Mirror lenses are very well worth the money. I bought myselt a Canon FDn 500/8.0 manufactured in 1980 for about $150 a few years ago. It was in mint condition. I use it free hand on my Fujifilm X-H1 for bird photography. Manual focusing on flying birds needs practice, but as the "film is free" in the digital world it's just to shoot on. I love the result and after some 10000 shots it's not that hard any more to nail the focus.
The effective aperture can be changed by creating a donut shaped opaque "filter" for the front of the lens.Then you put holes in the donut. The size and shape and smoothness of the holes will improve sharpness slightly and will change the shape of out of focus highlights.
I have owned, and used, a Tokina 500mm F8 since the 1980s quite successfully. I use a number of Nikon film and DSLR cameras with good outcomes. This was a very interesting video, especially the shots with the tele-converter. It was also a most enthusiastic one. Thanks for posting.
I used to be an amateur astronomer and had all types of telescopes and the cat was a good all round telescope. I just picked up a makinon mirror lens for $30 at a pawn shop and a adapter for $20 and its not a bad lens at all if you know what it is and know how to use it. Im planning a full moon shot coming up behind some radio station towers using photopills. You right about post processing you get some damn good images from one of these for not much money.
Thank you! I also have a 7D! When I purchased it-I also got a lot of extras including a mirror lens. I had absolutely no idea what to use it for until you came along. Thank you sir from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan!
The mirror lenses are all over the park as to optical alignment and Phillip's 500/8 is obviously quite good. If you can find a good one you still have the doughnut shaped highlights in the unfocused part of the image and, being such a long lens, that can be a large part of the image. For novelty, these doughnuts can pass, but for a conventional look they can trip up the viewer. The photographer has to decide. For astronomical use they do not come into play as the entire image is essentially infinity. I have a Nikon 500/4 refractor, or conventional type lens, and it is such a beast that I seldom use it. Nothing in the universe is without compromise. Great review!
@@ldsklLtgmer Maks use spherical mirrors and corrector lenses. This makes them cheap to make but the corrector lense needs to be really thick meaning that it gets impractical to make large ones. Schmidt's uses thinner corrector plates but they are more costly to make as they aren't spherical. These lenses aren't Schmidts or Maks as they use Mangin mirrors which are really lenses with a mirror surface on the rear. Again cheap to make when small but too impractical to make larger.
I shoot a mirrorless Sony A7 mk II camera so I have been dragging out a lot of old manual focus lenses as the image peaking makes it easy to precisely focus the image, so I still shoot manual from time to time. I tried a Quantaray mirror lens of similar design to yours and I was pleasantly surprised that it looked pretty decent. Unlike the Canon, the Sony has the image stabilization built into the body, so the 500mm was not too terrible to use hand holding. With the 2x tele-converter even with the stabilization set for 1000mm, it was impossible to hand hold, so a tripod is necessary. My results were not too different from yours in which the 500mm alone was acceptably sharp, but the Kalt branded tele-converter really softened things up. I also noticed that your lens had the same ugly bokeh as mine. I guess that is to be expected of a mirror lens. I'll have to look to see if I have a better quality converter lying around and see if that improves things. I'd imagine on a bright day or trying to take astral photography the chromatic aberration would be pretty awful. Mine was given to me by someone cleaning out their house, so I essentially saved it from the landfill. So for a free lens, it is very good.
I have the Sigma 600/8 mirror in EF mount and use it on my 5D2... When you learn to use it and are in practice, it can give truly awesome results. cheers!
Have just purchased a mirror lens online and am still awaiting its arrival. My first serious camera was a Pentax K1000 so didn’t see the manual spec as a problem. Thanks for the informative video - can’t wait to try the lens out although plan to use a monopod for more convenience in the field.
With sharpening even crap lenses can be improved. I have never understood why mirror lenses are so decried. The only issue is they’re fixed aperture and fixed focal length when people are so used to zooms. For me, I’d love a tiny 1000 or 2000 lens for astrophotography. Its not worth a whole lot of money though.
They are usually quite slow, most of them are manual focus, have a donut shaped bokeh and have limited sharpness and contrast. I have the Minolta 500 reflex, one of the few with autofocus and I like it. But I mainly bought it for its special approach.
I saw in a video that Olympus has "Star AF" :-P The moon is big enough for AF. Idk if planets also work. Apart from that the comment started with the question why mirror lenses are "decried". That's not limited to astro.
Great video. Been wondering about these for a while and not very many videos about that actually explain them with shots taken with one, so good on ya. Very good and informative.....
You have to lurn how to handle this lens. The lens is a slow lens. Which cann't use for everything. Its very easy to carring with instead of a real 500mm lens which is heavy. I like the lens and his special bokeh.
I don't know why everybody says that exposure needs to be manual. My Nikon D7000, from about a decade ago, allows me to assign a 'non-cpu lens'. In my case it's 500mm & f6.3, now I use aperture priority to adjust shutter speed & ISO. The focus is still manual and very picky, but exposure is not a problem. Check your user manual!
Deal! Setting the exposure on my Nikon D40X, won't be a problem. Everything is (mainly) manual; and no auto-focus because I bought the camera with an older lens. It's a 28-80mm. However this lens looks brilliant! I'm away to EBay, to hunt one down. Cheers!
I have the Minolta 500 Reflex with autofocus. The most difficult part for me is to find what I want to photograph. It's a prime lens so I can't zoom out a bit for better orientation.
Thanks for such a positive video. I'm getting what appears to be your lens's doppelganger. Looking forward to taking it hiking with me as a lightweight telescope. There are lots of t2-to-1.25 adapters out there for exactly that purpose. It'd be sort of a more-compact Celestron C90, which is also pretty good for hiking, though on the large side of possible. We'll see how well collimated it is and/or how easy it is to align. As for the TC, I'll probably stick to a telescope Barlow or a nice Sigma APO.
I use Canon FD lenses more than 35 years and only with my Canon Film cameras. The Canon Reflex Lens 8.0/500mm is regarded as one of the best mirror lenses along with the similiar Nikon rl 500mm. For landscape photography it is a very valuable lens with very good results, if you use this type right. Use of a very stable tripod is necessary. I use a Cullmann Titan 400 with good results. Best regards from Germany!
That mirror lenses are full manual is not completely true. There is at least one model that supports AF and can be used fully automatic: the Minolta/Sony AF 500mm F8 Reflex. You of course will have to use a Minolta or Sony A mount camera, or a Sony E-mount camera with proper E2A mount adapter to use this lens to its full extend.
on a super bright sunny day the fixed f8 aperture might be a factor ? What is the thread size on the front if I could ask? a ND filter may counteract a really sunny location.
I've sold the lens already, as I only bought it for a video, so I don't know the thread size. f8 shouldn't be a problem even on a bright day at 100 iso, as it's best to use the highest shutter speed you can with long lenses like this.
elbryan9 That's mostly about the hood size, and perhaps a polarizer or colour correction/contrast filter if you think you need one. Cats tend to take much smaller rear filters for ND/exposure adjustments. (A clear filter is usually in place to keep the light path consistent; it would be replaced with an ND.)
Thanks for your upload, Phillip! Would it be a big trouble for you to make 2 photos of the Moon? I am so curious how would it look like because I was thinking to purchase it for astrophotography and now I wonder what to do... I am sure other subscribers would also be interested, because we all know how the Moon looks like but with this magnification, I am sure it will be even more interested - both for photographers and astrophotographers. Cheers! /Thomas
You can use auto ISO in M mode with these lenses. These lenses will work better on mirrorless IMO. One of my motives for getting the Z6ii was the IBIS would provide image stabilization so I could get a couple extra stops below 1/500 if needed. Focus peaking would pinpoint the focus as I turned the huge focus ring. I am using the Nikkor 500mm f/8 which I think is a better lens than the cheaper Chinese knock offs.
The Sony 500mm f/8 AF mirror lens (or Minolta ... exact same lens) is a MUST on my Sony A7 III. Fast focus, enough sharpness for reasonably good results, the color rendering must be slightly edited though, but in the end it's a great lightweight, affordable, and rather discreet lens (for the reach).
I have shot three different mirror teles, two 500mm and one 800mm. I've also shot fancy refractor 500, 600 and 800 lenses. The reflector lenses uniformly lack contrast and suffer considerable chromatic aberration. They also lack diaphragms. So, I would never recommend them for serious photography. Furthermore, without auto-focus, they are useless for birding or commercial sports photography. However, there is no denying their affordability, their compactness and portability. They are certainly fun to use and (due to their low cost) would be a good match for a middle-schooler going to the zoo or maybe shooting a baseball game from the nosebleed seats. In fact, they do a decent job for railfans shooting distant locomotives and for folks with beachfront property who like to take snapshots of ships crossing the horizon. There are many non-critical applications for reflector lenses where super-expensive telephoto lenses would be overkill. However, if you're investing thousands of dollars on a safari, then I urge you to rent a serious refractory telephoto lens, not one of these reflectors.
NO! Get a Sony7r or 7, 7s. These are the best camera's made...period. And then spend money on just 2-3 lenses. As far as zoom goes, i figure if I wanted total such a picture, I'd walk over there.
7:45 There's at least one autofocus mirror lens. The Minolta 500 reflex for A-mount. But there's only one central point working because it's only F8 and there's something built in to get autofocus working.
For Canon EOS, you can buy converters for FD, Minolta, Nikon, etc. Some of the converters have contacts and a small chip for focus confirmation, giving you a beep when you get focus. I wonder if this would work on a mirror lens?
I came here for another reason.... I had this idea for a one way mirrored lens or cover so when one is facing the camera, they can see themselves. For vloggers such as myself, this would eliminate the need for a rotating screen to see if you are in frame, and save battery life too. Anyone know of anything like that?
Thanks for a very informative video Phillip.You have brought up a question I've been thinking about for a long time now! But I feel you will have the answer to. I shoot with a few film cameras, and each are verrry different with their focusing. My question is about manual focusing and wearing glasses!! I'm relatively new to having to wear reading glasses and I'm at odds with myself as to what's best! My results seem soft! and have done for a while. You wear glasses (obviously).......... Please.... What's your advice on manual focusing and wearing glasses? A second question's just appeared, do you use your reading glasses or your distance glasses while using your camera in manual mode?Please reply.......... I would really appreciate your advice on this subject.Kind regardsIain
+Iain Hamilton-Cummings Hi Ian , that's a good question. I don't wear my glasses when shooting as most digital cameras have ajustable viewfinders, however my eyesight is just at the end of the adjustable scale. Most makes have different eyepieces that can be changed if your off the scale, I ordered one for my Canon and I was just at the bottom of that range :) so I'm waiting for my sight to get a little worse before I fit it. Manual focus is difficult with dslrs because they don't have split screens like the film cameras used to have unfortunately. Although I'm sure that different strength visors must still exist for them as well. Many things can effect images as well, with film shutter speeds are normally slower as we work with low iso settings, also damaged lenses and dislodged mirrors are a danger as well. As a matter of interest I never managed to focus a Hasselblad correctly but when I changed to Mamiya 6X7 it was easy. So different cameras suit different people. Static testing is the best way to find your particular problem though, camera on a tripod and a couple of boring hours work, easy with dslrs but not so easy with slrs of course. Phill
A quick browse throught the comments and I didn't notice anyone poinit this out. Another potential downside to this lens is that the bokeh is donut shaped, due of course to the donut shaped aperture, some people like that though. There is actually a mirror lens with AF, I think it was a Sony/Minolota one. Another thing to look out for is that they are often darker than their aperture would indicate because of the different design. My f/6.3 one in brightness is about the same as an f/10-f/11 non-mirror lens. The work best outdoors on nice sunny days. Due to the short and light design it is quite possible to handhold them as long as there is sufficient light (and it does take a lot of light).
Very interesting, thanks. Like most people I've seen these for bargain prices and wondered if they were any good but have always been too wary to go ahead and spend the money. Having taught myself to use manual for everything but AF I might be able to adapt to this fairly quickly, might be worth the investment.
Using the lens in manual mode is not really a disadvantage, well, maybe for those brought up in the age AUTO mode shooting without an inkling of exposure values, apertures or shutter speeds. I still shoot in maunal mode when time permits me to take full control of the camera. Given the simplicity of the mirror lens does not mean its no good. What's the point in having a lens with 200 settings on it only to use it on AUTO mode?
Hi . great video . Do you know if it supports micro 4/3? Maybe using an adapter .. right? One more question .. could you take long exposure photos to the stars? Without light pollution. Thank you . Good channel
I've got a mirror lens for SLR. Also got a mirror telescope. Newton was correct. Mirrors don't have chromatic aberration and don't need all the glass for correction. Light and economical and most photographers interested in quality go back to basics i.e., manual.
Well, that has to be a first. You grab hold of the camera to stabilise it on a tripod? Try again hands-off. Use the self timer or a remote. But mirror lenses are always going to have poor contrast - or more specifically poor blacks because of the direct light path through the front glass and straight into the sensor. If someone can figure out how to prevent that, mirrors will become more useful.
I loved your video on mirror lenses and it helped me on understand me out much better .....I would like to know what is the mount on which your camera sits on your tripod is called....the huge metallic one....please reply....
You can have very fast Mirror lenses (e.g. Newtons) in theory. The central mirrors costs some contrast and lenses have chromatic aberration. In the end all other differences between lens types and mirrors are a matter of engineering, not design. Sharpness depends on diameter, and that's why mirrors are used for larger diameters: lenses would just be too costly.
05:54 ..and now - [please, Phil] make a photograph of the compound eye from that fly sitting there on the church's cross's left arm, in full frame with a 6'000 x 4'000 resolution. Thanks. That's one hell of a tripod head there..
Ok...i need help. I am very new to photography trying to reinvent myself after a horrid bout or neurological lyme disease. I have a canon rebel t6 EOS. I noticed other people were mixing vintage lenses with their digital cameras and I got some to do the same thing. One being a vintage spiratone ultratel 500. I got a separate tripod for it and as some have done tried to back it up to the camera on another tripod. I have a very important project I am trying to do involving pics of the moon. there is a dot in the center of this lens...it gets in the way. I am sure I am doing something wrong. can you please help.
i tried the canon 75-300 on my camera and put it up to the spiratone as some have said should i just do the camera to it? and thanks so much for answering
If it's an old canon fit lens you will need a converter to an af fit, available on most sites. You can't use it with autofocus so that must be turned off. Then focus by hand by turning a ring on the lens. It will have no automatic functions which means setting everything with the manual controls.
A cassegraine lens multiplies the focal ratio of the primary mirror by the spherical secondary mirror which bounces the light out through the back of the lens. Depending on the secondary this figure determines the actual focal length of the lens. For instance if the focal length of the primary is 100 millimeters and the secondary mirror is a 5X multiplier then the effective focal length is 500 millimeter. The corrective optic at the back of the lands is likely a coma corrector and possibly field flattener. It imparts no significant change to the focal length merely correcting the light photons
The actual distance that the light travels only starts to be measured at the primary mirror. The distance therefore in Practical terms is 2 * the length of the lens system. Therefore if the distance from the primary mirror to the secondary is 100 mm then the light travels two times that figure plus whatever distance to the focal plane on the image sensor. Also be aware that the focal length varies on a cassegraine system to achieve Focus. This is done by either moving the primary mirror or the secondary mirror to change the distance between the two mirrors and therefore the focal length of the system. I use a 275 mm cassegraine telescope that has a focal length of around 2800 millimeters to shoot images such as the Moon and deep Sky objects like open clusters and galaxies.
Some 500 mm mirror have a revolver with 3 ND filters to reduce the f stop from 11 via 16 to 22. Has yours? Why has your 2x converter a pin and M42 thread?
I would say that the big thing against mirror lenses is the fixed aperture, not the fact that they're fully manual. Anyways, I'm bonna give them a try.
That lens looks to be a Schmidt-Cassegrain design. Which if it is like larger scale Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope designs of which I own two a 5 inch aperture and 9.25 inch aperture telescope, this optical design results in low contrast, low color/saturation and a relatively soft focus. Mirrors also are subject to thermal issues and alignment issues over time. I don't see alignment screws behind the secondary/primary mirror which if missing means if either mirror gets out of alignment image quality goes down hill. The big advantage to this design is it is a folded light path design and thus very compact and light given its focal length vs straight through designs.
The contrast is a long way from unrecoverable; there is a significant difference between what's required for terrestrial photography and what's needed for astronomy. Stargazing, you'll lose dim objects easily, especially against light polution, and that tends not to be a problem with daylight photography, where the noise floor is quite a bit lower relative to the image. A curve or levels adjustment will make it look "lensy", just as choosing a slightly higher-contrast film or development did back in the day. Alignment isn't a problem with cats either; the lens barrels are quite a bit more substantial than telescope tubes tend to be, and there are no baskets/spiders. (At least one cat, the Vivitar 1, was solid glass throughout the folded path. Heavy, it was.) Thermals *might* be if you want to use the lens for astrophotography (where long exposures in cooling temperatures are par for the course), but not so much otherwise. Cats do focus beyond infinity as a rule, though, since thermal expansion is a reality, so indicated infinity would be focused a lot closer in a hot environment. The only difference that makes in practice is that you can't trust the focus scale.
It' just because of the mirror lens is all manual (except for one AF mirror lens made for sony a mount), and none of them has image stabilization, and with fixed (and narrow) maximum aperture
The biggest con is not that it is manual focus - nothing could be easier than turning the focus ring - the biggest cons (there are two of them) is maintaining sharpness against the wind. Because they are so light they are extremely susceptible to vibration and it is often impossible to dampen the vibrations as you were attempting to do. The second shot may have been due to optics but it could also be due to vibration and it is likely to be a bit of both. Secondly is the aesthetically unpleasant donut bokeh rings. You can see it clearly in the tree in the first image. It simply looks terrible and there is no way of avoiding it. This is a moderate version of it - it is often much worse. In astronomy the telescopes are larger so the secondary mirror is held in place by metal supports. This leads to the four spikes on nearby stars which can be useful for a rough visualisation of which stars are which in the image but makes it difficult to resolve the stars to a point or tiny disk for accurate study. This aberration is tolerated in astronomy because there is no alternative to mirrors for large telescopes but with smaller camera lenses the aberration is unacceptable for most photographers and so mirror lenses remain unpopular despite their low price. Usually people buy them, use them a couple of times and then they stay in a cupboard for the rest of their days.
Hi sir, I just bought a similar lens with a different brand name "Kelda" but I always get an f/00 stop. I am new in photography. I searched the net and found a discussion re: f/00 problem. It says the camera sensor needs cleaning, but my camera hasn't yet been used that much. I tried the automatic sensor cleaning feature of the camera canon eos m3 but it didn't solve the problem.
+I Tried It and It Works! (or didn't) These lenses have a set aperture and therefore, have no electronic contacts with the camera body.It must be used in manual mode. It cannot be used in any other mode as I say in the film. It's the way most people worked before digital cameras. I must warn you that whoever told you it was a dirty sensor or contacts, knows very little, so don't ask him for advice any more:))
+Phillip McCordall Thank you for response, sir. I tried to use it in Av,Tv and Manual in my Canon eos-m3, but the f00 persists and the shutter trigger wont work. Maybe it's incompatible with my camera...
+Phillip McCordall I just removed the lens currently attached to the m3 and pushed the shutter. It didn't fire, sir. But it surely works with the original canon 18-55mm lens and the Tamron 18-200mm both are with AF and VC (IS)
The fact that your mirror lens has no contacts means the camera thinks it has no lens, so it doesn't fire with it on. On a normal eos dslr this isn't the case it will fire without a lens. I've no idea if their is a way of making it think there is a lens attached, maybe talk to Canon support forum and ask the question..
I've had three of these and they were all horrible. So was a 500 or 600mm Sigma. The old Tamron 500 mirror can be had for about $100. It is not perfect, but quite good. FAR, FAR better than these other options.
I don't know if you ever found any answers but when you get into astrophotography it becomes a matter of money. Refractors (your standard camera lenses) become very expensive as they become larger in aperature. Reflectors (incuding mirror/lens combinations) become more affordable). For serious astrophotography you need tracking mounts. Good luck!
The reason I am looking at this is that my new 500mm looks very soft. Do you know of any difinative tests such as a test card to see what resolution it should have?
All the videos I have watched have been really great.QUESTION/ On mirror lenses you have a fixed aperture and the speed has to be relatively fast so you adjust the ISO , but does your metering system on your camera still work I want this lens for wild life , has anyone used a mirror lens for wild life and what where the results like
+Phillip McCordall but when I take pictures they all are blurry and even when you focus on object lense doesn't gives clear image. I don't have clue how you manage to produce such nice quality picture in your video. do you need to set up camera before you put that lense on, as I been told that I need to mirror up before I put the lense and than mirror down when lense is fitted when I bought i thought it will be like you fit it on point and shoot.
+Lapinas Ezys Make sure you are using as fast a shutter speed as you can to minimise shake. Also set your ISO up as high as it goes before making the image too noisy. For example, try 1/800sec shutter, and ISO 6400, or whatever your camera works well at. From this point you can halve/double your shutter speed to get the correct exposure. I find It is possible to hand hold and get good shots in good daylight with these lens if I do these things first. The depth of field is really tight on these so you can get some really nice shots. Good luck!
You kind of misspoke at the end there. The camera can still do auto ISO(which I wouldn't) and auto exposure. Its only the focus that is manual, and since the aperture is F8 always, well you don't have much choice there. Haha. So its no different than any other manual focus lens, the camera can still do the hard work if you want it to - focusing isn't hard.
I shot mirror lenses for several years. I used them mostly for birding. Back then, AF wasn’t a thing. Lenses of this focal length have virtually zero depth of field, and the AF doesn’t reliably distinguish between birds and leaves anyway. Most demonstrations of these lenses are at long range. Any lens shooting across hundreds of yards is going to look soft. Atmospheric movement degrades the image as much as lens quality. For birding, best results are within 10-15 meters. You really can’t hand hold a 900 mm lens. A tripod or monopod is a must, and fast shutter speed. These lenses are slow. Back in the day, when we were restricted to 160 ISO for color, mirror lenses got a bad name. Now, with much higher ISO, at least this is no longer a problem. They are generally cheaper than refractive lenses. This is not always because they are poorer quality. A refractive lens has several intermediate lenses plus a load of mechanical gears, especially zoom lenses. Mirror lenses only have 2 mirrors and 1 moving part and can be built much more cheaply. I used to shoot a Sigma 50-500 with a 1.4x telextender. It weighed a ton. A 900 mm Mirror lenses is much lighter. One thing people don’t like about mirrors is that you can’t stop them down. A mirror lens works best when wide open. Stopping them down only makes them slower and more subject to movement. They do have an odd bokeh that some find objectionable for professional work.
Yes you'r right I should have done that , the results were pretty good though. The other thing to note is that it is one of the very cheap mirror lenses , so I imagine not the best results possible.
Mirror lenses are very well worth the money. I bought myselt a Canon FDn 500/8.0 manufactured in 1980 for about $150 a few years ago. It was in mint condition. I use it free hand on my Fujifilm X-H1 for bird photography. Manual focusing on flying birds needs practice, but as the "film is free" in the digital world it's just to shoot on. I love the result and after some 10000 shots it's not that hard any more to nail the focus.
Very good, and what makes it soft is the fact that we are pushing it to the limits of the mirror...
The effective aperture can be changed by creating a donut shaped opaque "filter" for the front of the lens.Then you put holes in the donut. The size and shape and smoothness of the holes will improve sharpness slightly and will change the shape of out of focus highlights.
I have owned, and used, a Tokina 500mm F8 since the 1980s quite successfully. I use a number of Nikon film and DSLR cameras with good outcomes. This was a very interesting video, especially the shots with the tele-converter. It was also a most enthusiastic one. Thanks for posting.
Hallelujah..... Hallelujah.... (hear Handel slowly fading in)... Nice to have you back, Mr. McCordall! Nice video. Thanks.
the best explanation for Miror Lenses .
nice to meet you Sir.
I used to be an amateur astronomer and had all types of telescopes and the cat was a good all round telescope.
I just picked up a makinon mirror lens for $30 at a pawn shop and a adapter for $20 and its not a bad lens at all if you know what it is and know how to use it.
Im planning a full moon shot coming up behind some radio station towers using photopills.
You right about post processing you get some damn good images from one of these for not much money.
Thanks for the useful video. Just one small correction - the light travels three times the distance (not twice).
I was looking for this comment!
Thank you! I also have a 7D! When I purchased it-I also got a lot of extras including a mirror lens. I had absolutely no idea what to use it for until you came along. Thank you sir from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan!
The mirror lenses are all over the park as to optical alignment and Phillip's 500/8 is obviously quite good. If you can find a good one you still have the doughnut shaped highlights in the unfocused part of the image and, being such a long lens, that can be a large part of the image. For novelty, these doughnuts can pass, but for a conventional look they can trip up the viewer. The photographer has to decide. For astronomical use they do not come into play as the entire image is essentially infinity. I have a Nikon 500/4 refractor, or conventional type lens, and it is such a beast that I seldom use it. Nothing in the universe is without compromise. Great review!
Great to see another video from you Phillip. Hope it's not too long before the next one!
Very soon I promise
Image/focus peaking and tripod essential and I enjoy using the mirror lens a lot. Not great for action but ideal for land and city scrapes.
These lenses are basically Schmidt Cassegrain telescopes on a small scale, the front lens by the way is called a corrector plate.
The russian versions i heard are maksutov designs however i cant remember the difference.
@@ldsklLtgmer Maks use spherical mirrors and corrector lenses. This makes them cheap to make but the corrector lense needs to be really thick meaning that it gets impractical to make large ones. Schmidt's uses thinner corrector plates but they are more costly to make as they aren't spherical.
These lenses aren't Schmidts or Maks as they use Mangin mirrors which are really lenses with a mirror surface on the rear. Again cheap to make when small but too impractical to make larger.
I shoot a mirrorless Sony A7 mk II camera so I have been dragging out a lot of old manual focus lenses as the image peaking makes it easy to precisely focus the image, so I still shoot manual from time to time. I tried a Quantaray mirror lens of similar design to yours and I was pleasantly surprised that it looked pretty decent. Unlike the Canon, the Sony has the image stabilization built into the body, so the 500mm was not too terrible to use hand holding. With the 2x tele-converter even with the stabilization set for 1000mm, it was impossible to hand hold, so a tripod is necessary.
My results were not too different from yours in which the 500mm alone was acceptably sharp, but the Kalt branded tele-converter really softened things up. I also noticed that your lens had the same ugly bokeh as mine. I guess that is to be expected of a mirror lens. I'll have to look to see if I have a better quality converter lying around and see if that improves things. I'd imagine on a bright day or trying to take astral photography the chromatic aberration would be pretty awful. Mine was given to me by someone cleaning out their house, so I essentially saved it from the landfill. So for a free lens, it is very good.
I love my Mirror lens it takes patience I agree but if you learn to use it right I have gotten some awesome pictures.
I have the Sigma 600/8 mirror in EF mount and use it on my 5D2... When you learn to use it and are in practice, it can give truly awesome results. cheers!
Have just purchased a mirror lens online and am still awaiting its arrival. My first serious camera was a Pentax K1000 so didn’t see the manual spec as a problem. Thanks for the informative video - can’t wait to try the lens out although plan to use a monopod for more convenience in the field.
so how is it ?
With sharpening even crap lenses can be improved. I have never understood why mirror lenses are so decried. The only issue is they’re fixed aperture and fixed focal length when people are so used to zooms. For me, I’d love a tiny 1000 or 2000 lens for astrophotography. Its not worth a whole lot of money though.
They are usually quite slow, most of them are manual focus, have a donut shaped bokeh and have limited sharpness and contrast.
I have the Minolta 500 reflex, one of the few with autofocus and I like it. But I mainly bought it for its special approach.
@@jochenkraus7016 he is talking about astrophotography and you about autofocus 🤣 would like to see your autofocus to work on nightsky 😂😂😂
I saw in a video that Olympus has "Star AF" :-P
The moon is big enough for AF. Idk if planets also work.
Apart from that the comment started with the question why mirror lenses are "decried". That's not limited to astro.
No wonder you get sharp pictures, that tripod is built like a tank!! Love it. Thanks for sharing. I have two of these lenses. I like them too.
Hi may I ask if I have to use tripod when I use this lense ?
That was great! Thanks! I used mirror lense on 1994 to 1997, i think it was 1000mm on a 35mm film camera.
Since he was shooting 35mm film at that time there is no crop factor involved and he was talking about a different lens
Great video. Been wondering about these for a while and not very many videos about that actually explain them with shots taken with one, so good on ya. Very good and informative.....
You have to lurn how to handle this lens. The lens is a slow lens. Which cann't use for everything. Its very easy to carring with instead of a real 500mm lens which is heavy. I like the lens and his special bokeh.
For DSLR mirror lenses, the finest is the Nikon 500mm f8 N
I don't know why everybody says that exposure needs to be manual. My Nikon D7000, from about a decade ago, allows me to assign a 'non-cpu lens'. In my case it's 500mm & f6.3, now I use aperture priority to adjust shutter speed & ISO. The focus is still manual and very picky, but exposure is not a problem. Check your user manual!
Given a choice between this 500mm mirror lens and something like a Bower/Vivitar 500 mm lens, what would you choose?
Deal!
Setting the exposure on my Nikon D40X, won't be a problem. Everything is (mainly) manual; and no auto-focus because I bought the camera with an older lens. It's a 28-80mm.
However this lens looks brilliant!
I'm away to EBay, to hunt one down.
Cheers!
Without the extender I was shocked at the quality! What a great lens!
It is good but not easy to use.
Interesting, I hadn't even heard of those kind of lenses, i learn something new every time i watch your videos. Thank you for that!
Thank you, I think is great with a tripod, for action quite difficult or wildlife in movement right? Thanks where did you buy?
On Ebay , just bought it for the video :)
I have the Minolta 500 Reflex with autofocus. The most difficult part for me is to find what I want to photograph. It's a prime lens so I can't zoom out a bit for better orientation.
Thanks for such a positive video. I'm getting what appears to be your lens's doppelganger. Looking forward to taking it hiking with me as a lightweight telescope. There are lots of t2-to-1.25 adapters out there for exactly that purpose. It'd be sort of a more-compact Celestron C90, which is also pretty good for hiking, though on the large side of possible. We'll see how well collimated it is and/or how easy it is to align. As for the TC, I'll probably stick to a telescope Barlow or a nice Sigma APO.
I use Canon FD lenses more than 35 years and only with my Canon Film cameras. The Canon Reflex Lens 8.0/500mm is regarded as one of the best mirror lenses along with the similiar Nikon rl 500mm. For landscape photography it is a very valuable lens with very good results, if you use this type right.
Use of a very stable tripod is necessary. I use a Cullmann Titan 400 with good results.
Best regards from Germany!
Nice to watch you after months, Phill. Thanks!
That mirror lenses are full manual is not completely true. There is at least one model that supports AF and can be used fully automatic: the Minolta/Sony AF 500mm F8 Reflex. You of course will have to use a Minolta or Sony A mount camera, or a Sony E-mount camera with proper E2A mount adapter to use this lens to its full extend.
on a super bright sunny day the fixed f8 aperture might be a factor ? What is the thread size on the front if I could ask? a ND filter may counteract a really sunny location.
I've sold the lens already, as I only bought it for a video, so I don't know the thread size. f8 shouldn't be a problem even on a bright day at 100 iso, as it's best to use the highest shutter speed you can with long lenses like this.
At 1:43 you can see it's a 77mm filter thread.
elbryan9
That's mostly about the hood size, and perhaps a polarizer or colour correction/contrast filter if you think you need one. Cats tend to take much smaller rear filters for ND/exposure adjustments. (A clear filter is usually in place to keep the light path consistent; it would be replaced with an ND.)
Thanks for your upload, Phillip! Would it be a big trouble for you to make 2 photos of the Moon? I am so curious how would it look like because I was thinking to purchase it for astrophotography and now I wonder what to do... I am sure other subscribers would also be interested, because we all know how the Moon looks like but with this magnification, I am sure it will be even more interested - both for photographers and astrophotographers. Cheers! /Thomas
I sold it yesterday to a friend of mine but I'll get it back and have a go :)
Phillip McCordall I am waiting patiently then! :-) Thanks in advance!
Thank you sir for teaching photography
You can use auto ISO in M mode with these lenses. These lenses will work better on mirrorless IMO. One of my motives for getting the Z6ii was the IBIS would provide image stabilization so I could get a couple extra stops below 1/500 if needed. Focus peaking would pinpoint the focus as I turned the huge focus ring. I am using the Nikkor 500mm f/8 which I think is a better lens than the cheaper Chinese knock offs.
I love how you explain the lenses. Great work. I will subscribe.
The Sony 500mm f/8 AF mirror lens (or Minolta ... exact same lens) is a MUST on my Sony A7 III. Fast focus, enough sharpness for reasonably good results, the color rendering must be slightly edited though, but in the end it's a great lightweight, affordable, and rather discreet lens (for the reach).
loved it sir. loved the way you did it:)
I have shot three different mirror teles, two 500mm and one 800mm. I've also shot fancy refractor 500, 600 and 800 lenses. The reflector lenses uniformly lack contrast and suffer considerable chromatic aberration. They also lack diaphragms. So, I would never recommend them for serious photography. Furthermore, without auto-focus, they are useless for birding or commercial sports photography.
However, there is no denying their affordability, their compactness and portability. They are certainly fun to use and (due to their low cost) would be a good match for a middle-schooler going to the zoo or maybe shooting a baseball game from the nosebleed seats. In fact, they do a decent job for railfans shooting distant locomotives and for folks with beachfront property who like to take snapshots of ships crossing the horizon. There are many non-critical applications for reflector lenses where super-expensive telephoto lenses would be overkill.
However, if you're investing thousands of dollars on a safari, then I urge you to rent a serious refractory telephoto lens, not one of these reflectors.
Love this guy!! I am expecting my Rokinon 500mm and 2X multiplier any time soon !
Should be fun!!
NO! Get a Sony7r or 7, 7s. These are the best camera's made...period. And then spend money on just 2-3 lenses. As far as zoom goes, i figure if I wanted total such a picture, I'd walk over there.
Good to see you back, i did have one of these lenses and found them to be remarkably good for the price.
Great stuff, very informative and helpful!
7:45
There's at least one autofocus mirror lens. The Minolta 500 reflex for A-mount. But there's only one central point working because it's only F8 and there's something built in to get autofocus working.
Loved this video, is exactly the kind of info i was looking for! Thanks a lot!
For Canon EOS, you can buy converters for FD, Minolta, Nikon, etc. Some of the converters have contacts and a small chip for focus confirmation, giving you a beep when you get focus. I wonder if this would work on a mirror lens?
I came here for another reason.... I had this idea for a one way mirrored lens or cover so when one is facing the camera, they can see themselves. For vloggers such as myself, this would eliminate the need for a rotating screen to see if you are in frame, and save battery life too. Anyone know of anything like that?
Thank you very cool.. what camera are you using MFT?
+Anthony Magliocco The camera on the video is a Canon 7D
It also looks to be something of a prime lens; there is no alternative but 500 mm unlike a 70-300mm lens that can change focal length.
Roughly, what is the aperture compensation for a mirror lens? do you lose 2 or more stops of light?
Hi Nina, this is an f8 lens so just set your camera to f8 and the speed and iso to what you need, no compensation is needed :)
Thanks for a very informative video Phillip.You have brought up a question I've been thinking about for a long time now! But I feel you will have the answer to. I shoot with a few film cameras, and each are verrry different with their focusing. My question is about manual focusing and wearing glasses!! I'm relatively new to having to wear reading glasses and I'm at odds with myself as to what's best! My results seem soft! and have done for a while. You wear glasses (obviously).......... Please.... What's your advice on manual focusing and wearing glasses? A second question's just appeared, do you use your reading glasses or your distance glasses while using your camera in manual mode?Please reply.......... I would really appreciate your advice on this subject.Kind regardsIain
+Iain Hamilton-Cummings Hi Ian , that's a good question. I don't wear my glasses when shooting as most digital cameras have ajustable viewfinders, however my eyesight is just at the end of the adjustable scale. Most makes have different eyepieces that can be changed if your off the scale, I ordered one for my Canon and I was just at the bottom of that range :) so I'm waiting for my sight to get a little worse before I fit it. Manual focus is difficult with dslrs because they don't have split screens like the film cameras used to have unfortunately. Although I'm sure that different strength visors must still exist for them as well. Many things can effect images as well, with film shutter speeds are normally slower as we work with low iso settings, also damaged lenses and dislodged mirrors are a danger as well.
As a matter of interest I never managed to focus a Hasselblad correctly but when I changed to Mamiya 6X7 it was easy. So different cameras suit different people. Static testing is the best way to find your particular problem though, camera on a tripod and a couple of boring hours work, easy with dslrs but not so easy with slrs of course.
Phill
A quick browse throught the comments and I didn't notice anyone poinit this out. Another potential downside to this lens is that the bokeh is donut shaped, due of course to the donut shaped aperture, some people like that though. There is actually a mirror lens with AF, I think it was a Sony/Minolota one. Another thing to look out for is that they are often darker than their aperture would indicate because of the different design. My f/6.3 one in brightness is about the same as an f/10-f/11 non-mirror lens. The work best outdoors on nice sunny days. Due to the short and light design it is quite possible to handhold them as long as there is sufficient light (and it does take a lot of light).
Very interesting, thanks. Like most people I've seen these for bargain prices and wondered if they were any good but have always been too wary to go ahead and spend the money. Having taught myself to use manual for everything but AF I might be able to adapt to this fairly quickly, might be worth the investment.
Using the lens in manual mode is not really a disadvantage, well, maybe for those brought up in the age AUTO mode shooting without an inkling of exposure values, apertures or shutter speeds. I still shoot in maunal mode when time permits me to take full control of the camera. Given the simplicity of the mirror lens does not mean its no good. What's the point in having a lens with 200 settings on it only to use it on AUTO mode?
A very interesting video indeed, very tempting to get one to play with....
Thanks for the video.
Is that 1600mm FOV or 1600mm magnification or both because of the crop factor?
Hi . great video . Do you know if it supports micro 4/3? Maybe using an adapter .. right? One more question .. could you take long exposure photos to the stars? Without light pollution. Thank you . Good channel
I have a question !! what is the brand of the tripod ? i really like it !!!
I've got a mirror lens for SLR. Also got a mirror telescope. Newton was correct. Mirrors don't have chromatic aberration and don't need all the glass for correction. Light and economical and most photographers interested in quality go back to basics i.e., manual.
Well, that has to be a first. You grab hold of the camera to stabilise it on a tripod? Try again hands-off. Use the self timer or a remote.
But mirror lenses are always going to have poor contrast - or more specifically poor blacks because of the direct light path through the front glass and straight into the sensor. If someone can figure out how to prevent that, mirrors will become more useful.
I loved your video on mirror lenses and it helped me on understand me out much better .....I would like to know what is the mount on which your camera sits on your tripod is called....the huge metallic one....please reply....
+Robert Perez It's a Gitzo head for large format cameras, they still make them, the one I have I bought in 1965, so a pretty good investment :))
Mirror lenses=Folded light path, usually slow f ratios. Need a tripod. Good for planetary photography. Best on a tracking mount.
You can have very fast Mirror lenses (e.g. Newtons) in theory. The central mirrors costs some contrast and lenses have chromatic aberration. In the end all other differences between lens types and mirrors are a matter of engineering, not design. Sharpness depends on diameter, and that's why mirrors are used for larger diameters: lenses would just be too costly.
05:54 ..and now - [please, Phil] make a photograph of the compound eye from that fly sitting there on the church's cross's left arm, in full frame with a 6'000 x 4'000 resolution. Thanks.
That's one hell of a tripod head there..
Great knowledge Sir, I have eos m50 mirrorless camera with mount adapter, this mirrorlens does work on my camera! 2nd this lens work on video!
Thank you, Phillip.
Ok...i need help. I am very new to photography trying to reinvent myself after a horrid bout or neurological lyme disease. I have a canon rebel t6 EOS. I noticed other people were mixing vintage lenses with their digital cameras and I got some to do the same thing. One being a vintage spiratone ultratel 500. I got a separate tripod for it and as some have done tried to back it up to the camera on another tripod. I have a very important project I am trying to do involving pics of the moon. there is a dot in the center of this lens...it gets in the way. I am sure I am doing something wrong. can you please help.
Sounds like a focus problem, are you sure the manual focus is working ? If not it will be a distance problem between the body and the lens.
i tried the canon 75-300 on my camera and put it up to the spiratone as some have said should i just do the camera to it? and thanks so much for answering
and im not sure not sure how to tell its a heavy heavy lens and is not screwed into the camera
If it's an old canon fit lens you will need a converter to an af fit, available on most sites. You can't use it with autofocus so that must be turned off. Then focus by hand by turning a ring on the lens. It will have no automatic functions which means setting everything with the manual controls.
I really can't imagine that working, it needs to be directly on the camera.
isn't the light traveling 3 times the distance?
Yes I think so, I made a mistake :))
A cassegraine lens multiplies the focal ratio of the primary mirror by the spherical secondary mirror which bounces the light out through the back of the lens. Depending on the secondary this figure determines the actual focal length of the lens. For instance if the focal length of the primary is 100 millimeters and the secondary mirror is a 5X multiplier then the effective focal length is 500 millimeter. The corrective optic at the back of the lands is likely a coma corrector and possibly field flattener. It imparts no significant change to the focal length merely correcting the light photons
The actual distance that the light travels only starts to be measured at the primary mirror. The distance therefore in Practical terms is 2 * the length of the lens system. Therefore if the distance from the primary mirror to the secondary is 100 mm then the light travels two times that figure plus whatever distance to the focal plane on the image sensor. Also be aware that the focal length varies on a cassegraine system to achieve Focus. This is done by either moving the primary mirror or the secondary mirror to change the distance between the two mirrors and therefore the focal length of the system.
I use a 275 mm cassegraine telescope that has a focal length of around 2800 millimeters to shoot images such as the Moon and deep Sky objects like open clusters and galaxies.
Some 500 mm mirror have a revolver with 3 ND filters to reduce
the f stop from 11 via 16 to 22. Has yours?
Why has your 2x converter a pin and M42 thread?
no filters and I use a converter as you see in the film.
Not bad at all! You said not easy to use... How long did it take you to set up?
I would say that the big thing against mirror lenses is the fixed aperture, not the fact that they're fully manual. Anyways, I'm bonna give them a try.
That lens looks to be a Schmidt-Cassegrain design. Which if it is like larger scale Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope designs of which I own two a 5 inch aperture and 9.25 inch aperture telescope, this optical design results in low contrast, low color/saturation and a relatively soft focus. Mirrors also are subject to thermal issues and alignment issues over time. I don't see alignment screws behind the secondary/primary mirror which if missing means if either mirror gets out of alignment image quality goes down hill.
The big advantage to this design is it is a folded light path design and thus very compact and light given its focal length vs straight through designs.
The contrast is a long way from unrecoverable; there is a significant difference between what's required for terrestrial photography and what's needed for astronomy. Stargazing, you'll lose dim objects easily, especially against light polution, and that tends not to be a problem with daylight photography, where the noise floor is quite a bit lower relative to the image. A curve or levels adjustment will make it look "lensy", just as choosing a slightly higher-contrast film or development did back in the day. Alignment isn't a problem with cats either; the lens barrels are quite a bit more substantial than telescope tubes tend to be, and there are no baskets/spiders. (At least one cat, the Vivitar 1, was solid glass throughout the folded path. Heavy, it was.) Thermals *might* be if you want to use the lens for astrophotography (where long exposures in cooling temperatures are par for the course), but not so much otherwise. Cats do focus beyond infinity as a rule, though, since thermal expansion is a reality, so indicated infinity would be focused a lot closer in a hot environment. The only difference that makes in practice is that you can't trust the focus scale.
It' just because of the mirror lens is all manual (except for one AF mirror lens made for sony a mount), and none of them has image stabilization, and with fixed (and narrow) maximum aperture
Use live view for focusing and cable for shutter release
The biggest con is not that it is manual focus - nothing could be easier than turning the focus ring - the biggest cons (there are two of them) is maintaining sharpness against the wind. Because they are so light they are extremely susceptible to vibration and it is often impossible to dampen the vibrations as you were attempting to do. The second shot may have been due to optics but it could also be due to vibration and it is likely to be a bit of both. Secondly is the aesthetically unpleasant donut bokeh rings. You can see it clearly in the tree in the first image. It simply looks terrible and there is no way of avoiding it. This is a moderate version of it - it is often much worse. In astronomy the telescopes are larger so the secondary mirror is held in place by metal supports. This leads to the four spikes on nearby stars which can be useful for a rough visualisation of which stars are which in the image but makes it difficult to resolve the stars to a point or tiny disk for accurate study. This aberration is tolerated in astronomy because there is no alternative to mirrors for large telescopes but with smaller camera lenses the aberration is unacceptable for most photographers and so mirror lenses remain unpopular despite their low price. Usually people buy them, use them a couple of times and then they stay in a cupboard for the rest of their days.
Hi sir, I just bought a similar lens with a different brand name "Kelda" but I always get an f/00 stop. I am new in photography. I searched the net and found a discussion re: f/00 problem. It says the camera sensor needs cleaning, but my camera hasn't yet been used that much. I tried the automatic sensor cleaning feature of the camera canon eos m3 but it didn't solve the problem.
+I Tried It and It Works! (or didn't)
These lenses have a set aperture and therefore, have no electronic contacts with the camera body.It must be used in manual mode. It cannot be used in any other mode as I say in the film.
It's the way most people worked before digital cameras. I must warn you that whoever told you it was a dirty sensor or contacts, knows very little, so don't ask him for advice any more:))
+Phillip McCordall Thank you for response, sir. I tried to use it in Av,Tv and Manual in my Canon eos-m3, but the f00 persists and the shutter trigger wont work. Maybe it's incompatible with my camera...
It does sound if that's the case, I know nothing about the m3 I'm afraid, does the shutter fire without a lens?
+Phillip McCordall I just removed the lens currently attached to the m3 and pushed the shutter. It didn't fire, sir. But it surely works with the original canon 18-55mm lens and the Tamron 18-200mm both are with AF and VC (IS)
The fact that your mirror lens has no contacts means the camera thinks it has no lens, so it doesn't fire with it on. On a normal eos dslr this isn't the case it will fire without a lens. I've no idea if their is a way of making it think there is a lens attached, maybe talk to Canon support forum and ask the question..
Doyou have any experience or knowledge about Vivitar Series 1 500mm f8 mirror lens? Is it good? or just good enough or something else?
No sorry never tried one.
optical stabilisation is needed
My thourths: Would a cropping of the image w/o converter not be just as sharp?
Is this just a mini Schmidt Cassegrain telescope?
I'm not sure which variant they use but it's something like that.
Afaik there are Maksutovs used as camera lenses.
I've had three of these and they were all horrible. So was a 500 or 600mm Sigma. The old Tamron 500 mirror can be had for about $100. It is not perfect, but quite good. FAR, FAR better than these other options.
why ate they horrible? and do we have to use tripod when we are using this lense?
Is this a good lens for lunar photography? Someone please help a novice. Rolleinar 500mm is on one of the big box Photo Sites, and I am interested!!!😜
I don't know if you ever found any answers but when you get into astrophotography it becomes a matter of money. Refractors (your standard camera lenses) become very expensive as they become larger in aperature. Reflectors (incuding mirror/lens combinations) become more affordable). For serious astrophotography you need tracking mounts. Good luck!
Hello Phillip, One question. What kind of tripod do you have?
Greetings from Perú! :)
I have a very old Manfrotto with a Gitzo pro head :)
Very nice young man
The best remark I've had :)
It's great to see a new video by you, Philip. Hope there are more to follow. :)
Can you list your tripod gear? I need something good to stable my zoom lenses.
Thanks for the demo and info, very useful.
Well I use full manual even on my auto lenses so I guess I have no disadvantages after all :D Might get one used to check out.
What tripod do you have and whats that head ?
This a Manfrotto with a Gitzo large format head. I would normally use this setup for 5x4 or 10x8 sonar cameras
The reason I am looking at this is that my new 500mm
looks very soft. Do you know of any difinative tests such as a test card to
see what resolution it should have?
I wish you would do more videos.
thanks great review and keep up the good work uncle !!!!!!
All the videos I have watched have been really great.QUESTION/ On mirror lenses you have a fixed aperture and the speed has to be relatively fast so you adjust the ISO , but does your metering system on your camera still work I want this lens for wild life , has anyone used a mirror lens for wild life and what where the results like
Looks amazing I just bought one bit worried about focus but for price hope I can use it
how you set up camera for this lense all my pictures are blurry
+Lapinas Ezys The only way is manual focus, everything is manual on these lenses
+Phillip McCordall but when I take pictures they all are blurry and even when you focus on object lense doesn't gives clear image. I don't have clue how you manage to produce such nice quality picture in your video. do you need to set up camera before you put that lense on, as I been told that I need to mirror up before I put the lense and than mirror down when lense is fitted when I bought i thought it will be like you fit it on point and shoot.
+Lapinas Ezys Make sure you are using as fast a shutter speed as you can to minimise shake. Also set your ISO up as high as it goes before making the image too noisy. For example, try 1/800sec shutter, and ISO 6400, or whatever your camera works well at. From this point you can halve/double your shutter speed to get the correct exposure. I find It is possible to hand hold and get good shots in good daylight with these lens if I do these things first. The depth of field is really tight on these so you can get some really nice shots. Good luck!
Osman Suleyman Very good advice, we need you on learnshots.com, I need help on there for giving advice and critique.
Thanks Phillip. I'll look into joining learnshots, although being a beginner I think I'd need as much help as I could provide!
You kind of misspoke at the end there. The camera can still do auto ISO(which I wouldn't) and auto exposure. Its only the focus that is manual, and since the aperture is F8 always, well you don't have much choice there. Haha. So its no different than any other manual focus lens, the camera can still do the hard work if you want it to - focusing isn't hard.
+SeanHodginsc the Sony/Minolta 500mm f8 are Auto fucus
Oh what a genius review! Thank you!
I shot mirror lenses for several years. I used them mostly for birding. Back then, AF wasn’t a thing. Lenses of this focal length have virtually zero depth of field, and the AF doesn’t reliably distinguish between birds and leaves anyway. Most demonstrations of these lenses are at long range. Any lens shooting across hundreds of yards is going to look soft. Atmospheric movement degrades the image as much as lens quality. For birding, best results are within 10-15 meters. You really can’t hand hold a 900 mm lens. A tripod or monopod is a must, and fast shutter speed. These lenses are slow. Back in the day, when we were restricted to 160 ISO for color, mirror lenses got a bad name. Now, with much higher ISO, at least this is no longer a problem.
They are generally cheaper than refractive lenses. This is not always because they are poorer quality. A refractive lens has several intermediate lenses plus a load of mechanical gears, especially zoom lenses. Mirror lenses only have 2 mirrors and 1 moving part and can be built much more cheaply. I used to shoot a Sigma 50-500 with a 1.4x telextender. It weighed a ton. A 900 mm Mirror lenses is much lighter. One thing people don’t like about mirrors is that you can’t stop them down. A mirror lens works best when wide open. Stopping them down only makes them slower and more subject to movement. They do have an odd bokeh that some find objectionable for professional work.
A very nice summing up, You put me to shame :)
So is IT possible to get a sharpe image from that lens using photoshop?
What is sharp ? I found the result very very good after a standard sharpen.
Nice results, although It would be interesting to see the image compared to a crop of a good 50mm or similar and compare detail in each,
Yes you'r right I should have done that , the results were pretty good though. The other thing to note is that it is one of the very cheap mirror lenses , so I imagine not the best results possible.
Interesting video Phil :)