500mm f/8 reflex or some other telephoto?

John, I was in your same shoes quite some years ago. 1984, to be exact..I felt the need for a longer telephoto than 200mm, but at the time, for whatever reason, didn't get the Canon 300mm f/4, which would have been the logical next step. Instead, I bought a Sigma 600mm f/8. I think I bought the Sigma because I was getting 100mm more focal length for the same price as a 500mm mirror. After I got the lens, I recall a period of frustration as I learned how to use the lens. I learned the necessity of using a stout tripod, a cable release -- plus, one of my cameras had mirror lock up, which I also put to use. Back in those days, I was shooting mostly Kodachrome 64. Now, using the Sunny f/16 rule, that translates into 1/250 @ f/8 -- insufficient for hand-holding that long optic. Hence the necessity for the stout tripod, or a monopod in some instances. But once I got used to handling that big lens, I was able to use it in a variety of situations.

Here's a shot where I was using a Canon A-1 with the Sigma and Kodachrome 64. The monochromatic quality of the photo is due to all the reflections off the water. I have 100% crops of this image that reveal an impressive amount of detail.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/offshore_rig_1a.jpg

Here's a 100% crop of the above image:

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/offshorerig1b.jpg

An FTb using mirror lock up, Kodchrome 64:

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/hawaii_ships_1a.jpg

Back in the 80s, I did a lot of freelancing as a motorsports photographer. I found that the focal length was just what I needed to reach some areas on the racetracks. Here's a gaggle of sports racers at Willow Springs. As you can see the donuts are small and inconsequential (to me, at least). I was shooting either Kodachrome 64 or Fujichrome 100 back then, and used a monopod to support the Sigma.http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/scca_sports_2000s_wir_1a.jpg

Another shot at the same spot on the track, but I really nailed focus on this shot.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/scca_sports_2000_wir_1a.jpg

Here's a 100% crop of the above image. That was Fujichrome 100, shot with a Canon F-1.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/sccawir4a.jpg

I miss that old Sigma. I sold it when I changed systems from Canon FD to Nikon. Recently I bought another, this one is a later build than the first one. This new one is in Canon EOS mount. Sadly, it isn't even close to being as sharp as the old one was. So there's some variability with the Sigma lenses. I think most of the old ones are good, and I'm sure that some of the new ones are too, but it pays to be careful, I suppose. These days I'm using a Tamron 55BB SP 500mm f/8, which I think is at least as sharp as my old Sigma. It is quite impressive, rivaling a good 500mm refractor in resolution.

This shot of the moon a couple of days past full was shot with a NEX 7 at ISO 100. 1/125 second shutter speed. This is not a gray scale image. If you look closely, you can see the soft colorations in the moon's surface.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/moon_tamron500_nex7_f8_1a.jpg

I haven't taken the Tamron mirror to any races yet. I have a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LDIF I've been using for that. Yeah, it's heavy, but that's what a monopod is for.

You mention that you might like to get the 200/2.8 and maybe 300/4 after you get a mirror. You know, this is exactly what I did. I decided that there were situations were 600mm was just too much, and the 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 fit the bill. One thing I recommend:if you can afford it, get the 300mm f/4L and maybe don't bother with the 200/2.8, or else maybe get the 50-300mm L zoom (super pricey these days, though). Reason is, both the 200/2.8 and 300/4 are prone to rather severe chromatic aberrations under certain strongly lit situations. You won't have those problems with L glass or slower glass. You know, if you look at the competition, they all made 180/2.8s, not 200/2.8s, and 300/4.5s, not 300/4s. Something about that slight increase in focal length or slight increase in aperture seems to have made a big difference in CA.

And another Canon FDn 500mm/8 test shot from my window. Sony A7, ISO 100, 1/200, tripod.

I've posted here (search) on a fairly diverse set of catadioptric (mirror) lenses.

In addition to Canon's 500mm, you can also mount a huge number of M42, Nikon, and other mount mirror lenses with inexpensive converters (they allow focus to infinity without any correction lens)

I have not used the FD mirror lens, but the Nikon and Sigma (600mm) are probably as good as it gets.

Either you can put up with donuts, or not.

Canon FDn 500mm/8 on Sony A7. Useful for seeing if my friends have arrived at the local metro station.

Canon 500 Mirror on a Leica M240.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/439041-1/eng31_small.jpg