Sigma Mirror Telephoto 600mm f/8

Dan- my first experience with a C-90 was with a generic prime focus adapter. It produced a central hot spot and failed to

fill frame. When I finally got the threaded Celestron adapter it filled the frame and hot spotting was for the most part gone.

Mine was a 1980 vintage with RA drive base and equatorial wedge.

<p>Lynn, thanks for the information, but the issues you raise had been in the post from the beginning. Still, it never hurts to remind people of things.</p>

<p>As I said, I used a monopod for all the shots, never hand holding. 100% crops of the pictures I took show a very little bit of motion in a only few cases, since, as I said, I also used high ISOs so that shutter speed was normally well above 1/1000 of a second. I left the pictures posted in this thread alone, but in some other cases, I have done some sharpening, and the motion blur was relatively easy to fix.<br>

I already had 5 500mm lenses, and 4 of them are T-mount. Both this Sigma and the Reflex-Nikkor are Nikon mount and work just fine with inexpensive adapters on many other cameras (like Canon FD and Canon EOS, among others). The two Nikon-mount lenses are really very much superior to the others.<br>

I also indicated, that one could (so far as 700 pixel images allow) judge contrast for yourself. Even in full-size view, this particular lens does not show what I would call low contrast. The mirror lenses are subject to flare, of course, and the 60mm-long hood on this one was a big help.</p>

<p>As for the history, the Wikipedia link I already gave on catadioptric lenses (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system</a>) covers that, as well.</p>

<p>The above mentioned C90 is a pure Maksutov as is the case with all of them, there is field curvature and chromatic aberration (the thick meniscus "corrector lens" causes dispersion - prismatic color separation) not to mention speed loss. For eyeball viewing this is tolerable, for film or digi sensor, it is really not tolerable.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 2nd lens I ever bought new, my first after returning to photography from a 10 year hiatus, was a Vivitar 500mm f8 mirror. I guess I should thank the silver halides that the experience didn't turn me off photography once and for all. The lens ended up being returned to the store in exchange for I forget what, but it wasn't a mirror lens.</p>

<p>Like many people getting into it, I bought the lens to use for bird photography. Now picture your 'perfect shot' of a sparrow sitting on a twig or fence post or whatever, then imagine all those swirly donut thingys all over the background. And that awful vignetting around all your shots of birds perched on tree branches, with sky background. And that's if, and only if, the budding photographer has mastered the use of the tripod in tracking and focusing on difficult subjects that have the annoying tendency of <strong>moving </strong>whenever they sense a camera lens 'in focus' somewhere in the vicinity. And then there's that whole thing of photographing some brilliantly-plumaged bird, as you remember it, and have the shots come back from the lab and you wonder if the bird was dipped in mud the instant before you pressed the shutter.</p>

<p>Jody et al.<br>

It's not actually impossible to photograph birds with a mirror lens, and I can't see that the difficulties are much different than with any other long, manual-focus lens.<br>

The donuts are not inevitable, either. With both the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm and the Sigma 600mm most of the images I take in a particular shoot either lack the donuts or show them only very subtlely. At times, I even find the best of the shots to have pleasant bokeh for my taste. Sometimes, too, donuts can be tasty.</p>

<p>I think if your Vivitar mirror lens was one of the new "Vivitar" company lenses, rather than from the old company of the 1970s, then the lens was likely from the same Korean plant that makes things like the Quantaray 500mm mirror lens I have. It is just a very poor lens, with not only poor contrast, but simply unsharp at any focus setting. Also, there's no doubt that you have to learn how to use even the good lenses effectively. You can't just run out with the lens hand-held and snap off shots, for example. As Lynn says, this is a LOT of magnification - of motion as well as of image.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I have this lens too in K-mount, though mine is a more of a metallic gray. It seems to be built well enough, has a rotating tripod foot and decent manual focus feel. Also offers 1:3 'macro', you can focus the thing down to only 2 meters...I can fill the frame with a doorknob. Trying to focus and shoot this lens handheld starts giving me a headache though with the the viewfinder image jumping all over the place. Took <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/19349382@N00/sets/72157625051993339/with/5086621133/">a few shots</a> in my backyard with Pentax K-7 (nice but not classic) but haven't used it much since. Someday I might try a few with a film camera with brighter viewfinder.<br /> Here's probably the best of that batch; probably could have used a bit more light. This was taken handheld at ISO 1600 at 1/125, and I don't consider myself all that steady. Cool thing about Pentax is the in-body stabilization, though unfortunately it doesn't stabilize the viewfinder. I didn't own a monopod at that time, I'll have to try that too.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Wait, I came here looking for doughnuts!!!!"</em></strong><br>

<a title="Female Cardinal by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5086621963_c27fec9913_z.jpg" alt="Female Cardinal" width="640" height="425" /></a></p>

<p>I also tried a couple of moon images but I don't think these were much better than the ones I took with my 80-320 zoom (click to see larger).<br /> <a title="Moon, Perigree plus two by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4320858915_031bfd1a40_m.jpg" alt="Moon, Perigree plus two" width="240" height="236" /></a></p>

<p>PPS- much later<br>

I bought a 95mm pinch lens cap and it does fit the Sigma lens proper, but it won't work with the lens hood, naturally enough. I still haven't got to the odd-ball camera supply (a local grocery store) to see if I can find a margarine lid or some such that will fit over the hood (a coffee-can plastic lid is just barely too small)</p>

<p>dan,<br>

if that was for me, it's a rather substantial metal, screw-in hood.</p>

Another resurrection because I can and I want to add Modern Photography's test data on the Sigma 600mm lens

from Modern Photography 1981-11 p. 164

Another oddity, for mirror lenses, that is, is that the focal length and aperture are actually very close to the claimed values.;)

<p>And it's certainly not a lens for fast-moving, unpredictable events. On looking at the picture below I see it is not actually a pelican, but whatever it is, it's definitely not the point that I got focused on in the rush of the moment. :)</p><div>[ATTACH=full]509430[/ATTACH]</div>

I use my Nikon 500mirror for tennis, shooting across 5 courts to #6. It is a real pain to try to follow focus the players, as the DoF is quite shallow.

I bought my first Sigma 600mm mirror in 1984 (see the simultaneous thread Mirror Lenses You've Known and Loved) and grew to love it. Below are a few photos I took with it back in the 80s. Most of the images were shot on Kodachrome 64, maybe one or two on Fujichrome 100.

Offshore drilling rig. Canon A-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64

The four-master Windjammer and sailboat offshore in Waikiki, taken from my hotel room. Canon FTb with mirror up, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64

SCCA racing at Willow Springs Raceway, California. Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Fujichrome 100. Note minimal donuts.

Blue Angels A4 Skyhawk, Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Fujichrome 100

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/blueangels_a4_at_rest_2b.jpg

Airshow officials standing in front of a Hawker Sea Fury. Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64. Note donuts on OOF wing hilights.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/airshowscene1.jpg

Lastly, an image I shot handheld with the big Sigma. I know I chopped off part of the airplane, but I've kept the image all these years just to show that, yes, you can use the Sigma freehanded if you follow good technique, and of course if you're shooting at a high enough shutter speed. In this case, I got lucky. I figure my shutter speed was probably 1/500. This is a Kodachrome 64 slide and I routinely used to set the ASA dial for 80, cuz the slight underexposure improved saturation. I'm figuring I got away with another half-stop of underexposure with this shot just because of the bright subject matter. The sky wasn't that dark.

B-17 Flying Fortress Sentimental Journey Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/film/850185_b17_ff_sigma_600_1.jpg

A common trait of mirror lenses is what many people refer to as "vignetting," but I see it as just the opposite. I see it as a hot spot in the center of the image. The hot spots are only evident against an evenly lit background. If you look at the above racing shot, you can't detect a hot spot. But in the shot of the B-17, it is dramatically evident.