Lens for wildlife: MF mirror or crop frame of 100mm?

[buck_rogers1]

Tell my your opinions of what results I should expect from using a

short tele (100mm) or a mirror lens. I want to try my hand at some

wildlife photography as I live in Utah and frequently run into

critters (ie: moose, deer, birds, fox, and occasionaly mountain

lions) in the woods out here. I don't have the budget to afford a

fancy "L"ong lens if I decide I'm no good. My current equipment

includes my Eos 1 body with 70-200 1:4 (non-L) 100 f/2 USM and 50

f/1.8. Will a cheap mirror lens from e-bay (which I can always try

to sell again) give me quality than if I were to use my 100 f/2 with

provia and crop? I don't imagine that mirror lenses are very sharp

but is my 100 f/2 five times as sharp as a 500mm mirror? Probably a

stupid question but I'd like to here some opinions.

[keith_van_hulle1]

If quality is not your issue (but reach is) and you can't justify any other lens to yourself, then this will have to do. It will be extremely obvious to you when comparing to the 50 or 100, even at 4x6. The biggest drawbacks, besides general image quality on the cheap ones, is that they're dark (f8 but more like f9) and the damn bokeh donuts. I bought a Vivitar for my 13 year old to shoot birds in the backyard and after one test roll, she thought it sucked enough to send back the next day. You could probably buy a Kenko TC for the zoom and get results as good as the mirror. As has been said around here too many times, there just ain't no way to go long cheap.

[bruce_hamm]

For little more money than the mirror lens, you could pick up something like the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO. I got one off the bay for about $130. While the image quality won't be quite as good as a Canon super tele, it will blow the doors off a mirror lens. And if you don't like it, you could probably sell it for close to what you pay for it.

[canon man]

You could also look on ebay for other Canon lenses thatr will work and wont hurt the pocket book so much. I bought th100-300 USM for just such a purpose. If I can creep up on bambi and nail at 30 yards from his own bed I sure as heck can do the same to get a picture! Just don't walk through the woods stinkin of bacon and cigarette smoke, and B.O. and walk wiht slow easy steps to be silent. Goodluck!

[eddie g.]

I agree with Bruce. Go for the Sigma 400/5.6 lens in place of mirror.

 

Reason 1: I have used the mirror on medium format and the blured images are too un-natural. Remember, the blured image forms follow the iris form. Mirror lenses do not have irises, but instead have a big dark spot in the center. So, the blured images all have a big dark spot in the middle, like a leftover donut.

 

Reason 2: You have to meter and focus manually with mirror lens, that is if the camera meters correctly (my EOS 5 does not!). Can't catch any animal that moves fast unless you're 110% ready for it. Been there, done that, have hated myself for not using a real lens! Have moved to a Sigma APO 135-400 and an EX APO 1.4x converter and works better now.

 

Reason 3: I have an older manual focus 400/5.6 Sigma APO on my Canon A1, and love its compactness and yet pretty good results. The new one with macro function is better.

 

Reason 4: When you crop, you get a lot of grain in what's remaining, even if you used Velvia.

[peter_langfelder]

Neither. The Sigma 400 APO is a good suggestion, as would be the 300/4 APO and the older EF 100-300 f/5.6 (L; non-L is cheaper, but optically inferior). Cropping the image from any lens by a factor of 3 will seriously degrade image quality, and as stated, the mirror lens isn't really all that good for moving subjects. I personally would suggest, though, to sell the 70-210 zoom and save up for 200/2.8 + 1.4 or 2xTC.