1000mm Nikkor F11 Reflex is it Sharp??

I am thinking of purchasing a Nikkor F11 1000mm reflex mirror lens.

Does this lens produce sharp photos? From what I heard it does

produce sharp photos. I can live with the Boken so I just need a

super 1000mm or greater lens. I want to use a 1.4X or 2X multiplier

with it.

 

Thanks

 

Jay

Yes, with a tripod, the lens is sharp. If you locate a used one (unless dropped,) the lens should work OK. With a tele-extender___? You might consider renting one and testing it out before investing in a Reflex-Nikkor lens.

By itself, the 1000 Reflex is quite sharp, but there are three caveats to keep in mind. Firstly, the filter in the rear must be in position (if converters are used, it must be removed), secondly, you need a good tripod with an even better tripod head, and thirdly and most important, you need sufficient light to focus the damned thing :) The importance of the last point will be very clear after some use of this lens.

 

I have used my 1000 Reflex with a number of teleconverters and the overall quality does decline, but even the 1000 + TC-301 combination gave me useful shots.

I have used one of the oldest (with a very low serial number, probably from around 1965) and one of the most recent. I coudn not detect any optical difference, and each was much sharper than the Celestron C-90 that I had tried earlier. However mine were not as sharp as my EIDF 300mm f4.0 - the older one without the silent wave motor. Remember that the design of this mirror lens pre-dates ED glass and internal focus. I would recommend looking for a used one. I think you can find a clean used one for half the price of a new one. Another option - a used 600mm 5.6 EDIF Nikkor. I have had better results from the 600mm and the 1.4x (Sigma EX) and 2.0x (Kenko Pro) convertors than I had from the mirror.

Just keep in mind the F 11 issue. Having this as the maximum (and only) f stop can make life tough.

Canon User, if the two I had were representative, any old lens will shine in comparison to the C-90.

 

I had two C-90s because the first was so terrible mechanically and optically that Celestron replaced it on warranty. The replacement was merely horrible. I never took a shot with either that I was willing to show in public. Soft, low contrast, strong hot spot, ... Not a good lens, worse than no lens at all.

 

Jay, all kidding aside, if you've never used a lens longer than around 400 mm you should rent one, the longer the better, and see for yourself how badly long lenses punish the least unsteadiness. These days my longest lens is a 700/8 Questar; great lens, but hard to use.

 

Good luck, have fun,

another caveat : best shooting in cold nights ^^ . any thermal air movement and "schlieren" will disturb image quality severely. depending on the conditions of the air and distance to your object you may not need a converter - cropping may give the same result without the added risk of shake due to the instable connection.

Thanks, Dan! I wondered who this informative person is :-)

Well at about four pounds, it is certainly lighter than the long Nikkor refractors.

To All thanks, I have a few LONG lenses but want as much distance in shooting as possible. I currently shoot with a 600mm Sigma Reflex. A 50-500mm BigMa i use teleconverters to get 1500 and 2100mm but have hard times with the light. I am looking for something that will work as good as my sigma 50-500 sharpness wise but with a little better light performance. As it now sits my sigma 600mm Reflex is way to touchy focus with a 1.4x or 2x Multiplier on it. It is way to narrow. The 50-500 is good but at 2100mm not as sharp plus I need a sunny bright bright day.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

jay

I use a Nikkor 500/8 Reflex lens with Nikon 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (which give me an

effective 700/11 and 1000/16...have not tried stacking two teleconverters to create a

1400/22 monster...hmmm), and the point of my post is that I find that a Nikon DG-2

magnifying eyepiece that flips down over the viewer makes a huge difference in focusing

ability; as it enlarges the center view through the viewfinder, I find I can get better focus

on the dim (f11, f16) screen. The DG-2 and the eyepiece adapter (I use a DK-7) you need

to mount it on a camera cost about $60-100, depending on where you shop. While I

cannot speak to the 1000/11 lens, the 500/8 lens takes sharp photos by itself, but the

use of teleconverters degrades the image slightly. I only use Fujichrome Provia 400F with

this lens, and I have obtained some great photos (and not a few not-so-great photos) with

this lens and film combination.

Jay, if cost is no object consult http://www.davrooptical.com/

 

Owned by a Questar employee, founder of Optical Techniques Inc.

It is very compact and light weight for its focal length can fill frame with 9inch bird from 25ft.I have Nikon mirror lens since 1980 and used it successfully to hotograph rare pictures of endangered species which would not have been possible w/o it. Manyt pics with it have been published worldwide.Thus sharpness is not bad if not coparable to Refrective glass ED lenses.Sometimes it is very sharp others it is not. Can't say why. May be focussinf error due to dim finder image. No problem till date. Warning : It has become slower from F11 to F16 with time. I read that this happens with ageing mirror coating.

<p>The nikon 1000mm reflex is an very sharp lens. Since its method of magnification isn't refraction it is free of many of the problems and limitations of a conventional telephoto. The fact these lenses are not made with ed glass is of no importance. However, it is true they have their own set of problems, low contrast, a hot spot in the middle, and the odd circular effect of out of focus highlights. The lens is very light weight and this may make it more susceptible to vibration. Also heat hitting the lens may cause an expansion in the lens, causing rapid and uneven changes in focus. The lens should have been white. But still it is a very usable lens especially on a digital camera where the image can be easily corrected for contrast. For a long time i shot with a nikon 300mm f4 and a 600mm 5.6 both really great lenses, but the 1000mm reflex was the sharpest. I think one of the reasons this lens is knocked is focus is so critical with such a powerful magnifier and the slightest vibration, or heat rising through the atmosphere will ruin an image. Also many people mistake contrast for resolution, and the contrast from this lens is low. But make no mistake this lens will capture every hair on a baby chicks head. It's terrible with a teleconverter even a good teleconverter, although if you use it with a dx body it is a 1400mm.</p>

The lens is superbly sharp if you provide good support. The very high magnification (20x) will magnify any camera movement and since the depth of field, even at f/11, is very shallow, you need to take extra care to ensure that you have focused properly. I have found that it works quite well on a gimbal head on a sturdy tripod. Focusing is going to be challenging if you use the standard screen which comes with most DSLR's. The truth be told, they ALL totally suck for manual focusing, but if the subject has any specular highlights, focusing is a snap. If you plan on using MF lenses I encourage you to switch out your screen with a microprism/split image one from focusingscreen.com like I have. If you have a more current DSLR, you may still be able to use the focus indicator if the light levels are high (outdoors). My D850 still gives me focus confirmation outside but inside the light levels are generally too low. But who needs a 1000mm lens indoors? Edited December 12, 2019 by scott_murphy|5

IMO split image screen will not work with this f11

Canon User, if the two I had were representative, any old lens will shine in comparison to the C-90.

 

I had two C-90s because the first was so terrible mechanically and optically that Celestron replaced it on warranty. The replacement was merely horrible. I never took a shot with either that I was willing to show in public. Soft, low contrast, strong hot spot, ... Not a good lens, worse than no lens at all.

 

Jay, all kidding aside, if you've never used a lens longer than around 400 mm you should rent one, the longer the better, and see for yourself how badly long lenses punish the least unsteadiness. These days my longest lens is a 700/8 Questar; great lens, but hard to use.

 

Good luck, have fun,

Sounds like the C-90 is every bit as good as my old Meade 1000 mm f/11. IMO, the best mirror lens in the world is still terribly difficult to get good results with unless your technique is perfect.

Around 1990, I had the 500mm/f8 Reflex Nikkor mirror lens. f8 is simply too slow, and half of the split-image focusing aide just became dark. Over the years, I have owned over 40 different Nikkor lenses and that mirror lens was my biggest purchase mistake.

 

I no longer have that lens. I wonder whether manual focusing on modern-day live view or EVF may work better.

Those magnifications and aperture speeds are obviously in the realms of astro reflector telescopes, where AF is done externally, as it were, usually controlled by a laptop or somesuch microcomputer.

 

Obviously the LV/EVF AF mechanism in an Z6/7 has the info to control the focussing but the main difference is the astros don't focus by helicoid, they focus by backfocus (right term?) with an eyepiece/camera usually by rack and pinion.

 

IIRC, Minolta did a 500mm f8 AF mirrorlens, so it's obviously possible.

 

For sheer magnification V weight they win hands down and I guess with modern software it could/should be possible to mod the donut OOF rendering to something less unpleasant. I personally don't mind it if the target is big enough in the frame.

 

With modern IBIS, it should even be possible to handhold a 1000mm lens or more...that deserves thinking about...:D

 

So 2000mm lens nominally 1/2000th sec, humm.... IBIS gives maybe + 4EV's of shake reduction.

 

That's 1/125 more or less... :cool:

this is a Frankenpost - originally 2005.

 

Assessments of catadioptric lens by "eye" is often confused, since low contrast is often confused with low resolution, among other difficulties.

To All thanks, I have a few LONG lenses but want as much distance in shooting as possible. .....

Thanks for the info.

jay

If this is your goal, just for the fun of it try and rent a Nikon Coolpix P1000 , or at least check the Youtube reports on it?

If this is your goal, just for the fun of it try and rent a Nikon Coolpix P1000 , or at least check the Youtube reports on it?

I have never used a Coolpix P1000 or P900, but mirror lenses are very difficult to handle and use, which I unfortunately have personal experience. If you want a really long tele, I would give those Coolpix a try first. Of course, image quality is limited, but so will using a 1000mm mirror lens, especially you want to use TCs on top of that.

All mirror lenses need to acclimate to ambient temperature in order to prevent internal thermals compromising the image. When stored in a warm environment the primary mirror absorbs heat and the mirror then acts like a radiator when taken into cooler environment … when the heat is radiated from the primary mirror the resultant 'internal thermals' will blur the image … imagine the thermals from e.g. a jet aircraft engine when the plane is stationary on a runway awaiting take-off. Astronomers always allow at least 30 minutes for their reflector telescopes to acclimate before commencing astro observing / astro imaging … longer acclimation times are required for Maksutov reflectors. I have just ordered a s/h Nikkor 1000mm f11 Mk II complete with minor fungus on the rear of the front element . I plan to remove the front element to clean off the fungus … and will also flock the lens interior with matt black self adhesive velour to improve image contrast.

 

dunk

"and will also flock the lens interior with matt black self adhesive velour to improve image contrast. "

 

Velour helps grow fungus faster and attracts dust , there are other matte black "paints" that do not especially designed for this purpose...

Re-animated, but OK

 

 

Second on not being "flocked up".

 

 

for historical efforts see In Search of Reach: Tele Converters with links to other mirror lens posts, etc.