Older Nikon 500mm f/8 mirror lenses vs modern Opteka version

Hello all,

 

I was wondering if anyone ever compared the older Nikon 500mm f/8 mirror lenses to more modern versions put out by companies such as Opteka (which, I believe, is sold under several other different names). These lenses were never considered high quality optics to begin with so I'm not sure if I'm paying more because the name "Nikon" or because it's actually better. I don't want to pay more just because collectors worship the Nikon name, but I will pay more if it actually is better. Thanks very much.

Somewhat depends which version of 500mm f/8 Reflex-Nikkor you're comparing.

 

The older larger pre-1983 version was excellent for its time, but today is probably no better or perhaps worse than modern knockoffs.

 

The final updated compact post-1983 version has optics about as good as you can get in a reflex lens: it would probably match or beat any modern competitor. This version is easily identified by an orange ring around the barrel, similar to the ring Nikon uses to indicate premium, ED, and Nano lenses. The true T-stop of this version more closely matches the specified f/8 (the older version is really closer to f/10 and has some vignetting).

 

Bear in mind sharpness and quality comparisons among reflex lenses often end up being academic: in practical use it is extremely hard to get a tack-sharp image from them, handheld or tripod. The reduction in size/weight sorta works against them, and 500mm is a rough focal length to manage perfectly even in standard guise. For this reason, I bought a new-old-stock no-name super-compact 500/8 reflex some years ago for about $80, just for the occasional full moon or sunset I need for compositing purposes. I slap on a 2x converter, then spray and pray.

I recall reading that some/many of the cheap mirror lenses of today are WORSE than the better mirror lenses of the past.

Though we have better technology today, poor design and sloppy manufacturing does not make new lenses any better. So quality is still in the hands of the designers and manufacturer.

 

Unless you go for the last version of the Nikon mirror, you would be looking at about $150. Which is not a heck of a lot more than the cheap mirrors.

 

I would NOT try to handhold a 500mm lens, especially on a crop sensor camera. The magnification is too high.

In the old days before VR, a 300mm lens was where manufacturers started putting tripod mounts on the lens.

The Nikon mirror lens has a tripod mount, the Opteka does not. I can't see a tripod mount on any of the images of the Opteka.

With the Opteka, you have to support the entire setup from the camera's tripod mount, which is NOT at the balance point of the lens+camera. So you would have a somewhat front-heavy setup. Not having that lens, I can't say how bad the front-heaviness is.

 

As @orsetto said, you have to learn how to manually focus these lenses, which on an autofocus dSLR is not as easy as it was on the SLRs of the past, which were designed for manually focusing a lens.

 

BTW, the lens hood on the Nikon 500 is less than 1 inch long. Why so short :confused:

Lengthening the hood, would eliminate some of the off axis light getting into the lens, and improve the contrast.

BTW, the lens hood on the Nikon 500 is less than 1 inch long. Why so short

Why indeed?

The older Reflex-Nikkor definitely needs a longer hood, but a simple rolled up piece of black cartridge paper does the job.

 

I wouldn't touch a cheap Opteka mirror lens. Who's heard of Opteka?

 

As others have said, using a 500mm lens of any design isn't trivial if you want good image quality. Focussing needs extreme care, vibration needs to be totally eliminated by mirror lockup or a heavy tripod, or both(!), and atmospheric conditions need to be near-perfect. You're far better off getting closer to the subject than just randomly increasing lens length.

I recall reading that some/many of the cheap mirror lenses of today are WORSE than the better mirror lenses of the past.

Though we have better technology today, poor design and sloppy manufacturing does not make new lenses any better. So quality is still in the hands of the designers and manufacturer.

 

Good point. I assumed OP was considering a vintage Nikkor vs something like an "aspirational" current Samyang with pretensions to decent quality. Its been years since I've looked into third-party reflex teles: if nobody like Samyang is still making them with a thought toward decent performance, then the older pre-'83 Nikkor certainly becomes the preferable choice to a sloppy new discount model. The older Reflex-Nikkor is not without its optical flaws, however, and age of a specific example could present variable issues. The design dates back to 1968: if shopping for one now, I'd recommend looking for serial number higher than 53xxxx (circa 1974) to at least be sure its multicoated. The higher the serial number after that, the newer the lens will be. Production ended in 1983 with numbers above 58xxxx.

Even the worst of the Nikon 500mm lenses is likely to be better than the best recent Korean lens.

if shopping for one now, I'd recommend looking for serial number higher than 53xxxx (circa 1974) to at least be sure its multicoated.

No need to search for the serial number, a glance at the front element should be enough. If the glass has a bluish reflection, then it's single coated. If greenish, then it's multicoated.

 

It's also worth checking the rear to make sure the clear UV filter is fitted. The supplied filters (UV, ND, red and orange) are part of the optical design, and one of them should be fitted at all times -apparently. There's a compartment in the lid of the custom lens case to hold the spare filters.

 

My used 500mm Reflex-Nikkor was missing the UV filter, and it took me a while to get a replacement. However, despite Nikon's warning of dire consequences, the lack of filter appeared to make no visible difference to image quality. Although it may have shifted the focus slightly - something I never checked since the lens focusses beyond infinity.

Even the worst of the Nikon 500mm lenses is likely to be better than the best recent Korean lens.

Not necessarily.

Samyang actually make some very good lenses, (e.g. 135mm f/2 & 35mm f/1.4) and they seem to be improving all the time. But having said that; their cheap 'cat' is an old design that they've been selling for years. I very much doubt that it has acceptable image quality. Reviews aren't glowing, and they're also quite variable.

Not necessarily.

I did say "likely" .

However, it's also possible that you will win the lottery tomorrow, but I wouldn't depend on it.

 

I hasten to add that it is not the Korean origin that makes me careful -- rather it is the general inadequacy of their mirror lenses that has helped lower people's opinion of the whole breed.

I hasten to add that it is not the Korean origin that makes me careful -- rather it is the general inadequacy of their mirror lenses that has helped lower people's opinion of the whole breed.

I think the Russian MTO-500 did its fair share as well, and a lot earlier.

Why indeed?

 

I wouldn't touch a cheap Opteka mirror lens. Who's heard of Opteka?

 

.

The current Opteka Vivitar Samyang, Rokinon, Bower, Pro-Optic, Phoenix, Walimex, Peleng (and soe others) lenses are all made by Samyang in Korea, to my knowledge.

Differences are mostly in lettering and cases to differentiate between thos "brands"

Some of the products by these brands are also made in China.

For completeness... the Peleng 8mm I had appears to have been made in Belarus (and the associated manual was in Russian) - as is the case with my Arsat/Kiev and Hartblei tilt-shifts. I don't know whether they've sold the name since, although I can't imagine it's that useful for marketing.

 

I'm fairly confident of Samyang, Rokinon and Bower being the same; I believe you on the others. FWIW, I was quite pleased with my 85mm Samyang, and disposed of it mostly because I got tired of trying to manual focus an 85mm f/1.4 on a 36MP body. I did look at the 24mm Samyang tilt-shift recently, but was put off by the chromatic aberration.

The current Opteka Vivitar Samyang, Rokinon, Bower, Pro-Optic, Phoenix, Walimex, Peleng (and soe others) lenses are all made by Samyang in Korea, to my knowledge.

I'm fairly confident of Samyang, Rokinon and Bower being the same...

I'm not arguing with that.

It does make me wonder what advantage there is in re-badging a lens from a fairly high-profile maker, to an off-brand that inspires no confidence whatsoever?

Unless those re-badged off-brand products are actually QC rejects, bought cheaply at scrap prices and sold on.

 

Somewhere I have an AF 18mm f/3.5 lens in Nikon fit that was obviously made by Sigma (complete with sticky rubber coating -yuck!). It was re-branded 'Quantaray' - who??? Now I'd have been more inclined to buy it with Sigma's name on it than Quantaray's.

 

So where's the advantage in re-badging to a maker that nobody has ever heard of? Unless it's to distance the OEM from what's known to be an inferior product. :confused:

I did look at the 24mm Samyang tilt-shift recently, but was put off by the chromatic aberration.

A few years back, I did get to handle a sample at a trade fair that showed really good IQ. Completely at odds with most review example shots.

 

So I think with this lens it's a case of: 'Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?'

 

But following the rule of not gambling more than you're prepared to lose; I ain't rolled them particular dice yet.

I guess rebranding comes down to relationships for shipping the lenses - assuming some of the companies started out separate (or there's a reason for a branding difference), it may just be that different divisions with different names are logistically better able to function in different regions. Sigma had a bad reputation at one point; I don't claim Quantaray (who I have heard of) are better, but maybe they were trying to dodge bad PR. Sometimes there may already have been a favourable deal with a company that's bought out, and it's better to rebadge under the subsidiary. I haven't actually checked whether SamRowEr are the same company, whether they ship components that get rebadged, or whether there's a licensing deal on the designs. This kind of thing has happened for a while - I believe the Kiev/Arsat stuff I was mentioning included some reuse of equipment after factory moves, leftover components, or just a split of divisions both of whom were making the same product.

 

There are certainly a number of products made on a tight budget that then get sold with rebranding by other companies (especially when they're made in Asia and sold by companies with a Western presence). There's also some cross-pollination between related companies (e.g. Gitzo, Manfrotto, Benro) and IP cross-licensing deals. So long as the product itself is good enough and you're not paying a premium just for a name, and so long as there isn't an obvious IP infringement (like the Arca Cube clone), it's probably not harmful except when you're trying to search for an item online and have to check multiple names.

 

I saw mixed reviews of the 24mm Samyang, so figured I'd try one. Hand-held, trying one in a shop, I could see colour fringing and softness off centre in live view. Maybe there's sample variation - this was a used copy. The 19mm seems to be an exceptional piece of glass (and also lacks the handling problems of the other Nikkors and, especially, my Kiev 35mm, which shifts along its hinge and is therefore completely unable to change orientation); I just need the spare £3000, but for the amount I'd use it, I can wait a bit...

It does make me wonder what advantage there is in re-badging a lens from a fairly high-profile maker, to an off-brand that inspires no confidence whatsoever? Unless those re-badged off-brand products are actually QC rejects, bought cheaply at scrap prices and sold on.

 

Marketing purposes, mostly.

 

It's easy to forget now that there was minimal initial interest in the "Samyang" brand when they suddenly began offering upscale lens designs at bargain rates awhile back. They had to broaden penetration in non-Asian markets with multiple brands. Not that Rokinon or Bower had any more street cred than Samyang, but people had at least heard of them so might be inclined to look twice out of morbid curiosity (where they definitely would not at "Samyang who? Don't they make dishwashers?"). It also gave Samyang flexibility with the few remaining dealers who delude themselves into thinking its still 1988, and buyers are too stupid to know the three brands are the same (they hope to deflect price shopping of Samyang by selling one of the other versions instead).

 

I wouldn't put it past any company today to play the "factory seconds" game with in-house secondary brands, but so far this doesn't seem to be the case with this trio. Reviews and tests have been fairly consistent among the three versions of each lens as far as known flaws and sample variation. And if Samyang was in fact employing that scam to position their version as premium: well, they've failed miserably (their version gets slammed for sample variation at least as much as the Rokinon and Bower).

Quantaray

 

I've seen a handful of Quantaray brand lenses over the years-IIRC that may have been a house brand for K-Mart in the US back in the day. Of course, that's not exactly a mark of confidence either...

I acquired the newer 500mm Nikkor mirror lens long ago. Used it on a New Zealand trip with slide film and good results.

No complaints about sharpness when and if I can avoid camera shake and focus is perfect. Which is the problem of course.

A compact lens to carry for non-crucial tasks and if you like out- of -focus doughnuts.

Excellent files with a D750 even today.

today is probably no better or perhaps worse than modern knockoffs.

 

Not my experience.

 

The newer 500mm reflex lenses selling for something over $100 are monumentally unsharp.

 

I may have gone overboard, but I've shot a lot of the major ~500mm reflex lenses, and there are considerable differences. [500mm lenses - a cautionary tale of an obsession?]

unfortunately not all of mine, sob...:(

 

Often, lower contrast in these lenses is confused with lower resolution.

Edited September 22, 2019 by JDMvW

I have not gotten around to testing if a longer lens hood would increase the contrast, by eliminating off-axis light hitting the lens.

The lens "hood" on my Nikkor 500/8 is less than an inch long. I can't help thinking that a hood that short on a 500, is close to useless.

I rarely take a shot I'm really happy with using long lenses, but I don't do wildlife and such. Rarely=never with a mirror lens.

I had an older version C for a long time and to be honest I often lament getting rid of it. It was quite sharp and if you picked your backgrounds carefully, the "doughnuts" were not objectionable. The lower contrast compared to conventional lenses is easily fixed in post processing. It was certainly a lot easier to lug around than my superlative 14 lb 600mm f/4 ED-IF AIS "beast"

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by scott_murphy|5

Is a mirror lens still a viable sensible purchase at all these days? They're tricky to focus, dim viewfinders, horrible ring effect to out of focus points of light blah blah, as we all know, but the real killer for me that you never read about is their lightweight means you need a tripod head mounted in concrete to avoid camera shake. Just say no. Move on. You don't need one.

Is a mirror lens still a viable sensible purchase at all these days? They're tricky to focus, dim viewfinders, horrible ring effect to out of focus points of light blah blah, as we all know, but the real killer for me that you never read about is their lightweight means you need a tripod head mounted in concrete to avoid camera shake. Just say no. Move on. You don't need one.

 

It isn't that bad.

• If you have never used a manual focus lens, it might be tricky to focus. But so would any manual focus lens. The ONLY time I have trouble focusing is follow-focusing a fast moving subject, like a tennis player running towards me. Stationary or slow moving subjects are easy to focus on.
   
  
• Dim viewfinder if you shoot in low light. In full sunlight, the viewfinder is just fine.
  
• Ring OOF, yeah you either hate it or ignore it. I ignore it.
  

As for stability.

On an APS-C camera, that is a 14x lens, on a FF camera that is a 10x lens.

In the past, without IS/VR the accepted limit to hand holding on a 35mm camera was 300mm (6x), and 400mm (8x) required a tripod.

I could never hand hold my brothers 600mm stovepipe. I always had to use it on a tripod or solid support. 12x magnification was too much to hand hold.

Put it on a camera with IBIS and you should be fine.

 

Finally cost.

Give me a $1,500 Nikon 200-500 (with AF and VR) and I might give up my $150 Nikon 500mm mirror.

Is a mirror lens still a viable sensible purchase at all these days? They're tricky to focus, dim viewfinders, horrible ring effect to out of focus points of light blah blah, as we all know, but the real killer for me that you never read about is their lightweight means you need a tripod head mounted in concrete to avoid camera shake. Just say no. Move on. You don't need one.

 

It is most definitely still viable. They are not tricky to focus, though the screens on most DSLR's are not particularly optimized for manual focus. And the "horrible" ring effect (usually referred to donuts) is not bad if you chose your backgrounds carefully. And a rock steady tripod? Nonsense they work just fine on any gimbal head. Listening to your negatives it sounds like you have been listening to that idiot Ken Rockwell.

 

That picture I took above was taken with a 500mm f/8 C Nikkor HAND HELD on a Nikon D700. Oops, there goes all of Rockhead's baseless arguments.

Have had one for many years (decades?) - not perfect, but small, featherweight, with good light, and a bit of skill gets the job done.