500mm mirror or,,

[laur1]

<p>Just found this impressive shot on flickr, taken with the Sony mirror. That lens is sharp!<br /> <a href=" /> Check the large size for pixel peeping. Why aren't more mainstream manufacturers producing lenses like this? Are they afraid of cannibalizing their extreme telephoto market?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Sorry I mis-spelt your name Laurentiu, do you use a Nikon mount Tokina on your EOS bodies? Here is my FD mount</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Here is the image sharpness - this is using a M4/3 body so it is effectively a 1000mm lens. The fact that the tree branch is not all in Focus is a DOF issue as it is cloudy this morning so the tree is only about 20m away from the camera. It is not as obvious on screen but the lens is not critically sharp - good enough for Web use but not big prints.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>The Spiratone 400mm f/63 refractor was sold over a long period and so coatings and other things change over time.<br>

There are some 500mm shots (not Spiratone) from someone else in the mirror lens post I linked to above. I'll see if I can locate a shot or two in my files (on another computer) this weekend.</p>

<p>The Spiratone is very light weight. When you can get it damped down, though, as I say, it's better than it has any right to be. One caution, though, I have found some variation in T-mounts for the EOS, so check any you get for proper focus.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Standard telephoto.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>The Leitz 500 MR f8 on a Canon 7D</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Charles</p>

<p>Any chance you can post a good crop (actual size) of the results of the 7D and Leitz Mirror. I saw the images in your portfolio taken with the Leitz Mirror and they looked impressive but on small images I find it difficult to assess critical focus.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><strong>There's another option. Or two.</strong></p>

<p>Between one of the 500mm mirror lenses and the huge and expensive 500mm primes, has anyone tried one of the cheap non-mirror lenses, like the Vivitar 650-1300mm f/8-16 (<a href="http://www.vivitar.com/products/27/professional-slr-lenses/237/650-1300mm">http://www.vivitar.com/products/27/professional-slr-lenses/237/650-1300mm</a>)? This lens goes for $250 - $300. It uses 8 regular glass lenses instead of mirrors. Yes, it is big and heavy. Yes, like the mirrors, it is manual focus. And maybe, like the mirrors, it only has a fixed aperture (kind of hard to tell). There are similar lenses that are 500-1000mm's. You can find a bunch of them on eBay.</p>

<p><strong>Also.</strong> Some of the zoom lenses that go to 500mm may be good options. In addition to the new version of the "Bigma" (Sigma 50-500mm, $1660), the cheapest competitor, which supposedly has pretty good optics, is the Tamron 200-500mm f/5-6.3 ($950). Or for $1070, you can get a Sigma 150-500mm (yes, the one that starts at 150mm, not the one that starts at 50mm) that adds optical image stabilization and an ultrasonic motor.</p>

 

[dave_redmann]

<p>There is also a Rokinon 500mm f/8 <em>non</em>-mirror that appears to go for $120 - $150 (see, e.g., <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/500mm-Super-Telephoto-Lens-CANON-XTi-XSi-30D-50D-/400215592478?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5d2eb54e1e">http://cgi.ebay.com/500mm-Super-Telephoto-Lens-CANON-XTi-XSi-30D-50D-/400215592478?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5d2eb54e1e</a>); this lens has four regular lens elements and apparently a variable aperture (f/8-f/32). Like the aforementioned Vivitar, it is big (long). However, I see the minimum focus distance is 10 m (33 ft), which might be limiting for some applications.</p>

<p>I have no idea how the optical quality of these sorts of lenses compares to the more widely-available mirror lenses. But they are another option.</p>

 

[clgriffin]

<blockquote>

<p>Any chance you can post a good crop (actual size) of the results of the 7D and Leitz Mirror. I saw the images in your portfolio taken with the Leitz Mirror and they looked impressive but on small images I find it difficult to assess critical focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two shots in that section that are details of uncropped images. The bricks with the plywood has a detail crop and the outside daylight shot of a garden pole has a detail crop of the label on the pole. You may recall a shot of a lantana sprig, dark leaves, little pink and yellow flowers. This is a crop to 5 percent of the image. I didn't know there was a bug there until I did the crop.<br>

It's no L lens with stabilization, and it has a certain amount of vignetting, but it is one of the better mirrors (actually made by Minolta for Leitz).</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Thanks Charles For a mirror lens that is very impressive. I'll keep a look out for one.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>I wonder where the OP is.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>do you use a Nikon mount Tokina on your EOS bodies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use Pentax bodies. I first got a Tokina in K mount with only the hood and the rear filter, and then later, because I wanted to complete the set, I got an OM mount version. I actually disassembled both and I exchanged the focusing scales because the one on the K mount was scratched. The insides are very simple. Doing this exercise, I also confirmed that these are identical - it is only the mount piece that is different - so you could take the FD mount one, unscrew that mount piece, screw another mount, and you should be able to use it on another mount. One practical difficulty with this idea though is that the mounts are screwed differently, so the implementation would require some drilling work. But the bottom line is that AFAICT the Tokina versions are all the same, regardless of mount. And yes, my lens accessories look exactly like yours.</p>

<p>One advantage I have with the Pentax bodies is that they have in-body stabilization, so that helps me quite a bit with handholding these.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It is not as obvious on screen but the lens is not critically sharp - good enough for Web use but not big prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot tell the sharpness from that image. I would also try the lens against a solid subject - tree branches might move. And for evaluation, I would use a tripod, mirror lock up, and remote shutter release to get the best performance. Then I would check 100% crops. Mirror lenses lack microcontrast, but I find that they capture fine detail pretty well, only they need a bit more sharpening to recover it.</p>

[mike_levitt]

<p>Consider the Canon 400 5.6 - with or without a 1.4 converter. An outstanding professional lens for about $1100.</p>