500mm f/8 mirror for T3i?

[hopalonghowie]

<p>I'm shopping for a 500mm f/8 mirror lens for my T3i any suggestions for a guy on a $150 budget I'm leaning toward the Vivitar but I'd like to get some input from you all first.</p>

[matthijs]

I've used mirrors and in my experience the results were better using a shorter lens and cropping.

 

(Opteka 500/8 vs Canon 70-200/4)

 

If you have a 55-250 I advice using that.

 

In higher price ranges there might be better mirrors bur I haven't used those.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Matthijs.

[hopalonghowie]

<p>I have a 75-300 but shooting some deer last night I felt like I needed more lens even after cropping in PS.</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>The Tamron using the Adaptall mount would work fine, and in my experience is much better than most others (at least the Canon and Nikons I've owned in the past), but they tend to run around $250-300. AND you usually need a tripod to ensure sharpness, due to the long focal length.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I doubt there's much to choose between the cheap (under $150) f8 mirror lenses. In fact many of them may be the same lens sold under different names. Vivitar, Opteka, Sakar, Phoenix and other "generic" brands are often just labels.</p>

<p>If you can get a used Tamron with an EOS adapter, that's a decent choice - see <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Honestly, my experience with the new, so-called Vivitars (there is no connection except the name to the old, great company) is that they are not worth even the low prices they are sold for.</p>

<p>There, are however, many older used lenses available for around US$200.<br /> You will do much better to seek out a Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 or the Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lenses. I bought mine (for a sad story of obsession with long, catadioptric lenses see <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00RaKy">link</a>) locally for about $200 each and both are excellent, although I'd give the edge to the Sigma 600mm.</p>

<p>If you can't find either of those, the later models of the Spiratone 500mm f/8 lenses (the Minitels) are actually pretty decent too.</p>

<p>My Nikkor (of course) and my Sigma are both Nikon mounts A simple adapter (don't get "focus confirmation" - it's not worth it and can actually cause harm to the camera) is available almost everywhere these days, mostly under US$20.</p>

<p>The Spiratone lenses and many others, including many of the new ones, are T-mount lenses and you can find EOS T-mounts cheaply on-line as well.</p>

<p>An aside, I have found that these are hand-holdable at high shutter speeds, but that the handiest way to get good results is to also invest in a monopod for walk-about shooting.</p>

[User_1172872]

<blockquote>

<p>Honestly, my experience with the new, so-called Vivitars (there is no connection except the name to the old, great company) is that they are not worth even the low prices they are sold for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the exactlly the same experience with the 500mm Vivitar that I had some years ago. The (now-discontinued) Tokina was also small and light, but much sharper. It was never made in EOS mount so you would have to buy one for Nikon or M42 and purchase an adapter. If you insist on a budget 500mm, there are still available all glass, pre-set, t-mount ones you can buy new for US $ 120. Still not great, and not close focussing (about 33' or so) but if you have modest goals they may be sufficient.</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>In the link JDM provided, he offered the following comment regarding the Nikon:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> For reasons I am not clear about, it even has less of the donut-shaped hi-lites so characteristic of the breed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mirror lens use a front surface primary mirror; the rear glass element is coated with silver or aluminum. Less expensive lenses leave the 'hole' uncoated; Nikon (and other manufactures of more expensive lenses) actually drills a hole in the glass. That's one less consraint on the optical design, one more reason the Nikon was sharper. It also eliminates the 'crescent-moon' donuts.</p>

<p> </p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I've owned an Apteka 400-800mm non-mirror lens and a Quantary (Ritz Camera brand, same as Vivitar likely) 500mm mirror lens. The Apteka was sharper and had better contrast. I don't have any examples to show and I don't own the mirror any more, but there wasn't anything I can remember about the mirror lens that stood out as better to me save one aspect, the mirror lens did focus at a closer distance than the Apteka. Both are of small aperture, so if you're planning on hand holding in less than brilliant light you'll need to use a higher ISO. 500mm picks up any camera movement and exagerates it greatly. I just looked on B&H and didn't see either lens listed, but there are a few low price high focal length T-mount lenses that are likely similar.</p>

<p>Your example above appears to be focused on the leaves in the foreground rather than the dear itself.</p>

[gary_king5]

<p>Have you considered a 1.4x or 2x extender for your 75-300? I'm a newb and perhaps one of the experienced guys can confirm this, but they'd get you a higher magnification (at the cost of AF)</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Years ago I had a Sigma 600/8 mirror lens. This is sometimes described as one of the best of the off-brand mirror lenses, but I found it really terrible. This was not just a matter of whether or not I liked the annular out-of-focus highlights. It had very poor contrast and the crude construction of the focusing movement made accurate focusing very difficult.</p>

<p>Apart from the bokeh effect, which is inherent, I am not aware of any reason in principle why a mirror lens would necessarily have poor performance, and indeed there should be less of a problem controlling CA than with a purely refractive lens. Canon had a 500/8 FD mirror lens, and I think Nikon had more than one. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who used those lenses as to how well they performed.</p>

[matthijs]

On a side note: Sony has a nicely performing AF 500/8 mirror. (plus in body IS)

[hopalonghowie]

<p>I do have a 2x extender for it Gary but I am less than happy with the pictures.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks Professor K, that does make sense about the better construction of the more expensive mirror lenses.</p>

<p>The Opteka, Vivitar, and other current 500mm lens all look to be the identical Korean-made unit with different engraving.</p>

<p>I'll have to say that Robin's description of the Sigma 600mm is totally at odds with my own experience. Mine is sharp, high contrast (but you do need to use the long lens hood), and easy to focus. I suspect something had happened to Robin's copy of it.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>JDM, my Sigma 600/8 was purchased s/h, so you may well be right that it was either a bad copy or one that had been maltreated. Your experience has obviously been very different. It's hard to see how that lens could have acquired its reputation if there were not at least some good ones around.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I've owned 3 500mm mirror lenses, a Nikkor (very good), a Tamron (seemed to be good with film, but gave a circle with digital about 24 mm in diameter which was about 2 stops brighter than the rest of the pic), and a Centon (a cheapo lens which is/was very likely sold under other names and was really horrible). I've also owned 2 500mm f8 lenses with conventional optics which were really not bad (I think one was a Soligor). These are better than a mirror lens and are ridiculously cheap on e-bay (I think I bought one for £10).</p>

[hopalonghowie]

<p>Thought I'd update you all.</p>

<p>I went with the Vivitar mostly out of pure economics but I am quite pleased with it actually. Its very light weight and lends itself well to my style of shooting specifically hand held wildlife that doesn't like to wait around for me to set up my tripod.</p>

<p>I'm still in that learning curve with it but the most important thing for me is I'm having fun.</p>

<p>OK folks tear the picture apart. lol</p><div></div>