Leitz 500 mm MIRROR lens - any good ?

I have been offered a Leitz 500mm R mirror lens. It seems to be in excellent condition and kept in a padded sleeve. No obvious knocks. Has anyone experience of this lens ? durability ? quality of image ?

<p>

I should be most grateful for any comments.

The 500/8 MR-Telyt is the Minolta 500/8 mirror lens in a Leica R

mount. As mirror lenses go it is a decent one, quite compact, though

it doesn't focus as close as eg the Nikkor. The biggest drawback is

its price, which usually hovers in the $700-800 range. The optically-

identical Minolta version can be bought for about $150, and for

another $150 you could get a decent Minolta body for it. I happen to

own the E67-version non-APO 180/2.8, which can accept the 1.4xAPO

teleconverter. This stacked along with the 2xAPO teleconverter also

produces an effective 500/8 lens, except it has a 1.8m (vs 5m) close-

focus and a working diaphragm for choice of aperture, and the

contrast is still superior to the MR-Telyt. Of course this is also a

much more costly setup, but in consideration, provides 180, 250, 360

and 500mm, plus the teleconverters have applicability with other

lenses as well.

I like your maths Jay, I would chosse the 180/2.8 way.

Just had a Tamron 500/8 offered by a friend in Nikon mount, I also

thougth of a similar 180 way, but I didn´t include the 1.4x wich

seems great.

BTW, the first version of the 180/2.8, not just the second (E67)

version will also except the 1.4xAPO. This fact is not stated in any

of the R books, but I have done so and it fits and works. The first

version of the 180/2.8 is a fine lens (albeit much heavier than the

second), has a tripod socket, and usually costs about 1/3 of the

second version.

I have not used the lens, all I will say is that two Minolta designed

optics remain in the R lens line, the 16mm and the 24mm, and these are

reputed to be excellent lenses. The Leica versions of the Minolta

lenses are better finished and have Leica-quality mounts. Also the

Minolta lenses have to be put through the Leica quality control, so

will be guaranteed to be of "Leica quality". Although, of course you

could luck out and get a great Minolta one too.

<p>

The mirror lenses were a bit of a stop gap which filled the void left

by the end of the "long" Telyt production and the start of the current

APO modular system. I suspect that if you can live with the

limitations of a mirror lens then the Leica version is probably as

good as you can get - even if if it is designed by Minolta.

Roberto<BR><BR>

With the beautiful 35ers and 50ies you just posted I'm really curious

to see any *500er* of yours! I haven't "seen" such a shot in my *life*

... 200 was about the longest I ever cared to frame and picture - and

that was a while ago. Maybe I'm getting narrow-sighted (hopefully not

narrow-minded) by age...? But it sure helps me in balancing both -

budget and shoulders. ;o)

Lutz, I have never use such a lens, I am in my world with a wide

angle and a M, but you know I like dreaming of some editor hires me

and ask for a long lens and all that stuff they require to ensure

you´re a "good" photographer, I think more seriously every time to

sell all my hasselblad stuff (not much) and buy a 35 and 28 asph, or

a 50/1.4, but not until Leica update it, still I´m dreaming my frined.

Thanks to you guys who have responded to my question but not one of

you has ever used a Leica 500 mirror lens. Where are they ? (the

users of this lens) All the points made are helpful in explaining

what the lens is or is not but I need some authentic experiences. An

associate who is well versed in cameras and lenses says that Leica

had to rebuild almost everything made by Minolta because it was so

poorly assembled and quality control was just not good enough. This

tells me that the Leica 500 is likely to be a very different fish

from the Minolta in handling and results.

<p>

I hope someone can give me some hard experience.

<p>

Thanks you guys.

Everything that Minolta made for Leica had to be rebuilt?!! Thats

total and utter nonsense. Minolta made Leica R electronics up till

the R8 and which R has the worst electronic reliability, the R8! The

whole Minolta quality control thing is a myth spread by Leica

purists. Read through experiences in these threads and you hear just

as many horror stories about poor Leica quality control and they

charge you 10 times the price!

Joel. My friend worked for a Minolta dealer - in fact he jointly

owned it. It may have been a sweeping generalisation but he became

disillusioned with the camera business a few years ago, sold it, and

has returned to his engineering company. No doubt his statement is

relative and that it reflects his loss of faith in the industry but I

would certainly respect his views on camera products.

Sorry Joel - I used the wrong name. I used my friend's name by

mistake.

Tony

<p>

First off, I have never used a 500 mirror Leica lens, but I've used

both a Canon and Nikon 500 mirror lens on assignments. I like them

for their size, weight and price for a long lens to have in the bag.

The photos I got back were good and sharp and the color was good with

these lens. It's nice not to have to use a bunch of extenders to get a

long lens. Plus the fact that I'm sure that if, it's a Leica or Leica

got their name on it, it's going to be good. Sometimes lens quality

(but it sure helps) isn't everything, sometimes it's the ability to get

the shot that counts. I've never had any editors ask what I use to get

that shot, they're just glad that I got it. I think a 500 mirror lens

is a wonderful lens to own and use. It's small and compact and by the

way I like the donuts you get in the background when using a 500

mirror. Maybe you could borrow the 500 mirror to try it out, see if you

like it. Use it with a monopod, a good tripod and use it hand held. I

hope this helps. I would be interested in hearing what you decide to do

or didn't do.

<p>

John