500mm f/8 reflex or some other telephoto?

<p>Hi,<br /> I'm interested in acquiring a long focal length lens such as the Canon 500mm reflex. I'm new to photography and am looking for something that will let me experiment with nature photography as well as experiment generally.<br>

<br /> I'm intrigued by the 500mm because of its relatively small size and prices ($200-$300). I'm wondering of the 500mm reflex is a good lens for a beginning amateur to experiment with. The alternative I've considered is something like the Canon 200mm f/2.8 (there's an internal focus version) or the Canon 300mm f/4 and then use a converter to increase the length to somewhere between 400mm and 600mm. It seems to me that the obvious benefit of going with a shorter focal length prime is the larger aperture. I'm wondering if the 500mm provides any benefit over a shorter length lens coupled with a converter.<br>

<br /> I guess my query boils down to whether the 500mm is just a waste of money. I realize it's not a 500mm f/4.5 L but it my be an means to have some fun and do some experimenting at a relatively low cost.<br>

<br /> Any thoughts on the foregoing appreciated.<br>

<br /> Thanks,<br>

<br /> John</p>

<p>There are a couple of problems with reflex lenses. One is that they have no aperture diaphragm, so you have a f/8 lens all the time, you don't have the choice of stopping down. The other problem is the 'donuts' in the out-of-focus areas. If you want something cheap that will capture something far a way, or want to sneak a tele into a sporting event, go for it, but I think you'll better off 'real' lens and using the converter in my opinion. </p>

<p>Hello John and welcome to Canon FD. Almost all Canon lenses are fun to play around with at some level. You don't say what you are hoping to shoot with that long lens. New photographers are often attracted to the extremes in focal length thinking it will help make interesting photographs. The 500mm is not a waste of money but it's fairly specialized lens. My suggestion would be to use your lens money for a more versatile, and reasonably priced zoom in the 80-200mm range. Canon and third parties lenses in this range are plentiful and inexpensive. Add a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2.8 prime lenses and you will have a good kit that will cover a lot of circumstances and give you years of fun, pleasure and practice. When you have exhausted the potential of this simple kit, the super teles, super wides, super speed lenses will always be there later when you are ready.</p>

<p>It depends on what quality image you are willing to accept. I used to own a Canon 500mm, and it was pretty similar to the 500mm Nikkor as well, but I couldn't find an image with the Canon tag on it. Attached is a Nikon version, but they were similarly "fuzzy" compared to their non-mirror cousins. In most cases, you'd be better off getting a longer tele and using a tele convertor.</p><div></div>

<p>The merits and drawbacks of mirror lenses are regular fodder for debate here on PN and elsewhere. A $75 soda-can sized Tokina 500 f8 in FD mount brought me back to film three years ago after a long gap, so that alone makes me feel they deserve more respect than they usually get. They are much easier to carry around pretty much anywhere you go. At the same time, they are reeeeally hard to focus accurately, not least because at f8 the image is dark enough to black out one or both halves of the split prism in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>And while their light weight makes them handholdable, you still need a tripod for proper stability because at 500mm you get such a narrow angle of view that any slight shake blurs your picture. For a beginning tele-shooter, that makes them excellent training lenses when first learning how to focus teles precisely and how to use a tripod properly - but you had better be willing to hang in there through lots of slightly (or not so slightly) out of focus prints when your first rolls of film come back from developing.</p>

<p>I haven't used the Canon FD 500mm f8 myself yet, but I do have the Tamron Adaptall-2 500 f8 and that is generally recognized to be one of the sharpest of this design. It sells used for $130-160 plus a $20 adapter, so if you do want to try a good mirror lens then that one would save you a little over the Canon or Nikon versions (the Nikon can be adapted to FD mount). Plus as an adaptall lens it would fit on almost any other SLR brand/mount you might buy later. Check <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=807202">the last eight pictures in this folder</a> in my portfolio for examples of what it can do.</p>

<p>If the cons worry you more than the pros of a mirror lens (and you definitely want to inform yourself thoroughly before buying one) then you have some excellent starter options in the 200-400mm range of dioptric Canon FD tele lenses. The 300 f4 and 400 f4.5 are really good and still handholdable, though both have noticeable color fringing with high contrast. The 300 f4 L doesn't fringe but costs as much as the 400 f4.5. Another option is to get a Nikkor ED* 300 f4.5 with a Nikon AI to Canon FD adapter, it has almost no fringing and can sometimes be found a little cheaper than the FD 300 f4 L. The adapter prevents you from using automatic diaphragm, but with teles in this range you will very rarely want to work at apertures smaller than f8 anyway so that's not such a big deal.</p>

<p>Hi.</p>

<p>I had a Tokina 500mm F8 reflex. I bought it for about $ 100. It was my first experience with super teles, and I thought "What am I ever gonna do with it?" but coudn't resist the price.</p>

<p>Then I discovered it would focus up to 5.5 feet. I'm a serious nature photographeer, and all of a sudden this lens opended a whole new world to me: Insects, orchids up in trees, flowers on the edge of a crevasse,... I also all of a sudden could take nice snapshots of my kids, which refused to have themselves photographed from closer.</p>

<p>I used 400 ASA print film. That gave me a shutter time of between 1/1000 and 1/2000 in the sun.</p>

<p>I also ised a viewing screen without microprisms or anything. I find that this greatly facilitates focusing.</p>

<p>The thing about bad bokeh is absolutely true, don't try to photograph a bird in a tree: All the out of focus branches will give you a double image. But you quickly learn to adapt.</p>

<p>Later, I bought myself a Canon FD 200mm macro. To that, I added a FD doubler, giving me a 400mm F8 which focused down to twice life size.</p>

<p>This combo cost me $ 1,000, and I never would have bought it without my previous experience with the mirror lens. It's truly amazing to shoot with it: I take on butterflies, frame filling, from five feet. But $ 1000 begins to be a lot of money...</p>

<p>Now I still sometimes use the reflex lens because it's so small. It's not much bigger than a 50mm F1.4 autofocus, and that is great for snapshots. I'll certainly never sell it.</p>

<p>My experience was that this Tokina was very sharp.</p>

<p>Now, I have a 200mm F 2.8 ($ 250), a 300mm F4($ 300), a 400mm F4.5( $ 450 with the 1.4 x and 4 filters), a 1.4 x FD converter and the FD 2X A and B converters. About the prices: I live in Belgium, Europe, and there prices are higher than in the US.</p>

<p>I like shooting with the 300 and 400mm and converters, because they loosen the subject from the beckground so nicely. The bokeh is great. I nearly always shoot wide open. I'm happy with the quality of all these lenses. If the 300mm F4 is so good already, then the 300mm F4 L must be a truly galactic performer.</p>

<p>I always shoot handheld, even with the 800mm combination. I must say I did several years of yoga.</p>

<p>I think FD lenses are so cheap nowadays that you can just pick out what you like. A 500mm reflex is fun! </p>

<p> Bye,</p>

<p>Dirk.</p>

<p>The Canon 500/8 Reflex is supposed te be the best 500mm mirror lens available, noticeably better than the Nikon or other brands... yet far from the 500/4,5L.<br>

It is a nice lens, I had one for a time, finally sold it because I got me a 500L for nature photo. However, I regret it as it was fun to use; I took it always along on travel (my basic travel pack was T90, 20mm, 24-35L, 50/1.4 , 80-200L and 500R), it was nice to isolate features in buildings and so on. I think the donuts are not to cumbersome if the background is not to cluttered, but it requires real attention to that aspect, as they can become really ugly.<br>

Now, as a starter lens, I would recommend a 200mm or a 300mm lens. A classical lens allows much more flexibility, at the cost of more weight and volume. If you have nothing in the 200 range, I would start with a 200/2.8 (IF or helicoil makes little difference). The IF is compatible with the x1.4 and gives a nice combo. Of course, if you need more range, if you are in nature photo especially, a 300/4 is the one to get.<br>

If you can afford it, I would even recommend the 300/2.8. Combined with the x1.4 and x2B (not the x2A!), you get a exceptionnal 300/2.8, a very good 420/4 and an average 600/5.6 !</p>

<p>Buy the mirror lens and have fun. I used to have one and sometimes regret selling it. It is not a great lens and does suffer from a small aperture and donuts. I sold mine when I got a 300 F2.8 and actually regret it. The 300 F2.8 with a 1.4x converter is in a different league but lacks the portability of the mirror lens.</p>

<p><img src="http://s128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/casualcollector/?action=view&current=AeroShellT-6team.jpg" alt="" /><br>

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/casualcollector/AeroShellT-6team.jpg<br>

New FD 500mm/8 reflex, handheld on F-1. Darker corners are another characteristic of mirror lenses. I think it helped in this case.</p><div></div>

<p>If you can double your budget keh.com currently has a "bargain" Canon FD 300/2.8 L for $569.</p>

<p>Otherwise I also suggest the Canon FD 300/4 L, Canon 400/4.5, and Canon 80-200/4 L.</p>

<p>I do not know how hard it is to get a hold of Nikon to Canon adapters but I know they exist and this is a particularly brilliant idea. The Nikon 300/4.5 ED AI or AIS, 180/2.8 ED AIS, or 400/5.6 ED AI or AIS are all worth considering for your budget. keh currently has a couple of "bargain" Nikon 300/4.5 ED IF AIS lenses for $275. You really have to be careful with all the letters attached to Nikon lens names, but the most important is "ED", like Canon "L". I have bought a couple of keh "ugly" lenses and have been extremely pleased with them.</p>

<p>I currently use Nikon manual focus lenses on Nikon DSLRs but used to use them on Canon EOS film and digital SLRs.</p>

<p>John, I've had both the Canon 500 reflex and the aforementioned Tamron SP 500 reflex. Back when I had them both I ran some comparison shots. All were shot with the same T-90 body, from the same tripod, same scene etc. and the Tamron was hands down sharper than the Canon. This was my first experience with the Tamron SP line and to say the least I was impressed. The Canon is gone, the Tamron sits in a bag waiting to be used.<br>

It waits a lot though, not because its a problem lens but just because there really aren't that many times when a 500mm is the right lens. Its just too long. I remember wanting a big tele real bad back then but unless your shooting the odd thing that really needs it, it just doesn't get used. I'd second the suggestions for something in the 300mm range although I'll have to defer to others suggestions on which particular lens to get as I don't have a 300 myself. I would suggest a couple of zooms to handle the range your really more likely to use and then after you find your photographic muse decide what you really need. If then you really think a 500 is what you need then consider the fixed f8, which can be a hassle, and the funky bokeh, and then if you still want one hold out for the Tamron SP version. Not only is it sharper but its also cheaper, smaller, and lighter.</p>

<p>I have had the Nikkor 500mm 5.0 mirror lens, but I did not like the results. The OOF was bad, and the colors were muted. Then I got a Pentax 500mm 4.5 Takumar, with an FD adapter. It weighs as much a small car! Anyways, I traded it for a Canon 500mm 4.5L, and I never had any regrets.<br />Stay away from a mirror lens if you want first quality images. A cheap way is to get a Canon 300mm/4 (non-L) plus a Canon 1.4 converter. It will give an amazing 420mm lens with a 5.6 max aperture or so. In terms of sharpness, the combo is great.</p>

<p>I recently went back and picked up [at a very low cost] a Tamron 500mm 8.0 mirror lens! duh!</p>

<p>Thank you for all the responses.</p>

<p>Given the limited aperture range of the 500mm f/8 I'm thinking it would be wiser to invest in either a 300mm or 400mm prime telephoto. I have a Canon 100-200mm f/5.6 and a Vivitar 85-205mm f/3.8 both of which I picked up locally for very little money--I think I paid $15.00 for the Vivitar. I also have a Vivitar Macro Focusing 2x converter that came with my A-1. I find the converter option to be a little difficult to use due to the screen darkening that occurs with the zoom lenses--hence my interest in a longer focal length prime lens. I know very little about converters, but I'm guessing the Vivitar can be improved upon. KEH has the Canon 1.4X A BL and 2X-B BL.</p>

<p>Based on the responses I'm leaning toward the 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/4.5 or possibly the 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x 04 2XB converter. I don't need to rush which will give me time to increase my budget.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 300 F2.8 is a great lens but is very large and heavy. It works very well with the 1.4x but is not so good with the 2x as quality suffers and focusing can be more difficult. I do carry my 300 F2.8 but more often just take either a 200 f2.8 or 80-200 f4l zoom.</p>

<p>The 300mm f/2.8 is 2310g or 5.09 lbs--that <i>is</i> heavy. The 300mm f/4L and f/4 are between 2.3 and 2 lbs respectively while the 400mm is 2.82 lbs. I think for my purposes the lighter of the 300mm - 400mm lenses would be more appropriate. The 300mm f/4 is available in the $190 range whereas the 300mm f/4L and 400mm f/4.5 are available in the $490 range. Each option has its pros and cons.</p>

<p>How do you think either of the 300mm or 400mm would perform with a 1.4x or 2x converter?</p>

<p>The 1.4X is superb. Don't go for the 2X. The loss is only one f stop with the 1.4X. The image degredation is lower too.</p>

 

<p>Regarding the 500mm mirror lens. I have the Tamron SP, which is highly regarded for its optical performance, and have a lot of fun with it when I work around its limitations. Its out of focus donuts (and bokeh in general) are less objectionable than with many others because the donut "hole" is smaller due to the design. Its matched 2X converter retains high optical quality with an awesome reach of 1000mm @ f/16. A matched 1.4X is also available, making it a 700/f11. I haven't tried that one.<br>

I got it mainly to isolate distant objects like mountain peaks and such without closer objects in the picture, making the plane of focus quite flat and eliminating problems with bokeh. The biggest factor limiting optical quality at long distances is with atmospherics; otherwise it's sharp with good contrast. The biggest factor limiting optical quality all the time is image shake, obviously, though its light weight and small size make it hand- holdable with high shutter speeds.<br>

I've also found its close focusing ability to be very useful. It goes down to 1.7 meters (about 67 inches) from the image plane, giving 1:3 magnification. With the 2X that's 1:1.5 magnification! The shallow depth of field can throw foreground and background so far out of focus that the bokeh can look quite smooth. At longer distances a smooth background like open sky or indistinct clouds or a foreground like grasses can look nice and not distracting. If there are specular highlights, an even distribution will usually look much better than a few donuts here and there. Using fill flash while following a moving subject at close focusing distances yields very nice results, as the camera movement blurs the background even with strong highlights.<br>

For the $130 or so I spent for it with matching converter, it's been a lot of fun. It's small and light enough to carry most of the time.<br>

That said, a good 300mm with a high quality converter is in many ways more practical, as a 300 will generally be more all-around useful. A 300/f4 with 2X gives a 600/8; with 1.4X gives a 420/5.6; for that matter, a small and inexpensive 200/f4 with 2X converter gives a 400/f8. But to get out to 1000mm, I think the mirror with converter is the way to go, looking at cost/size/weight.<br>

To get good optical quality, use the best teleconverter you can get, especially if it's a 2X. In the case of Tamron SP the converters are designed only for the longer SP lenses. They attach to them directly where the Adaptall mount normally attaches, then the Adaptall attaches to them. They therefore can be optimized for a small number of lenses.</p>

<p>Jeff, I've been wanting a matched Tamron 2x converter to use with my 500 f8 reflex. Is there a model number on it? I really dont know what I'm looking for and want to be sure I get the right one.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used to have an FD 500/8 Reflex lens. It was almost scary-sharp, but I learned to absolutely hate the donuts. Got rid of it and bought a 300mm Tokina. </p>

<p>I'll admit, there are times when I long for the light weight of the reflex lens. But that's all.</p>

<p>The 400/4.5 with a 1.4x is still very good. Forget the 2x with this lens. The 300/2.8 with 2x is only marginally better than the 400 with 1.4x. I cannot comment on the 300/4 or 300/4 L, other than to suggest holding out for the L version.</p>

<p>I strongly suggest the 400 4.5. I have a number of images taken with it in my portfolio. When used properly, it is a stunning lens. Great contrast, sharpness, and not too heavy.I paid about 300$ for it from KEH.</p>

<p>Bill, a lot of long focal length lenses have similar light falloff/vignetting.</p>

<p>I'll second (3rd, 4th?) one for the 400 4.5. Its one of my favorite lenses. Plenty sharp and fast enough for most situations.</p>

<p>Sorry, Ed, I missed your question about the 2X converter. Its model number is 01F. They're fairly inexpensive and easy to find.</p>

This thread inspired me to do some testing with my Canon FDn 500mm/8.

 

Test of Canon FDn 500mm/8