filters can help with this - suggest you have a look for a second-hand set. They include a circular polarizing filter which helps with sky.
I bought this lens for astrophotography. I've got some great shots of the moon and even the Orion nebula. With a 2x I can just get the rings of Saturn. A great video, thanks. I'm inspired to try some close up shots now
I bought myself a copy of this mirror lens, though mine is the 55B version, optimized for shooting far away objects, instead of your 55BB. I made that choice deliberately, mostly because I already have a good macro lens for close-up shooting, plus the 55B version has a tripod collar and mount. I have a number of different Adaptall mounts that let me use this lens on Nikon F, Canon FD, M42, and Minolta SR mount cameras. With those Adaptall mounts, I can also use this lens on my Fuji X-H1 mirrorless digital camera, which is really the main use case I have for this lens. I use the X-H1 because it has a stabilized sensor and can make the most of this super-telephoto lens, which has a 750mm equivalent field of view on a crop sensor digital camera. I have used this lens to shoot my kids' sporting events, and I intend to use this lens to shoot the upcoming Solar Eclipse on April 8, 2024.
I have been very impressed with the quality of the images and the handling of this lens. I have a few different Tamron Adaptall lenses, and I can say they're all very good. Of course, I did my research before deciding which ones were best options to buy. And this 500mm f/8 mirror lens is quite good, and in the same general performance category as the higher-end mirror lens offerings by Nikon and Minolta. Mine came with the special hard-case, the yellow rear filter, and 2 stop ND rear filter. I paid approximately $100 USD. The price was so low because the lens hood was dented and wouldn't screw into place. But I fixed this with some light pressure and tapping with a hammer and wooden dowel. Now it's smooth as butter.
Good luck with the eclipse. I used a 700mm mirror lens on a film camera for my first total eclipse, and it worked out pretty well. This time I'm using a 500mm refractive optic, but with a Fuji X-T2 camera that puts me at 750mm, too.
Have the Nikon version. Like it. Excellent when used properly. Recommended. Picked mine up cheap on the Japanese auction. $25 Canadian if my memory is working correctly..
I picked up a copy of the Vivitar Series 1 800mm f11 many years ago. It was made by Perkin-Elmer, a US based company that made lenses for NASA along with making scientific equipment. I love the lens - its very compact. I think its sharp, though some people disagree. I do walk around with it though it really has to be used with a tripod, even on a bright day. I have used other lens for astrophotography. If i ever use this one for that purpose, i will be putting it on a equatorial mount.
Excellent :-) I have the Tamron and Nikon versions, and have recently attached a Dandelion chip to the rear filter on the Nikon. This will greatly assist with nailing focus on the ZF. However, the filter must be removed when using a TC.
I recently inherited a copy of Canon's old FD 500mm mirror lens. This gives me a good idea of what I can do with it!
I have a Sigma 1000mm mirror. All the same issues, but boy you can do fun things if you deliberately set out to do so. It's for the Nikon F mount, and I pair it with a Sony 2X teleconverter to get 2000mm reach - but it's never particularly sharp in part because the mirror foil is in poor shape ( I have not tried dismantling it for cleaning or polish - that might help). The split bokeh is directly related to the donut effect - that secondary mirror in the center obstructs the central zones of confusion that are responsible for bokeh, so you get essentially split-mirrored ghosts of objects beyond the focal plane, rather than smoothed out fields. It does make mirror lenses rather a specialty tool.
The cup is a great idea .
Thanks for the review. I have this very lens and ran into all the issues covered here. I also can get some amazing closeup shots with it when I can dial the focus in. I use it primarily for celestial and still photography. I just got an 82mm 20 stop ND 1000000 for it and was able to get a reasonably good shot of the sun. Mine probably needs adjustment as it can turn a hair "past" the infinity setting and have to back it off. I also find the focus turns a bit too easily for my caveman dexterity. However, when it all comes together in my SONY A68.....the picture can be very nice. Not bad for an ebay second hand buy 🙂
500mm is rather common focal length, but 800/900mm mirror lenses provide what is otherwise extra expensive to achieve
A very thorough review. I thought your analysis was fair on aspects of it good or bad. How about the 1000mm mirror lens next? (half-joking)
Many years ago I bought a second hand Makinon 500mm mirror lens in very good condition to use with a Nikon 7000. It was awful. Considering it was listed as f8 the depth of field was very short and as you point out in the video, nailing the focus was difficult. Colour rendition was very flat and washed out. I soldiered on for about 6 months before selling it. The best thing about it was that I managed to sell it for more than I paid for it.
Thanks for the video - I found it and the pictures extremely interesting..
Though I think you would have found the experience a very different, less frustrating one had you used the autofocus Minolta mirror lens with LA-EA4 adapter on your Sony A7 with its IBIS.
Regards.
Having used vintage telefocus lenses Tair 3S, Novoflex 400 & 600 and the mirrored Maksutov MTO-11A, there are multiple advantages to the mirrored lens, not the least of which is the relative compactness of the lens, but there are many disadvantages, such as limited aperture. The mirrored lenses are great if you want to attempt extreme telephotos, but beware of limitations of use such as weight and the light that is required to make decent pictures.
The K-1 has the Astrotracer, and I think the frame averaging function? That would be worth playing with, to get really good Moon photos at least.
Simon
I had one back in the 1980"s I had Pentax ME Super i g 19:53 ot a good picture of the Soace Shuttle in flight . I recently bought a 500mm used mirror lens at a Pawn Shop for $ 40.00 I occasionally use it as it's a lot easier to carry than my Pentax 150-450 zoom lens especially for stationary subjects
Excellent video, sir! I have MS so I don’t see myself being able to clean a lens (taking apart anything that fiddly these days is a no no! Despite my degrees in Physics!). How much is the market value of a lens like that one. I think I’d like to try one! Thanks for your time.
To boost color and contrast with color film, use Velvia or Ektar
I've been very tempted to get a mirror lens just because it's so cheap compared to a traditional tele, but while I don't mind the donut bokeh, I don't really like the softness or slow aperture! I prefer sharp lenses so I can do all the softening myself with practical or post techniques, ha
Last fall I found a guy selling the MTO 1000A 1100mm f10.5 for $50 CAD. Its the only Mirror Lens I have ever used and yup it is as ridiculous as it sounds. Though if you can ever find one for cheap or can borrow one locally, highly recommended.
I have this lens and have side by side compared it to quite a few vintage 500mm models. Including those by Canon and Nikon. This Tamron is the sharpest of those I’ve seen. Only by a narrow margin in the case of the Nikon 500, but clearly better corrected just the same.
I love my Tamron 500mm but I didn't know about the B and BB lenes so I will have to get mine out and see which one I have and look for the other one. I also have a Tamron 2x matched teleconverter for it, that makes it a fun lens. I am now off to find some large donuts 😋
McDonalds : " do you want sprinkles with that or just icing ?"
I had one of these - With the matching 2x converter... Mirror lenses aren't great, but the Tamron is one of the best.
Gassers Photo in San Francisco had a fire sale in the 1970's. Because they had a fire. So, I grabbed a Contax mirror 500 from them. I think what I liked most about the lens was the white letters on it were now a bit amber, and it was a good look. Like an aged blonde jazz guitar starts to look. The glass was fine. But I wasn't happy with the lens. Back then sharpness was the big thing. Plus, I wasn't running around with a tripod. Easy come, easy go.
A long time ago (almost 50 years) I bought a mirror lens. It had the same advantages and flaws as you describe. I never used it much because ultimately it lacked sharpness even when the focus was right. I don't think I'd go for one today at any price, even though it would be far smaller and lighter than a standard telephoto of equivalent focal length.
I have a copy of this lens, it sure is one special design with barely visible fringing nice sharpness and a unique characteristic: the closer the object you film the sharper it gets. its just fun to play with
Excellent
This lens is best to be used for night photography
Christmas lights etc.
I love this lens
Would recommend having a gander at the Rubinar 500/5.6. Sharper and brighter, if larger and heavier. M42 mount.
nice you found a small light weight 500mm mirror lens unlike my Lentar model lol
Seen pics from mirror 300mm zenith, pictures on the film was great
You can add rudamentary autofocus to these lenses if you own a sony camera by using one of the techart adapters. I think there was something similar for Nikon mirrorless as well though from a different company. Using this nailing focus is much easier as you just have to get it close enough and the camera\adapter takes care of the rest.
I have a vintage Tokina 500 mm f8 like this one and even though I don't use it much anymore, it has taken one of my all time favourite photos ever at the zoo of a sleeping fox amongst autumn leaves. The out of focus parts in both background and foreground look like they were brush painted and not real! I love the surreal look.
Which adapter? Everything on the Internet is just adapters between systems with internal AF drive, e.g. E-to-EF, nothing with its own internal fine focus motor.
@@MultipleObjectSelector there are four adapters on the market for Sony E mount with their own internal drive : the Sony LA-EA 4 and Sony LA EA 5, both for adapting old Minolta glass with screw type autofocus (or also lenses with built-in motors), depending on if you have an older or a newer sony, you should get one or the other (A7III ==> EA 4, A7 IV==> EA 5).
And for basic autofocus with vintage lenses, there is the techart LM EA 7 or LM EA 9 adapters. Both adapt Leica M lenses on Sony's bodies, and because Leica M can adapt anything, you can add for example a Leica M to Canon FD adapter on top of it, and use those lenses. The techart adapters work by literally moving the lense a few mm away from the sensor to focus. So it's only semi auto, you have to help it get close to the point of focus and it'll nail the rest for you, especially when using long focal range lenses. On the other hand, for something up to 35mm lenses it can be considered fully autofocus then.
As a filmmaker, I absolutely love the bokeh these lens produce!
@6:10 Another reason for the difficulty in focusing is the gearing ratio of the focus ring (at on the mirror lenses I've tried). I think mine was one-quarter turn to go from minimum to maximum focus distance. Trying to budge the focus very slightly results in a large jump.
Thanks for the complete review. I have a Sigma 600mm mirror lens and looks like it handle better the donuts. I don't have in my visual memory any donuts disturb. I will check anyway the pictures.
There are two tricks I know of to reduce the aperture. One is to use step down rings, but this will reduce contrast because the center obstruction will be a larger percentage of the aperture. A second is to have an off-axis stop made that gives you a small opening that misses the central obstruction. This will give you a donut-free image, but at about f/24 to f/32.
I have one of these and I find it fun to play with on my Nikon Z6
Bought the last model of Nikkor 500mm f/8 Mirror lens a couple of years back to shoot sporting events. Although I feel like the results are only fair, they feel like they punch well above their weight from a cost-peformance perspective. I had someone with a $12,000 tele lens on a monopod behind me at a tournament actually grab my camera out of my hands to try it himself after I explained that my (relatively) tiny lens was the same focal length.
After getting into digital photography, I was looking for an inexpensive tele lens for birding that I could use on my Pentax K-3 ii and tried a few different examples - this Tamron 500/8, another MC Rubinar 500/8 mirror lens, as for "regular" lenses the Novoflex Noflexar 400/5.6 and 600/8, and another Tamron Adaptall-2 lens, the rare 400/4.
The Tamron 400/4 had the best image quality of these, wide open at F/4 it maybe was a tie, but at F/4.8 or F/5.6 it quickly became very good, then again it's also expensive (I got a good deal but still paid 400€, over four times as much as for any other individual lens in this test) and very heavy.
I could see basically no difference between the Rubinar and Tamron mirror lenses, but kept the Tamron since I already had other Adaptall-2 lenses and adapters. I also noticed the issues you're describing: Low contrast images and difficult to focus.
Honourable mention to the Novoflex ones - these actually are extremely simple optically, it's just an achromatic doublet at the end of a long tube (not actually a "tele" design so 400mm means the lens needs to be 400mm long!) yet they performed decently closed down by 1 stop, and the "T-Noflexar" 400/5.6 triplet supposedly is even better. It's just a shame that you can't take the Noflexar system outside without fear of incurring a police response, look at images online and you'll see why.
Also, unlike you, I did get a noticeable benefit of IBIS even at these long focal lengths (500mm -> 750mm equivalent on APS-C, or 840mm when using the Tamron 400/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter like I regularly did), I usually picked a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster depending on light situation but didn't get noticeable blur from camera shake, even going as far as using 1/180 and very rarely 1/125 in lower light with good results.
Today I have the Pentax DA* 300/4 which gives me great results even wide open, but of course it's a much more modern lens. I still have the Tamron 400/4 and 500/8 and intend to keep them, the latter just is very hard to beat in terms compactness and weight at that kind of focal length. You say it's a heavy lens, but compared to other superteles it's a featherweight ;)
I own the Nikon 500mm mirror from the 1980's and a Celestron C-90 1,000mm mirror lens bought new in the 1980's. Rock solid tripod with mirror lock up so the shake stops, with my old Nikon. I do have a Nikon to the Canon EF mount adaptor. Both very nice images but rarely used now.
I've never tried shots with people in the background with my Nikkor mirror lens but now I know to avoid it! I like to embrace the donuts as you say, but I use my conventional lenses more. I was very pleased with the lens flares I got in my solar eclipse images though. I had a crop sensor body I had planned to use for a wider angle shot but on the day of decided to use the mirror lens and I ended up liking the images much better than my D850 and 500PF combination, which is pretty impressive for the cost difference. I guess an eclipse is one event where donuts are appropriate!
I bought a Tamron 500mm in 1980 and went to the Empire State Building and the WTC and shot some pics from the top with a 2X converter attached. From that perspective, it worked great.
This might be the best mirror lens introduction I've seen in a while. I was so tempted to buy one for bird shooting but finally gave up. It's too hard to nail the focus correctly
How I work around the problem is: camera in burstmode, go beyond the point where the subject should be in focus, take 5-10 shots while holding my hand at the focusring and letting the palm of my hand "hang" a bit.
That tiny bit of gravitational force moves the focusring just enough to get the subject into focus 9 out of 10 times.
Shutterspeed approx 1/1000 of a second
@@GTI1dasOriginal yeah this is also the trick I use when not so sure with focusing. But it doesn't solve the problem though
@@NovaDNG "doesn't solve the problem"
... Really...... 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I am really hungry and would die for a donut, other than that, really nice video and interesting lens!
i photograph nature and have this lens to be stunning when laid flat on the floor... Wish i could post some examples on here... It cheap and fun to use... Great lens.
I had a Nikkor 500mm f8 lens back in the 80's. I didn't like it at all. It had what I would estimate to be a one stop fall-off between the centre and edge of the frame, clearly noticeable if I took a shot of a bird against a blue sky. f8 was what it said on the lens but I doubt it was even close to f8 in transmission. I used it with a tripod, so we're not talking camera shake, and I found that it wasn't particularly sharp, and that was in the days before post production sharpening, so I was stuck with it. The out of focus specular highlight donuts get old really fast. And finally the fixed aperture. I'm pretty sure that everyone using any lens wishes that it was faster and we pay often a huge price to make it so. But I discovered with the 500 f8 that I wanted to be able to go to f11 as much as f5.6. The depth of field, even at f8 isn't that much, and especially if I was focusing close up. Who knew? It came with four screw in the back filters, three that were different colours and one which was a neutral density, so in theory I could knock down the exposure. But that lens was hard enough to see through at f8 (or whatever it really was) never mind adding a ND! The size of the 500 - as well as the relatively low price - were the best features that the lens had. I ended up selling it and then a few years later I picked up a used Nikkor 300mm f4.5, which was a much better lens in every way. Although shorter than the 500 (duh) I used it with the Nikkor 2X converter a few times. The resulting "600mm" lens with an aperture somewhere between f8 and f11 was still better than the reflex 500.
I wouldn't mind having one of these for astrophotography. Thanks for the explanation, works just like the Telescope I have. Just need a star tracker that counters the Earth's rotation and then the speed of the lens isn't such an issue. I don't have one yet, it's a hobby and I don't have the Money to spend on one yet- with my 15-50mm I can get about a 10 second exposure without the stars looking stretched, but with the 60-300mm I can do up to about 3 seconds and they give me pretty good photos, even in Town with a lot of light pollution. You'd almost need a tracker for one of these anyway with that 500mm
I've been playing around with a Chinese 500mm f6.3 I found on Amazon. Most recently took it out for the eclipse. The focus is quite frustrating (the focus threads on this lens are far too coarse), and I have also noticed the low contrast. I also purchased an adapter with programmable chip for my Canon to know how to handle it
I used this lens, it's the best mirror lens I've ever used, the other is the Soviet MTO