woodrim

Rick: Consider yourself very fortunate to have gotten those results. I have that lens - got it in pristine condition for $22. Beautifully built lens. However, I haven't been able to get a decent image from it. I think the problem with many of the 3rd party brands is that they were hit or miss in quality. I suspect mine is not in proper collimation. Makes a good doorstop though.

Both of those lenses, Tamron and MTO are very good. I've been enjoying my most recent purchase, the Tamron SP 350, which is an impressive lens.

You are quite right about the Sigma 600. I have one that I got for free, cleaned, but still not much good. I have read/heard many times that the versions differed as well as the copies. I have seen some images that are quite impressive. The Sigma 400 seems less subject to stinkers but does also suffer from haze and fungus, more so than others, it seems. My most recent purchase is the Tamron SP 350. I had posted my first image from it but have now had the opportunity to use it more. I am very impressed with its sharpness, contrast, and ease in focusing. This Tamron drives home the point made above by ph. While the SP 350 is easy to focus at close and medium distances, I do find it difficult at greater distances. I do not view my mirrors as infinity lenses, they are much more useful at medium distances when wanting to capture something I can't get close to. Shooting birds is the best example.

I would think so. I have a Hartblei with P6 mount that was made for the Pentacon Six. It will work with any medium format that has an adapter for the P6. I have used it on my Sony full-frame. It's an 8/500 but I believe the actual focal length to be around 600mm. The lens is actually a Rubinar and the focal length I think is the result of extending the distance to achieve an image circle for medium format.

You are welcome, Greg. Thank you for acknowledging my post. Do keep in mind several important factors when considering mirror lenses. There are many third party brands of cheap lenses that are not worth using. The condition of the mirror surface is critical and some brands seem more subject to haze and fungus. Tamron suffers from balsam separation of the rear elements. And most of all, technique and camera are critically important. While this post exists in the Classic Manual Camera forum, it is far best to use these lenses with an electronic viewfinder with a magnification feature. I believe much of the poor reputation mirror lenses have received in the past comes from poor focusing. I can't imagine using an SLR or even a DSLR with an optical viewfinder.

Thank you, James. I am happy to post images from most of the lenses I discussed. Ohnar 5.6/300 Super Danubia 5.6/300 Tamron SP 350 Sigma 5.6/400 Tamron 8/500 Minolta AF Reflex 8/500 Spiratone 8/500 Minitel-M Rubinar 5.6/500 Questar 8/700

I feel no need to explain what you don't understand. I thought I might be giving useful information in this thread.

Sorry to be late to this tread. I have around a dozen mirrors, give or take. I will comment on and provide images from several of them. But first, some general comments... Mirrors are a mixed bag, with some very good ones and some that are pure junk. Whether a mirror lens is good or bad is strictly relative to each other and should not be compared to refractor lenses since they are a different category. Although a good refractor will always be sharper than a mirror, some of the best mirrors can compete closely. Much of the commentary found on the internet is subjective and reflective to the skills and experience of the user. I believe a good deal of the poor reputation of mirrors comes from poor technique, compounded by the limitations of a camera's focusing prism. An SLR from the film days or a DSLR without focusing aid will make it hard to get perfectly focused images, and perfect focus is essential with a mirror. Peaking alone is not good enough, magnification is essential for good focus. When I evaluate a mirror lens, I consider ease of use as well as sharpness. By ease of use, I mean focus control, how the image pops into focus, and the image yield I get that are in-focus, which is a result of the handling. Some lenses provide more pleasing bokeh and some provide better depth of field than others, with focal length and aperture the same. I have been both pleasantly surprised and very disappointed by the lenses I've tried. Some do not live up to their reputations. I suspect a lot of those reputations come from people repeating what they've read and not from their personal experience. Two examples are the Yashica ML and the Questar 700. The ML is not the same lens as the Mirotar, despite many claims. The Questar is a very well built lens with very satisfactory performance but is more difficult to use. Focus doesn't pop into place as well as with some other mirrors. I find myself making slight rotations with the focusing ring without being able to determine the exact, perfect spot. However, when I do hit it perfectly, the image is sharp. It's just that the consistency isn't there. An added problem with the 700, although no fault of the lens, is that my Sony IBIS has focal length selections of 600mm and 800mm, with no 700mm. I will dial in 600mm because using it with no stabilization is worse. Among the lenses that were pleasant surprises were Spiratone Minitel-M and Tamron SP 350. The Spiratone is better than expected for the price it sells at and the Tamron, although highly regarded, was even better than expected. My first big mirror was the Maksutov (MTO) 3M-6A, a 6.3/500. It's a big lens, built like a tank, but very, very good. It is considerably better than the f/8 versions and considerably bigger as well. Increasing the speed of mirrors comes at the price of size. After using the 3M-6A for a few bird seasons, I bought a Rubinar 5.6/500. Again, it is considerably better than their f/8 version. I should mention that I also have the f/8 Rubinar in Hartblei form. I actually sold my 3M-6A (surprised myself) when I realized I would be always choosing the Rubinar instead. Following the Rubinar among my mirrors is the Minolta AF Reflex 8/500, but not far behind in sharpness. I prefer to use it in manual focus mode. After that is the excellent Tamron SP 500. The Hartblei Rubinar follows. The SP 500 has closer focusing, so is great with flowers. The big Rubinar also has some close focusing ability but is a little more difficult to focus up close. Now, moving away from the longer focal lengths, my first short one was the Ohnar 5.6/300, which was marketed under several brands. The Ohnar I have is very good, although I've seen some mixed results from other copies. I have a Super Danubia which is its equal. My Sigma 5.6/400 is an excellent mirror, focus close, and fun to use. I had less success in getting a good copy of the Sigma 600mm. The Sigma mirrors seem more subject to mirror fungus issues than other brands. My most recent purchase is the Tamron SP 350. It's a wonderful lens and perhaps the sharpest of them all. I haven't used it enough to fully evaluate but can say it focuses easily (could use more dampening) and provides crisp images at close to mid-range. I'm not doing as well at distance, but that might change with more practice. I can provide images from all of these lenses but will wait to see if anyone is reading before doing that.

Is there one?