Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

300mm Mirror Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Those are some great examples, Woodrim. That Makinon looks to be impressively sharp to me.
What is the typical aperture of a 250mm mirror? f/4? f/5.6?

The Minolta is f5.6. Very small and lightweight, about the size of an 1.2/58mm.
cooltouch wrote:

I would like to own a smaller mirror one day, but I just can't get my head around the prices they sell for these days. I'll stick to refractors for now.

That's reasonable. In the 200mm ... 300mm range i would go for either the Minolta MC 4/200mm which is very well corrected (nearly as good as the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO or the ED AF Nikkor 2.8/180mm, and visibly better than the FD 4/200mm, FD 2.8/200, MD 2.8/200, Ai Nikkor 4/200mm, Pentax M 4/200mm, Hexanon AR 3.5/200mm and AR 4/200mm). In the 300mm range the Canon new FD 5.6/300mm is quite good, and the FD 4/300mm L is very good. Another excellent and cheap 300mm lens is the Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (for Mamiya 645), which on 24MP FF is extremely sharp wide open, and has no CAs. Obviously, it contains ED glass.

woodrim wrote:

I just witnessed a Minolta selling for >$1200 at auction. Rubinar and Tamron have been running at 2/3 to 3/4 the price of Minolta. All three have remained out of my reach.

OOPS, that expensive ...?? I got my Minolta MD 5.6/250mm last year for CHF/USD 100.-- at a local photography shop, and one of my collegues bought one in Zurich for CHF/USD 60.--, also last year ... I must admit that the Minolta MD 5.6/250mm is a rather sharp and contrasty lens, certainly better than the Minolta MD 8/500mm.

Stephan


And another update on Minolta 250/5.6 sales.
One sold on eBay yesterday for 807GBP, refer
https://www.ebay.com/itm/263337414855?ul_noapp=true

If you're thinking of buying one then it's time to start saving pennies, (if you're not already saving).

Cheers,


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now on page five of this thread, I think it time to reiterate my thinking and purpose for starting this thread. I find the mirror lenses very interesting, fun, and rewarding in their special way. The mirror lenses are to be thought of as a different class of lens, and they are. I would not suggest any of these short mirrors (or any length) can compete favorably with a good refractor lens. I think it is clear to almost everyone here that we are discussing and evaluating mirrors in relation to each other and not in relation to refractors. It is a given that a good refractor is a superior optic. With this understanding, hopefully, we can avoid any irrelevant discussion.

If I can make a comparison, I might offer one from another of my hobbies, classic cars. I have a big Healey and also a Bugeye/Frogeye Sprite. The big Healey easily outperforms the Sprite but the little Bugeye is a real kick to drive. That is how I look at the mirror lenses - a real kick to use and a challenge. But this is not to say there aren't advantages; there certainly are. Size and weight are the more obvious but image quality is another. That doesn't mean quality in the usual sense but indicates a unique artistic rendering that some find pleasing. I find pleasing.

Having done a great deal of reading over the past year, I am becoming more and more convinced that the mirror lenses are widely misunderstood and underappreciated. There seem to be endless comments about virtually every brand, condemning them as junk or candidates for door stops. I believe bad technique has a great deal to do with the comments as well as a lack of understanding as to the individual lens' strong and weak points. I now have several mirror lenses and know how I can use each to maximum benefit.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to continue to post images from my mirrors and hopefully, this thread will become informative to others researching short mirrors.

I will eventually be posting images from a 5.6/300 Super Danubia and more from a second Makinon. In time, maybe I'll be fortunate enough to acquire a Minolta, Tamron, or Rubinar. For now, the Ohnar has been spending time in my bag and has become useful in situations where my 200mm wasn't enough.

This past weekend while visiting Charleston's historic Magnolia Cemetery, I took out the mirror when I saw some birds, then decided to use it for other subjects. It turned out that the Ohnar shots were my favorite from the shoot.



This one suffered a little from movement - 1/100 second





150 year prayer


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Now on page five of this thread, I think it time to reiterate my thinking and purpose for starting this thread. I find the mirror lenses very interesting, fun, and rewarding in their special way. The mirror lenses are to be thought of as a different class of lens, and they are. I would not suggest any of these short mirrors (or any length) can compete favorably with a good refractor lens. I think it is clear to almost everyone here that we are discussing and evaluating mirrors in relation to each other and not in relation to refractors. It is a given that a good refractor is a superior optic. With this understanding, hopefully, we can avoid any irrelevant discussion.

If I can make a comparison, I might offer one from another of my hobbies, classic cars. I have a big Healey and also a Bugeye/Frogeye Sprite. The big Healey easily outperforms the Sprite but the little Bugeye is a real kick to drive. That is how I look at the mirror lenses - a real kick to use and a challenge. But this is not to say there aren't advantages; there certainly are. Size and weight are the more obvious but image quality is another. That doesn't mean quality in the usual sense but indicates a unique artistic rendering that some find pleasing. I find pleasing.

Having done a great deal of reading over the past year, I am becoming more and more convinced that the mirror lenses are widely misunderstood and underappreciated. There seem to be endless comments about virtually every brand, condemning them as junk or candidates for door stops. I believe bad technique has a great deal to do with the comments as well as a lack of understanding as to the individual lens' strong and weak points. I now have several mirror lenses and know how I can use each to maximum benefit.


I agree with the concept that mirror lenses deserve consideration for what they can offer, and not necessarily as a direct competitor with refractors.
I would like to see more thought (and images) into "creative bokeh". That's where they could shine perhaps.
Unfortunately for me this thread is all about 300mm mirrors, of which I have only one (the Rubinar), and its for sale anyway.
I don't plan to buy any other 300mm mirror at this time. (Except maybe the latest Tokina or Samyang, when I can afford). For a shorter focal length mirror I'm thinking more of adding a focal reducer to one of my 500mm mirrors to give 350mm f/5.6 (effective).
Cheers,


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3dpan wrote:

I agree with the concept that mirror lenses deserve consideration for what they can offer, and not necessarily as a direct competitor with refractors.
I would like to see more thought (and images) into "creative bokeh". That's where they could shine perhaps.
Unfortunately for me this thread is all about 300mm mirrors, of which I have only one (the Rubinar), and its for sale anyway.
I don't plan to buy any other 300mm mirror at this time. (Except maybe the latest Tokina or Samyang, when I can afford). For a shorter focal length mirror I'm thinking more of adding a focal reducer to one of my 500mm mirrors to give 350mm f/5.6 (effective).
Cheers,

I often use a focal reducer on my mirror lenses (a 500mm/5.6 & a 600mm/Cool because the crop I get with MFT makes them somewhat excessive. A FOV equivalent to 700mm or 900mm Full frame is quite a handful but can be managed handheld especially with the extra stop of light. Neither are practical to hand hold without the reducer & can be a struggle with a monopod if your not well braced Smile
Here's a couple of quick examples of the 600 on a focal reducer (both handheld, and including NIR as they where using my full spectrum camera):
Handheld mirror test by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
FS test - Reflex + focal reducer by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3dpan wrote:

I would like to see more thought (and images) into "creative bokeh". That's where they could shine perhaps.


True. As everyone knows, the donuts can be bad at times and interesting in some cases but mostly should be avoided. I have avoided or lessened the donuts when possible by choosing an angle that provided a dark or highlight absent background. In some cases, the bokeh can be very pleasing. One example here...



PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
This past weekend while visiting Charleston's historic Magnolia Cemetery, I took out the mirror when I saw some birds, then decided to use it for other subjects. It turned out that the Ohnar shots were my favorite from the shoot.


I love the background on this one. Very impressionistic! With mirror lenses, you get a lot of Monet for a small bit of your money...Rolling Eyes

Cheers!

Abbazz