Cool Mirror Lenses You've Known and Loved -- or at least Liked

I can't understand why anyone would want to have half a dozen 500mm mirror lenses in addition to 700, 600, 450 350 and 300mm mirror lenses.

Some people NEVER understand. I'm one of them...

I can't understand why anyone would want to have half a dozen 500mm mirror lenses in addition to 700, 600, 450 350 and 300mm mirror lenses.

Addictive collecting.

I can't understand why anyone would want to have half a dozen 500mm mirror lenses in addition to 700, 600, 450 350 and 300mm mirror lenses.

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

I can't understand why anyone would want to have half a dozen 500mm mirror lenses in addition to 700, 600, 450 350 and 300mm mirror lenses.

who cares? :p

@woodrim I’ve been enjoying reading this old thread and seeing peoples’ photos. Post some some of yours also, please.

One very nice feature of the little 500mm Tamron Adaptall II SP f/8 is it's ability to focus far closer to the subject than any other mirror lens I've come across, greatly increasing it's versatility.

who cares? :p

 

 

@woodrim I’ve been enjoying reading this old thread and seeing peoples’ photos. Post some some of yours also, please.

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

Thank you Woodrim for the images. It gives us/me a good idea of the different lenses capabilities.

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.

Very interesting thread. Wondering if there were any Cat lenses for the Hasselblad V Sytem I consulted Nordin and came up with this: A 1000mm F5.6 lens developed by Zeiss for the 2000FC. Appeared in the 1979 catalog but apparently only two produced. Weight was 36.3 lbs, Only one aperture but exposure was controlled by a built-in turret containing neutral density filters. For sure you'd need a bigger tripod than my Gitzo.

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.

I agree with the erudite comments a few posts above on the need for accurate focussing and firm support,but would like to add one factor common to all long lenses: Due to their reach there is a temptation to picture far-away scenes. This introduces another cause of fuzzy images; the atmosphere. Really distant scenes are best pictured on a cold winter day. Even then, heat from a less well insulated roof will introduce wobbly air that can interfere with your motive.

With older mirror lenses there is yet another cause of unsharpness; some have been opened to clear out dust by well-meaning amateurs with no collimation equipment. Remember that where light makes 3 passes internally before leaving , accuracy requirements for reassembly will be three times as important as with ordinary optics.

As mentioned above, fumbling while fosussing is an important factor. one technical feature that I have found very useful, is the focusing lever of the LeicaR/Minolta 800mm; it moves very smoothly as opposed to the helix type focus of the shorter catadioptrics.

p.

Very interesting thread. Wondering if there were any Cat lenses for the Hasselblad V Sytem I consulted Nordin and came up with this: A 1000mm F5.6 lens developed by Zeiss for the 2000FC. Appeared in the 1979 catalog but apparently only two produced. Weight was 36.3 lbs, Only one aperture but exposure was controlled by a built-in turret containing neutral density filters. For sure you'd need a bigger tripod than my Gitzo.

Not a mirror lens, but a propos weight, needing big tripods and such: remember this one? [link to dpreview]. 256 kg. Mounted on a flat bed truck.

Myself i only ever really used the MTO (Maksutov) f/10 1000 mm on Olympus and Nikon (d)SLRs. I still have to remove the Barlow lens from its rear (only 800 mm then) and put a Hasselblad mount in its place, as i had planned a few decades ago. Though i don't know whether it will be really worth the effort.

Do i like it? It is difficult to mount on a tripod (though i managed to make do with some Heath Robinson inspired contraptions). Difficult to focus. I removed the strain on the mirror put there by screws tightened too much, which was an improvement.

And i removed the close focus stop. I have to be careful not to turn the focusing ring too far (i.e. off the lens) but i find it extends the use of this lens from just-a-far-away thingy (and i echo P's remark about heat haze marring telephotos) into the quite-useful range.

I do not use it much. I rather put a teleconverter or 2 (1.4x and 2x) behind a 600 mm lens on a DSLR. Still a difficult thing to mount and keep still. Still hard to focus. And that atmospheric blur of course is still there. But it is more versatile and the image quality is just as good, or even better (even with those two teleconverters).

Still, it didn't cost much, and i think i would buy one again today if i didn't have one already.

Since the bug just re-bit me, I looked around and found three mirror lenses so I could test and use them. The first photos were taken out my back window, using a Nikon D610, programmed with the lenses entered as Nikon 1, 2, 3. In this test photo, a Tokina 500mm f/8, and a Tamron 500mm f/8 were used. The Tokina image is on top, and the Tamron on the bottom. Both photos were shot within a minute of each other, and the settings were @ ISO 800 and a shutterspeed @ 1/500. A simple collage was created in Adobe Photoshop Elements 2019 with no further editing. Just from my initial examination based on single images, it appears the Tamron has slightly more contrast than the Sigma. I focused on the "4771 Mead" lettering, and it also appears the Tamron may have a bit more focusing depth.

Dennis, I have found the same thing to be true with the Tamron mirror. Its contrast -- especially for a mirror -- is excellent.

Woodrim, thanks for your posts. They're always welcome and what you wrote reminded me of some of my own experiences. In my opening post, I mentioned rather briefly the first mirror lens I bought. Probably back in 1984, I bought a Sigma 600mm f/8. I'm sure that my the motivating factors for my buying it were: 1) it was 100mm more than everyone else's and 2) it was cheaper than Canon. I was little more than a neophyte back then, having just recently bought my first "real" camera, a Canon FTb. Previously I'd been shooting with a Canon AE-1 and A-1 and was getting bored by all the electronics and aggravated by the inconvenience of manual shooting. So the FTb and the Sigma mirror frequently got paired. I clearly recall how unimpressed I was with the first slides I got back when using that lens. They were blurry mostly. I concluded that I'd bought a piece of junk. But then something made me decide to work harder at extracting good photos from that lens. The first thing I did was to buy a big, stout tripod. What was mostly annoying about using the FTb -- or the two A-series Canons, for that matter -- was that dark circle I had to contend with in the viewfinder. And since the focusing aids were gone, I felt I needed a supplemental aid. So I bought a Canon Magnifier "S" ("S" came with an adapter for the square viewfinder window). This helped a lot with my being able to nail focus. And suddenly my images began to improve. I paid attention to shutter speeds, using the FTb's mirror lock up when possible, and the images began to improve even further. Then a couple of additional things helped. I had Canon install a plain matte screen in my A-1 and I bought an old F-1 and bought a plain matte screen for it. Having the plain matte screen in the A-1 helped a lot, especially when I was able to shoot at high shutter speeds. But having the old F-1, with its mirror lock up and matte screen -- well, that finally put me over the top. Finally, I was able to conclude that the Sigma mirror I had bought was actually a very sharp lens.

I regret selling it several years later when I switched systems, albeit temporarily, to Nikon. I've since learned that there is some variability in image quality with the Sigma 600 mirrors. About five years ago, I bought a late model one in Canon EOS mount, and was very disappointed in its optical quality. It probably wouldn't be too bad, but it produces a pronounced double image. Then a couple years ago, I bought a very early Sigma 600, and this one is on par in terms of sharpness with my Tamron 55BB, which is a very sharp mirror. So I finally got a good Sigma again. Most recently, I bought another Tamron 55BB -- mostly just because I found it being sold for way too cheap of a price, so I had to rescue it. It is optically equivalent to the one I already own. What will I do with two? I dunno. I'll probably sell one. Or maybe trade for something interesting. And so it goes.

I regret selling it several years later when I switched systems, albeit temporarily, to Nikon. I've since learned that there is some variability in image quality with the Sigma 600 mirrors. About five years ago, I bought a late model one in Canon EOS mount, and was very disappointed in its optical quality. It probably wouldn't be too bad, but it produces a pronounced double image. Then a couple of years ago, I bought a very early Sigma 600, and this one is on par in terms of sharpness with my Tamron 55BB, which is a very sharp mirror. So I finally got a good Sigma again. Most recently, I bought another Tamron 55BB -- mostly just because I found it being sold for way too cheap of a price, so I had to rescue it. It is optically equivalent to the one I already own. What will I do with two? I dunno. I'll probably sell one. Or maybe trade for something interesting. And so it goes.

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.

Circular bokeh, heat ripples, all the issues with mirror lenses. Back when we had focusing screens (Type E IIRC) for precise ground glass focus, good results could be had with proper technique. 500mm f/8 Nikkor with a long custom made lens hood made from aluminum tube with a black flock lining. Contrast improved considerably with the hood.

I was dusting off a shelf of old lenses today and came across the Maksutov MTO 500mm f/8 catadioptric lens in it's sturdy wooden case. I very rarely use this large and very heavy lens, preferring the much lighter and more versatile Tamron 500mm f/8, but I mounted it on a full-frame Sony digital camera and shot a few frames looking out into the garden. As always, I was impressed by the richness and depth of colour this lens is capable of rendering, and attach a sample which has very little artistic merit but which, I feel, demonstrates this quality.

One oddball lens that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread is the Soligor Catadioptric f/8. I acquired this lens several years ago as part of a bulk purchase of stuff left over from an estates sale, put it on a shelf and forgot about it. Soligor lenses don't have the greatest reputation, being somewhat in the nature of Vivitar, with the lenses sourced from a variety of manufacturers. In my experience most of them are adequate performers, with some stand-outs and some absolute lemons. Compilations of the serial numbers of Soligor lens exist indicating probable manufacturers, but this particular model has a serial number beginning with "57 ", a number apparently unresolved but possibly attributable to Samyang.

I decided to clean it up and try it out. It has a couple of dial-in neutral density filters referred to as "f/11 and f/16", just to indicate the degree of light reduction and not otherwise related to aperture settings. The lens has a T-mount, in this case fitted with a Nikon mount, and focuses down to a handy 10 feet. Build quality is good, with very smooth and well-damped focusing. I can't find much regarding this model on the internet; Soligor released another mirror lens, presumably at a later date, smaller and shorter and more after the compact style of the Tamrons, but this one remains rather a mystery. If anyone has experience of this lens, or more information relating to it, please post a reply.

Given it's humble origins I didn't expect too much of the Soligor, but I was pleasantly surprised. It's reasonably sharp, there's none of the gross fringing I've encountered with other el cheapo mirror lenses and the contrast is about average. Vignetting is quite marked. I'll post an unsharpened sample, along with a couple of images of the lens itself. It's sitting on a detachable tripod plate, for convenience and stability.

Soligor f/8

Test scene @50mm

Soligor Full-Frame

One oddball lens that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread is the Soligor Catadioptric f/8. I acquired this lens several years ago as part of a bulk purchase of stuff left over from an estates sale, put it on a shelf and forgot about it. Soligor lenses don't have the greatest reputation, being somewhat in the nature of Vivitar, with the lenses sourced from a variety of manufacturers. In my experience most of them are adequate performers, with some stand-outs and some absolute lemons. Compilations of the serial numbers of Soligor lens exist indicating probable manufacturers, but this particular model has a serial number beginning with "57 ", a number apparently unresolved but possibly attributable to Samyang.

 

I decided to clean it up and try it out. It has a couple of dial-in neutral density filters referred to as "f/11 and f/16", just to indicate the degree of light reduction and not otherwise related to aperture settings. The lens has a T-mount, in this case fitted with a Nikon mount, and focuses down to a handy 10 feet. Build quality is good, with very smooth and well-damped focusing. I can't find much regarding this model on the internet; Soligor released another mirror lens, presumably at a later date, smaller and shorter and more after the compact style of the Tamrons, but this one remains rather a mystery. If anyone has experience of this lens, or more information relating to it, please post a reply.

 

Given it's humble origins I didn't expect too much of the Soligor, but I was pleasantly surprised. It's reasonably sharp, there's none of the gross fringing I've encountered with other el cheapo mirror lenses and the contrast is about average. Vignetting is quite marked. I'll post an unsharpened sample, along with a couple of images of the lens itself. It's sitting on a detachable tripod plate, for convenience and stability.

 

Soligor f/8

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.

One oddball lens that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread is the Soligor Catadioptric f/8. I acquired this lens several years ago as part of a bulk purchase of stuff left over from an estates sale, put it on a shelf and forgot about it. Soligor lenses don't have the greatest reputation, being somewhat in the nature of Vivitar, with the lenses sourced from a variety of manufacturers. In my experience most of them are adequate performers, with some stand-outs and some absolute lemons. Compilations of the serial numbers of Soligor lens exist indicating probable manufacturers, but this particular model has a serial number beginning with "57 ", a number apparently unresolved but possibly attributable to Samyang.

 

I decided to clean it up and try it out. It has a couple of dial-in neutral density filters referred to as "f/11 and f/16", just to indicate the degree of light reduction and not otherwise related to aperture settings. The lens has a T-mount, in this case fitted with a Nikon mount, and focuses down to a handy 10 feet. Build quality is good, with very smooth and well-damped focusing. I can't find much regarding this model on the internet; Soligor released another mirror lens, presumably at a later date, smaller and shorter and more after the compact style of the Tamrons, but this one remains rather a mystery. If anyone has experience of this lens, or more information relating to it, please post a reply.

 

Given it's humble origins I didn't expect too much of the Soligor, but I was pleasantly surprised. It's reasonably sharp, there's none of the gross fringing I've encountered with other el cheapo mirror lenses and the contrast is about average. Vignetting is quite marked. I'll post an unsharpened sample, along with a couple of images of the lens itself. It's sitting on a detachable tripod plate, for convenience and stability.

 

Soligor f/8

 

[ATTACH=full]1344347[/ATTACH]

Make a LONG extension lens hood.

My Nikon 500/8 mirror has a similarly stupid short lens hood.

The more you can shade the lens from off axis light, the better the contrast should be.

Gary Naka said :

Make a LONG extension lens hood.

Thanks Gary, good advice. It's not a lens I'm likely to use very often, given that I have better examples of the genre, but it would be good to have it up to optimum performance.