Mirror lenses

I have found one interesting piece of glass, Russian MTO 550 f8.5. Im very curious about that lens, because I have been searching decent mirror lens for a while. By the reviews, this one is very good in the terms of sharpnes and colors reproduction. Anyway, I have a question about lens mount. Are all those MTO 500/550 have M42/M39 mount? Or there's some models with F mount? T mount maybe? I have Nikon camera, so Im afraid if all of these were made with M42 mount, and if I use it with M42 adapter, I will lose infinity focus? Am I right? Is it possible to get normal focus with these lenses at Nikon cameras? Thank You in advance.

M42 won't give infinity focus on a Nikon body without the adapter with a glass element, which has a tendancy to degrade the image. Much better to get something in a Nikon mount or a Tamron Adaptall with the Nikon mount. I've ownd mirror lenses from Leica, Nikon, Canon and Tamron at various times....personally found them all wanting for one reason or another. The best one IMHO is the Tamron, which is readily found on the big auction site. It came in two versions...I would strongly encourage getting the one with the tripod mount, as you'll really need a tripod to get a sharp image.

T-mount mirror lenses, such as Vivitar, are available for reasonable prices. I think my 500/8 was about $50. I have even tried it with a 2x extender on a DX body.

 

Also, Chinese made T-mount adapters are reasonably priced, maybe about $5 each including shipping (from China).

 

It is usual on long lenses for the focus ring to go a little past infinity, but probably not enough.

The early Russian MTO mirror optics quickly became popular for their combination of compactness and performance, The later Japanese made mirror lenses (like Tokina, Tamron, as well as those of camera makers) made improvements, most significant of them being improved flatness of field and reduced light fall-off. There were, unfortunately, some that were only mediocre in performance. Wise to buy only if you have return privileges. I have the Tamron 500mm f8 Adaptall II and the Sigma 600mm f8, both good performers,

If the lens has the "A" designation, the mount is interchangeable. I have several Soviet-made lenses with interchangeable mounts (Jupiter-37AM, Mir-1 2.8/37A, Telemar-22A) which came in M39 (for Zenit SLRs), M42, and Nikon/Kiev. The Nikon/Kiev version provides infinity focus with no correction needed, and is called a KP-A/N adapter (not quite the same as a T-mount). There are usually a few sellers on eBay who have them. Edited February 13, 2017 by m42dave

Thank you guys for your replies. Im not sure if it has A designation, I will check it with seller. Anyway, Im aware of cons and pros of mirror lenses. I decided to take one, because its not a problem for me to tweak pictures in LR and PS, to gain a proper colors, and contrast. But in the terms of sharpness, I can see that there's a lot of lenses that are very soft? Samyang 500mm f8 is very affordable, but I saw that they are suffering from lack of sharpness. Those Russian ones, MTO, supposed to be very sharp, but that mount is a little mistery for me for now. I can also buy very cheap (around 65 dollars) Tokina 500mm F8. Can anyone tell me more about that lens? Can it produce decent images in the terms of sharpness? Handhold on daylight (i guess it needs at least 1/500)? I have a tripod, but Im not carrying all the time with me. I saw some reviews of that Tamron SP 500mm f8, it seems to be very good and sharp. I will also consider it. It's priced for about ~150-200 dollars. So, Tokina is ~3 times cheaper, but is it also 3 times worse than Tamron?

As I mentioned above, in my experience the Tamron works quite well (never tried the Perkin Elmer, which is supposed to be the rare cream of the crop in mirror lenses). Handheld with these lenses just doesn't work for me...just one's pulse causes enough shake to introduce movement blur. I've attached a comparison shot between the Tamron and Nikon mirror lenses I took to help me decide which to keep.

Some of us are a little obsessive about catadioptric lenses.<BR><BR>

 

For example, just some of my posts: <BR>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00RaKy - various Spiratone et al. <BR>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00d4Vf -Yashinon-DX 500mm f/8 Reflex <BR>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00XSrL -Sigma 600mm f/8 Reflex <BR>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Pzdv - Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 <BR>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00c1nS - Quantaray 500mm f/8 <BR>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00bVwA -Maksutov MTO <BR>

Edited February 15, 2017 by James G. Dainis

I've been looking at a Celestron C90. Anyone want to chime in with advise?

There was a Leitz/Leica 500mm f8 mirror lens too, which was a rebadged (+ perhaps better quality control) Minolta lens, which was in their R catalog for many years until they developed their modern long lens system 20 years ago.

I looked at those Russian mirror lenses long ago and they looked pretty decent. Way back in about 1970, one could get a grand bargain in a Russian mirror 300, nice and sharp. There was an influx of them in New York and the dealers had them for some silly cheap price, complete in a wooden box. If you're shooting an older Nikon F you should be aware that most mirror lenses will not clear a Photomic finder, and those early ones didn't. Nikon's own will, but most others will not. About the only other one I found that fit was a Rokunar, which unfortunately was seriously soft and a great disappointment.

 

Anyway, if you do have an older Nikon with a Photomic finder, make sure the lens will fit, unless you want to shoot without the finder.

I've had a Celestron 90 since 1980. Mine is the Astro version with eyepieces and motorized base but optically the same as the C-90 telephoto. Be sure to get the Celestron T adapter rather than the 1 1/4 " adapter otherwise you won't get the full frame on your camera. This scope is 1000mm f 11. I'm happy with its performance but you need steady air to make the most of its performance.

Celestron 1250mm -https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/celestron-1250mm-f-10-schmidt-cassegrain-reflex-lens.505825/#post-5352935

 

 

Ignore junk that is actually the code for a graphic pasted in. Used to work, now it doesn't anymore.

Interesting report, Mike. I bought a C-90 in 1978. It was the worst lens I've ever owned. Textbook case of severe astigmatism. Celestron replaced it under warranty with another that was just as bad.

 

As I understand it, they went through a spell of no quality control at all.

 

Interestingly, the 1250/10 Celestron that MP reported on in the 2/77 issue and the 750/6 Honeywell Lumetar (rebadged Celestron) reported on 7/75 tested nearly as well as the Questar 700.

Has anyone used the Zeiss Mirotar 500 f/8 for Contax/Yashica? No good for a Nikon body (and not compatible with Leitax conversions), but would be interesting to try on a C/Y body or an EOS with adapter.

I've had extensive experience with only two mirror lenses: the Sigma 600mm f/8 and the Tamron 55BB SP 500mm f/8. The Sigma I bought way back in 1984 in Canon FD mount and it proved to be a very impressive optic. More recently, like a couple years ago, I bought one in Canon EOS mount -- much later manufacture -- and this lens proved to be rather dismal in terms of resolution. So there's some variability with Sigmas. Not all recent ones are bad like mine, and most of the early ones are good like the one I used to own.

 

 

As for Tamrons, their QC seems consistent. Mine is what you'd expect an SP Tamron lens to be -- that is, excellent.

 

 

A couple of examples. This first shot was taken with a Canon A-1 and Kodachrome 64. The reflections were so strong, the image ended up being monochromatic. But I've always liked the effect. I can show enlargements of this photo that reveal an impressive amount of detail.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/offshore_rig_1a.jpg

 

The Tamron is an impressive optic. It will focus quite close, and can deliver excellent close-up images. You can count the veins in the oak leaf. Canon EOS XS (1000D) @ ISO 100.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/tamron500_oakleaf.jpg

 

And it works just as well at infinity. I like this shot because it isn't gray scale. You can see the delicate colorations of the moon's surface as a result. Sony NEX 7 @ ISO 100.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/moon_tamron500_nex7_f8_1a.jpg