Mirror Lenses!

Firstly, let me say that it may be suggested that this may be better suited to the "No Words" forum, but as these

lenses are not that commonly used, I wanted to give people the opportunity to comment on and discuss technical

details to do with the equipment and with the shots posted.

<P>

The idea is for people with one of these lenses to post a shot taken recently, and share gems of advice and

technique about using these maligned lenses. If you have one of these lenses, but don't have recent shots - then just

post a gem from the past.

<P>

We have been trying this on the Pentax forum, but not a lot of people own a catadioptric lens, so we thought this

Sunday we would try to start a thread here, where more people could participate. One of the enjoyable things we

have found, is to take one out on a walk and step outside of the photographic boundaries we live within.

<P>

Just post one or two pics, and let the questions, comments and discussions begin. If people enjoy it, maybe we

can try it on a monthly basis?

<P>

In general, these lenses are often looked down on for their lack of sharpness, lack of contrast, fixed aperture, and

the "donut bokeh". But some are better than others, and often they are a very handy hand held long lens solution in

bright light. (Yeah, I know - that statment holds a lot of conditions!)

<P>

I have a Tamron SP 500mm f8 with Pentax K adaptall mount. Here is a shot I took a few days ago:

<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/garryyoung/2813208105/" title="IMGP3538 by Garry Young, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2813208105_b5acbc6f56.jpg" width="500" height="332"

alt="IMGP3538" /></a><br>

Dove grazing. Pentax K20D, ISO 1600, f8, 1/640sec. I was lying down in the grass in a park near my place of work,

so steadiness was no problem. I probably should have dropped the ISO a little to reduce noise.<P>

<a href=" title="IMGP3587 by Garry Young, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2814082868_830c7b1bc9.jpg" width="500" height="332"

alt="IMGP3587" /></a><br>

Another shot from today at lunch time:<br>

Baby on scooter - typical Taiwanese traffic! Pentax K20D, ISO 1250, f8, 1/320sec. I was standing outside a

restaurant waiting for my lunch takeouts, hand-held. That's where in-body stabilization helps. Converted in Lightroom

to black and white.

<P>

That's my contribution. Can't wait to see what other folk post!

Wow, I had heard that mirror lenses weren't too sharp, but these images look fantastic.

 

Chris

This was taken with the baby brother of your Tamron 500 - the Tamron SP 350mm f5.6. I chose it for a couple of reasons: first of all it's recent, secondly to give an idea on the bokeh, and thirdly there are a couple of the infamous donuts but they're small and barely noticeable. Iso 200, 1/750<div></div>

They can be pretty good Chris. They have some issues that other lenses don't. Like no aperture control and the classic donut shaped bright highlights. I believe Garry's is a manual focus lens and mine is as well. It's a 1000mm f10 telescope with a T2 adapter fitted to a Pentax K10D. You're not going to shoot race cars with this lens but it can do a lot of other things well. Plus it can control PF and flare like no lens I've ever used. Have a look at the shot of the sun below. I took about 20 shots of the setting sun and no flare in any of them.

 

First a plant around 80 feet away. (I was on a dragonfly hunt but unsuccessful).

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/'><img src='http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/9645/imgp3080signedzt9.jpg' border='0'/></a>

 

A duck around 120 feet

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/'><img src='http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3682/imgp3070signedgb1.jpg' border='0'/></a>

 

Moon shot with no cropping

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/'><img src='http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6632/imgp2901moonshotbr3.jpg' border='0'/></a>

 

Sandpiper that was at least 500 feet from the shooting spot.

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/'><img src='http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/8990/imgp3049signedpd9.jpg' border='0'/></a>

 

Wave at sunrise (over 400 feet)

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/'><img src='http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7404/imgp2945signedtz3.jpg' border='0'/></a>

 

Sunset

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/'><img src='http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4054/imgp2857signedze5.jpg' border='0'/></a>

Since I sneaked into the Pentax discussion on this, I'm not sure if I'm disqualified here, but....

 

Unlike the posting on the former forum, this one is pulled out of the RAW file.<div></div>

Not a Pentax, but a 500mm f8 mirror lens with film...minor PS to eliminate some irritating donuts

</ctr><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7771437-lg.jpg"></ctr>

Nice shot Steve. What camera and lens? The idea of the thread was that anyone from any brand would join in. These are unusual lenses and some obscure brands in some cases. It would be cool to see shots and details from lots of different shooters.

I use the newer Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 usually with a Nikon D200 and also (perversely?) hand-held. Here are two examples, the first was from about 75 feet away and the second was about six feet away:

Sorry, first time I tried to post in one of these forums with inline images. Will try again. Hopefully, the

following will appear: (1) street musician from about 75 feet; (2) robin from about six feet (it focusses down to

about 4.5 feet); (3) goldfinch from about twelve feet with TC-201 2X teleconverter.

 

 

 

<a href=" title="packing up by mannikon, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2693546638_560bb336f6.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="packing up" /></a>

<a href=" title="a robin's eye by mannikon, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2628588988_16fe582d13.jpg" width="500" height="500" alt="a robin's eye"

/></a>

<a href=" title="eye of a greenfinch by mannikon, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2717504975_f007e05814.jpg" width="500" height="334"

alt="eye of a greenfinch" /></a>

My first long telephoto was Tamron SP 500mm F8 with Sony DSLR-A100. Used it for some time with ISO set at 400 and

mostly handheld. Down the post I'll add three images taken with this setup. Actually, the Turkey Vulture is the

same bird that Paul De Ley showed You in this thread - http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00QO7I - we were

shooting it together. Post-processing was limited to curve-tweaking and increasing the saturation. NO noise

reduction, NO sharpening. But images were considerably downsampled.

 

I partly stopped using this mirror lens when I got second-hand Sigma 170-500mm APO, but after few shots I

realised that my Sigma was not as sharp as the mirrow lens! May be it was one of those Sigma lenses that left the

factory without proper quality inspection. Anyway, I want to get rid of Sigma and now I'm using the Tamron mirror

again from time to time when I'm not using the Nikkor 400mm F5.6 EDIF with homemade adapter.

 

Basically, with ISO 400 and good light the shutter speed is good enough to get sharp images (not as sharp as I

can get with the Nikkor 400, though) hand held. Unfortunately, ISO 400 is already too "noisy" to my liking (and

You can see it on images). When I downsample my images to 50% they look much better in many parameters. But what

I realised lately, is that the Sony's Super Steady Shot may not really work when the camera does not recognise

the lens. Now I'm planning to try the same Tamron mirror using adaptall-to-M42 coupled with M42-to-Maxxum adapter

with AF confirmation. As I've read on photo.net pages - SSS is supposed to work with such a setup. That will

hopefully allow me to use lower ISO under same circumstances (at least ISO 200) and get less noise.

 

The bokeh... I do not like donuts myself, but careful selection of background (which in most cases is pure lack

in my case) can help a lot. Sky, sand, water and trees (far away) worked fine for me. And my trials to use

Tamron mirror with telconverters failed - there is no CA but the resulting image is too soft.

 

Shurely, I'd like to have fast 500mm or 600mm prime (I will never ever go for another super tele zoom again), but

I can not afford it right now. Whereas my mint Tamron SP 500 was 115$ including shipping...<div></div>

One more..<div></div>

I've used a Tamron SP500 for years and they are without a doubt SHARP! But no dof. so they are an excellent lens with very specific uses.

And the "famous" vulture<div></div>

Fuji S1, Zykkor 500-800mm f8/12 zoom, Tokina doubler, 13 miles away.

 

<img src="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/mdcarma/Porch%20shots/capital.jpg">

I was always wondering how the Mirror Zoom lenses work at different focal length... Anyone tried a comparative

test? Also, did anyone ever try the enigmatic Konica 2000mm F/11-32 that actually had a variable aperture? You

shurely need some high ISO and steady tripod to use it. But the question is - how the variable aperture

influences the DOF with such optical scheme.

 

There was also an Ohnar 300mm F/5.6 miraculous mirror with the iris diaphragm located somewhere anteriorly in the

lens and having no influence on the DOF at all, see this link

http://mirrorlens.blogspot.com/2007/09/ohnar-300mm-f56-mirror.html and

http://homepage3.nifty.com/3rdpartylens-om/Lens%20Test/ohnar300test.htm

Hi - sorry about lack of data. I remember the shot was taken with a tripod and the camera was a Canon A1, but I've forgotten the manufacturer of the the 500mm cat lens; I remember selling it a couple months after the photo, as I was really disappointed with my overall results with it. In more recent years I've owned both Nikon and Tamron 500 cats with the Tamron clearly outperforming the others.

Hey Garry, looks like you've attracted a good number of CAT users :-)<br>

<br>

I think the shots in this thread clearly show that a decent mirror lens is sharp and contrasty enough to produce

quality pictures. I've always liked that setting sun Peter Zack took, and Oleksandr's Kingbird is simply

fabulous.<br>

<br>

Here are some pics from me, which the folks from the Pentax Forum may have already seen. I use a Sigma CAT 400mm

f/5.6 on a K10D. Unless otherwise noted, all images were taken handheld.<br>

<br>

To begin with, a couple of bird pics, part of <a href="http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00QIt4">a short

series</a> of a mockingbird chick I photographed:<br>

<br>

<center><img

src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/Miserere/SIuytzvQkFI/AAAAAAAABC4/EroANEeNlkI/s800/IMGP8813-small.jpg"><br>

<b>Mockingbird Chick 1</b><br></center>

<center><img

src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/Miserere/SIuytaVUpeI/AAAAAAAABCw/3H-pSnl2woA/s800/IMGP8814-small.jpg"><br>

<b>Mockingbird Chick 2</b><br></center>

<br>

And now for something completely different:<br>

<center><a href=" title="Pale Life by Miserere, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2708889116_cc35ec25ae_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="Pale Life"

/></a><br>

<b>Pale Life</b><br></center>

<br>

And finally, a Moon shot using the CAT lens paired with a Tamron 1.4x TC, using a tripod this time. It was tough

to focus this one, but in the end it turned out a lot better than I thought it would. (This is a crop, by the

way.)<br>

<center><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/Miserere/SLIRzpoU0HI/AAAAAAAABVk/ocx0qxpOdZA/s800/IMGP9203-small.jpg"><br>

<b>Half Moon</b><br></center>

Wow, some really good shots!

 

Just to reconfirm - this thread is not brand specific. Please contribute!

 

JDM, that is sharper than the one you posted previously! Nice touch.

 

Well, so far, things are looking good in the CAT's favor! Keep posting!

I think that is because You did not post it in the Nature/Telephoto lenses forum. One of the posts about mirror lenses there was not that positive at all: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00NulC See for Yourself.

Some of the peoples there suggested to use some relatively cheaper super-tele zooms (reaching 500mm at long end, like Sigmas and Tamrons) as a cheaper alternative to fast refractive primes and supposedly better alternative to "faulty" mirror lenses as a cheaper way to do bird photography.

 

Bob Atkins even reviewed Tamron 200-500 on his web-site and showed that this lens in pretty good for its price. I can not say anything for that lens. However, as I said before, my experience with Sigma 170-500 is not positive at all, and I'm very upset for spending 500$ on it. It's to much mony for me to spend on something I'm not happy with. Also, I do not understand at all why whould I need something like Sigma 50-500, but it is personal opinion. Of course I dream about Minolta 600mm F4.0 for bird photo but I have to "upgrade" from a post-doc to a professor before I can afford it...

 

So for now, Tamron SP 500mm serves me well and I'm kind of having fun trying to master this lens. Isn't it supposed to be fun - doing non-professional photography?

mmmmmmmm.......donuts

 

<img src="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/mdcarma/Porch%20shots/plumbokahringscopy.jpg">

 

Nikon F wlf Zykkor zoom mirror.

Oleksandr, that was an interesting thread. People were bashing mirror lenses for being completely useless while all the while great photos were being shown taken with those very same "useless" lenses!

 

And I nominate Paul de Ley for president :-D

For Your eyes only, Miserere, Paul De Ley is my boss - he was the one to re-introduce me to photography, after a long break. I did some B&W with Zenit 19 camera some 15 years ago. I hope he will not see this thread ;-)

And there was another one, even more emotional... http://www.photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00NrQw

<p>"People were bashing mirror lenses for being completely useless while all the while great photos were being shown taken with those very same "useless" lenses! "</p>

<p>-------------------------</p>

<p>It amazes me how many people are willing to pass on misconceptions without ever trying things out. I just keep remembering a quote from one of my photo books (can't remember which, but it may have been John Shaw) that no one looking at a print in a gallery asks what lens was used before deciding if they like it. </p>

 

<p>These are fun lenses, and even though I own big conventional glass, I choose to use them in certain situations. They're lightweight and portable and easier to balance handheld. </p>