Mirror lens for bird photography?

At the Sony forum (500mm telephoto lens)some guys suggest a newbee in bird

photography to buy a miror lens for bird photography instead of zoom lenses in

the range from 50 - 500 mm. What do you think about that?

I would have thought that a good maximum aperture was a big advantage, and a mirror lens would normally be f/8 or f/11 fixed - but for focal range compared to price, and not to mention light weight - it certainly is a lot of bang for the buck.<p>

If your subjects often are still when you push the shutter release and you're on a tripod, or you shoot at high ISO on a sunny day, I am sure that a mirror lens can be wonderful.

No. Mirror lenses pretty much suck - do some Googling. The Simga 50-500 is highly rated optically.

My Questar 700's a good lens, but is too short for most birds in most situations.

Short answer: Don't bother.

 

Long answer: No autofocus.

 

Slow lens, will require longer shutter speeds in anything but perfect sunlight than what is needed for sharp photographs.

 

Also, many mirror lenses are of poor image quality, although there are a few gems from major manufacturers.

Franz, if you can get one inexpensively, go for it and enjoy yourself. No such thing as a bad photo, especially when you have the ambition to make a better photo afterward.

Minolta/Sony mirror are auto focus.

I used to use them in the 1970-80s...they did an ok job at the time once I managed to learn the ins & outs of the donut bokeh. However, there are a lot of better lenses out there today. If seriously photographing birds, I'd recommend sticking with a tried & true prime lens with wide aperture, tripod, ballhead and gimbal mount. Lots of $, but assuming you have basic photographic skills, it will serve you well. 400 mm and up, preferable around 600mm in length. I'm sure lots of others will weigh in with a variety of specific lenses for consideration.

My short answer is NO.

 

What is your approx budget and what camera body will it be attached to so I can give you a recommendation?

 

Joe Smith

Tommy raises an important point that I missed. The Sony/Minolta 500mm Mirror lens DOES have autofocus on Sony/Minolta cameras. Any in-body shake reduction might also offset some of the issues surrounding the slow fixed aperture.

 

Unless you can get a used one for substantially less than the $600 or so that they seem to run for new, I'd say save up an extra $300 and buy the 50-500mm mentioned above.

If you are on a budget and are willing to work a bit for your bird photos, a mirror lens can be a good purchase.

 

A 50-500mm. zoom (and all similar "superzooms") will display their most severe optical weaknesses precisely at the settings you are most likely to use it, i.e., at 500mm. wide open.

 

A good 500mm. mirror lens (e.g., Tamron) will display annoying doughnut-like bokeh, is slow, and is not easy to focus, but the sharpness and color rendition are quite good, provided you can eliminate vibration in your photographic technique.

 

Mirror lenses are actually nice to use on digital SLR's because you can ramp up the ISO to higher levels than with film, and consequently you can (in decent light) use fast enough shutter speeds to get optimally sharp bird photos.

 

Another weakness of mirror lenses is light falloff in the corners; because of the smaller sensor size of (most) DSLR's, this problem is largely eliminated. Finally, the lower contrast typical of mirror lenses can be compensated for in post-processing.

 

Is a mirror lens ideal for bird photography? Heck, no. As Stephen says above, you'd be better off with a first-rate telephoto, 500-600mm., one that uses low-dispersion glass and has a much faster maximum aperture. But we're talking budget purchases here, I assume. If you only have a couple of hundred dollars to spend, a mirror lens is certainly worth considering.

 

The best alternative for bird photographers on a budget is to look for a good quality 400mm. f5.6 tele like the discontinued Tokina SD ATX lens. But even that lens at f5.6 is not particularly good.

 

You might also consider buying a good quality 300mm. tele of about f4 and adding a top-quality 1.4x telextender. Lots of people get their entry into bird photography that way.

If you are a Nikon shooter, look for the Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens, manual focus, but chipped so it is electronic. You can buy it used for about $2100-2200. Most users shoot it wide open all the time with excllent results. Add a Nikon 14B tc to increase the focal length by 1.4x and you have a good starter kit for bird photography. Just add a good tripod and ballhead or gimbal head. Optics are great.

 

If that is too expensive, consider the (older model) Nikon 300mm AF f 4.0 and add to it the Nikon 14B tc and you have effectively a 420mm f 5.6 tele lens that is now manual focus with the tc. This is really too short for birds.

 

Joe Smith

Franz,

 

I have seen others use them ok. I have one but only rarely use with it. A couple things to be mindful of:

 

You get very unnatural circular highlights, especially on water.

 

Normally these lenses have pretty poor contrast.

 

While light and short lens shake is a serious issue with them.

 

As others have noted, they are slow at f8 or f11.

I have a 500 mm mirror Nikkor f8 which I use for bird photography. I paid $160 for it. It works ok with all of the above mentioned faults. It has had the mount changed so it works on my Leica. I would assume by that it could be changed for other camera bodies as well. The newer version is shorter and focuses to 6 feet, but costs more.

I have expressed this opinion in this forum many times. "Avoid" mirror lenses is the simple answer. Please search the archives if you would like more details.

I'm not so down on mirror lenses as some posters here, but they aren't that good for wildlife photography. The depth of field is incredibly shallow and the problem of getting good manual focus is increased by the nature of the dslr viewfinder (dimness, small size, lack of focus aids).

 

I have found them useful for sitting ducks and butterfly pics. Stuff that's moving around, not so hot.<div></div>

It's not me. Look here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NrQw

I have friends who have the Sigma 50-500mm lens. To get best results, add a tc only when you have zoomed out to 500mm. Use the lens by itself w/o the tc between 50-500mm. Joe Smith

Shun and I have been arguing this point for several years now :). The fact is that anyone who can afford to do better than a mirror lens should definitely spend the money and do so. But if we're talking an investment of a couple of hundred bucks, a mirror lens can be an excellent value. Bottom line: I own two mirror lenses (Tamron 500mm, Sigma 600mm.) and at this point I rarely use them, since I also own better non-mirror glass. But I have obtained some good photos with these lenses, and if one accepts their limitations they definitely have some (sometimes surprisingly) excellent capability *for the price*.<div></div>

Sorry, I meant "Mourning dove" (it's early in the day). Where's the self-correct function???? :)

Here's another image, one that shows you can (even) take flight shots with a mirror lens. Yes, this is very small format and one could get a much better shot with a 500mm. f4, etc.<div></div>

You can buy an inexpensive used zoom (example = Sigma 170-500mm) that will give you much better results than a mirror, or a used Nikon 300mm f/4 AF + TC. That's the way I would go for bird photos on a budget. -g-

when i use slide film, i had a 500 mirror lens,and i had some great result from it.i just loved the doughnut burst of light on rippling water,today i have just printed of a A size print from a tamron 200-500mm lens,on a Nikon D body set at Asa 800 shutter speed of 1/800 at f16,an a fl.750mm and it STUNNING.<div></div>

Both the Sigma 170-500mm.and Tamron 200-500mm. zooms are far and away more expensive than a Tamron or Sigma mirror lens. Tamron 500mm. mirror lenses routinely sell for well under $200 on ebay. The 200-500mm. zoom sells for at least twice that much, usually much more.

 

So how much one is willing to spend is indeed a factor here, otherwise we're talking apples vs. oranges.

The stupid discussion in the Sony forum began with a thought about "cheap" 500mm = Sony AF 500mm mirror lens instead of the "expensive" lenses (1) Tamron 200-500mm, (2) Sigma 170-500mm, and (3) Sigma 50-500mm. I do not think that one of these lenses is more expensive than the Sony mirror lense. The price of the Sony in Europe is 725,-- ? = 1069,-- $. Why so much money pay for a limmitated mirror lens when you can get for the same or less money one of those unlimmitated zooms?