500mm mirror or,,

<p>Wanting a 500mm lens for my Canon digital, what do you guys like for a 500MM, mirror type lens or standard telephoto ?</p>

<p>Oh, my. This can be a slippery slope (<a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00RaKy">link</a>).<br /> The catadioptric (aka, mirror) lenses are an inexpensive alternative but,<br /> 1. many people can't tolerate the annular bokeh<br /> 2. so far as I know all the ones adaptable to EOS cameras are manual focus<br /> 3. many of the inexpensive mirror lenses now being sold new are so 'soft' in IQ and contrast as to be essentially useless.</p>

<p>If you get one, there are many older, quality mirror lenses that can be adapted to EOS. The ones that I have personally found to be the best are, at the top, the Sigma 600mm f/8, then the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8. Both of mine are Nikon mounts, but adapt with inexpensive adaptors.<br>

<br /> The later Spiratone Minitel 500mm f/8 lenses are also quite good, if not up to the Sigma or the Nikkor. The older Spiratone lenses (the long ones) are also OK, but not so good as the others. You can usually get the Sigma or Nikkor for little more than the Spiratone, however. These are T-mount, and EOS T-mounts are widely available.<br>

<br /> Another possibility is one of the 400mm f/6.3 refractor lenses from Spiratone. These actually work better than their dirt-cheap prices would ever make you suspect.<br>

<br /> Monopod use, at least, is highly recommended for such focal lengths.</p>

<p>There are many more catadioptric lenses out there, but I've already tried more of them than is my personal share in this pony race :(</p>

<p>Greg: You can pick up a 500/6.3 or 500/8 "cat" for a lot less $$ than a non-cat lens. As JDM points out though there are drawbacks. Among non-cat options your choices are autofocus starting at around $5000 or manual focus at <200.00. But. The affordable manual focus lenses are f/8 T-mount lenses. Not only are you working in full manual; focus and exposure but a camera viewfinder with an f/8 lens attached is a dim and dark place full of mystery from which much is hidden.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>What is the budget? A 400mm cropped would probably look better than a 500mm mirror uncropped. Tele-converters are another option if you have a 200 or 300mm already.</p>

<p>What about the Bigma -- Sigma's 50-500? Slow? Yes, but not as slow as the cat lenses. Heavy? Yes, but that is unavoidable with 500mm. IQ? Pretty good, according to the reviews. Surely, this lens' IQ is better than the cat lenses. Also, you get autofocus. BTW, Sigma now makes one with stabilization, but I have heard that the IQ is poorer than for the non-stabilized version.</p>

<p>I do not own the Bigma. I have rented it twice for specific needs and have been pleased with its results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 400mm cropped would probably look better than a 500mm mirror uncropped</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really unless you are comparing it to the currently-sold, soft ones. It is 'street knowledge' that all mirror lenses are awful, low contrast, etc. I suspect many of those people have either never used a quality mirror lens or have never learned how to focus manually.<br>

I am not kidding about the latter point. These days many people really don't know how to focus without all the "aids" and/or beeping lights. A person with reasonably good vision does not need those aids even on a small viewfinder like some of the older APS-C cameras.</p>

<p>Google™ "how to focus manually" and you will find lots of tutorials (just "how to focus" yields mostly self-improvement pages....)</p>

 

<p>In addition, yes, telephoto. Back before digital (way back) in my Konica day's, I owned the Tamron 500mm f/8 Cat lens. For a starter lens in the telephoto range the Tamron Cat was a good lens within it's limitations. One of the biggest problems for me was the donut gosting you would get in the background with each picture. After awhile you learned what type of picture you could take where the circular ring didn't present a big problem. I sold the lens because I didn't want to be limited to only certain kinds of backgrounds, etc. You will want to skip the catdioptric lens.</p>

<p>There seem to be some good mirrors around.</p>

<p>My Opteka 500/8 is pretty bad though... (At $90 who can complain... I bought it as a toy, and it is.)</p>

<p>A blow up crop from my 70-200/4L IS is just about the same quality. Plus it is F4 and has IS...</p>

<p>Regards, Matthijs.</p>

<p>Unless you are willing to carry a heavier lens and a tripod, a mirror lens will be very convenient. The modern Samyang 500/8 that is sold under a variety of brands is poor, but its bigger sister, the 500/6.3 is a much better lens. I like mirror lenses - I collected a bunch of useful information on them <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2010/05/mirror-lenses_5149.html">here</a> - that post includes sample shots as well. And here is one of my latest shots, from the Rubinar 1000/10, used on a monopod:<br /> <img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5302/5678271213_d105bf1b36_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /></p>

Big mirror lenses are cheap and light. Big teles are expensive and heavy. In terms of image quality mirrors are slow

and fixed aperture and can have unpleasant Bokah with doughnut shaped out of focus points. The quality does vary

so try one. I do not have an EF mirror lens but I have two FD ones - the Tokina is soft and quite poor but very well

made while the Canon is less well made but has higher IQ

I believe JDM in his statement that there are good mirrors around. (for example I saw some pretty good results from a

Sigma. 600mm IIRC.)

 

I also agree that MF is an art.

 

I'm pretty good at it, recently shot a 100-400 plus x1.4 manually focussed and had pixel sharp results.

 

But I've never had anything better than mediocre results with my Opteka. Which probably shows that even with mirrors

you get what you pay for.

 

You could of course go with Sony. They sell a 500/8 mirror, it auto focusses plus they have IS in their bodies. Neat...

 

M.

<p>I have both a Leitz and a Contax 500mm mirror. This sample is from the Contax</p><div></div>

<p>Here's one with the Leitz, which seems to focus a little closer with 7D.</p><div></div>

<p><em>Philip Wilson said:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p> the Tokina is soft and quite poor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't call the Tokina poor. Like any mirror lens, it has lower microcontrast, but it has pretty good resolution - check the sample I posted a while ago here: <a href="../alternative-cameras-forum/00UmcW?start=16">http://www.photo.net/alternative-cameras-forum/00UmcW?start=16</a>.</p>

<p>Here's an example:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5304/5695493198_398c810e4a_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="482" /></p>

<p>I would observe, that there may be individual variation in some of the newer, cheapo mirror lenses, as well. For the price, they clearly aren't spending a lot of time on micro-adjustment and quality control, so maybe once in a while a good one slips out. :)<br /> My Quantaray 500mm f/8 is not absolutely unusable, if one likes a more pictorial sort of effect, and it does focus closer than any of my others, for very nearly macro effect. It is, however, the worst of the lot.</p>

<p>Here's a tiger swallowtail - not a crop - with the Quantaray. No sharpening here, and a pleasing effect in a pictorialist sort of way.</p><div></div>

<p>Another Leitz 500mm MR shot. Canon 40D, ISO 640, 1/3200s.</p><div></div>

<p>And from a Contax 500mm Mirror Zeiss-T on Canon 5D2. ISO 400, 1/100s. About as close as I could get.</p><div></div>

<p>To finish with a comparable subject using a 7D and Sigma 150-500mm Lens at 500mm. ISO 3200, 1/500s @ f9.5</p><div></div>

<p>@JDM: From checking other people's samples from the Samyang 500/8, I believe it is simply a bad design. I had one too and I returned it, then I got a used Tokina - night and day difference.<br /> I like Samyang a lot, and they are putting out a great line of manual lenses, but I am not sure what they did with the 500/8 mirror model. On the other hand, I have not seen any poor samples from a 500/6.3 and the full size samples I saw from one lens (Joe Ogiba posted 3 shots) looked great even at 100%. So the 6.3 looks like a safe option - I never tried it because I'm happy with the Tokina and I don't think the aperture difference matters that much - I just looked for longer focal lengths to complement the Tokina.</p>

<p>Let me add another Tokina sample:<br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4825775344_b0a70bf4ae_z.jpg" alt="" width="425" height="640" /></p>

<p>Some very nice examples here, including, surprisingly, a bird in flight.<br>

I see some worrisome bokeh, but the average viewer, non-photographer, probably wouldn't care. The GBH is particularly nice.</p>

<p>Given the cost difference between these lenses and something like the Canon 500mm f/4L IS, I can see where someone would be willing to put up with a lower keeper-rate and less than ideal bokeh to keep a few thousand dollars in their pockets.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can see where someone would be willing to put up with a lower keeper-rate and less than ideal bokeh to keep a few thousand dollars in their pockets.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to mention the cost savings in orthopedist fees :) 500/4 lenses are for dedicated people. I feel I accomplish a lot when I lug the 80-200/2.8 around for a couple of hours - and that's 1kg less than half of the weight of a 500/4. I would never see myself carrying a 500/4 and a tripod, unless I'd be making money in the process - at that point photography becomes heavy work. :)</p>

<p>The pelican in flight is impressive indeed.</p>

<p>The Bigma that was mentioned earlier appears to be an excellent option too. It's surprisingly sharp for its wide range, much more affordable than a 500/4, and about half the weight too. Plus, it provides the convenience of being able to zoom out to 50mm.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that you may well be right that the Korean-made newer ones have a design flaw. The price is reasonable for a 'toy', but the IQ won't work for serious work. It's the only acknowledged or putative Samyang lens that I do have, so I'll have to take your word for the rest.</p>

<p>The good ones like the Spiratone Minitel, and most especially the Sigma and the Nikkor are usually not expensive. I bought both of the latter locally for less than US$200 apiece. I don't remember what I paid for the two Spiratones, but certainly not much more than a $100 for each of them. I paid $27 for a Kalimar 500mm f/8 refractor (NOT a mirror lens) and even less for 3 or 4 of the Spiratone 400mm f/6.3 T-mount lenses. The latter are surprisingly good and the Kalimar 500mm is no bow-wow.<br>

Here is a more usual bird-in-flight picture taken on a manual focus mirror lens - the Sigma 600mm f/8. The bird caught my eye, but the focus (me) was not fast and accurate enough.</p>

<p>I've got something like a half dozen mirror lenses over 500mm in focal length. I would have to be rich beyond the dreams of Croesus to have these if they were modern AF lenses of this length from Canon or Nikon.</p><div></div>

<p>I was walking over a bridge when I saw the pelican start to lift off from the water. I prefocused the lens and shot when the bird came into view. It was a pure guesstimate. Same with shot below. I probably shot 20 pictures of the bumblebee, letting it fly in or out of frame, to get 2 that were relatively sharp. With the Leitz 500mm, 40D, ISO 1250, 1/640s. I used a monopod, too</p><div></div>

<p>Larentiu it may be that I have a poor example of the Tokina although the condition is great (almost mint with an unmarked case, all the filters and the original packaging). Mine is an FD mount RMC 500 F8. It is not bad but definitely not as sharp as the Canon FD mirror. It is possible that it has a slight alignment issue as it can be quite soft. I rarely use it on FD bodies so i have mainly shot it with a Digital M4/3 body which makes it an effective 1000mm lens.</p>

<p>@JDM: The refractor 500 lenses seem to be surprisingly good - especially for astrophotography. I was tempted to pick one for moon shots. For other use, I'm not sure how well they handle CA, and they're pretty large also. Maybe I'll try one some time. Do you have sample shots from your Spiratones?</p>

<p>@Philip: I heard that mirror lenses can easily get out of alignment, so that may account for bad impressions about older models. I had a Sigma 400/5.6 that had a few dirt issues, but nothing that looked like it could affect IQ significantly - it ended up being as bad as the Samyang 500/8.</p>