Any High Quality Mirror Lenses?

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I have 250mm Minolta a real jewelry , I bought several latest Minolta lenses and own many Zeiss and sold always my Leitz lenses Smile

Minolta in pair with them in general latest versions are great first class lenses. Russian Rubinar MC 500mm f5.6 is damn good I never had Leitz or Zeiss 500mm lens but I can't imagine better one than this Rubinar.
I had once 500mm f4.5 Carl Zeiss Jena lens I couldn't test it well due crappy available light and incredible huge lens. My friend did it better he loves this lens and favor it.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

buerokratiehasser · Joined: 12 Jun 2011 Posts: 470

Got a Hanimex F:8 MIRROR LENS
(there are others called hanimex which supposedly are junk)

The contrast is pretty low, even worse than Sigma 70-210 UC, colors muted
I will maybe try to manufacture some lens shade/f11 contraption maybe that will improve things

It is extremly hard to focus plus the low contrast means images look like unsharp

But the resolution is there. This thing when focused correctly matches 1:1 10Mpix aps-c or nearly so, wide open, and there is no CA at all of course. I read the clocks on churches on the other end of town with it.

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

Got an Elicar 300 mm f5.6 on the bay last night. Hope it is good. Used to have a minolta 250mm f5.6 but "lost" it in Lisbon... and could not bear the replacement cost...

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 576

Interesting discussion so far. It raises, though, a question I've often had about users' reports on their lenses. How did they form their judgments? How did they measure lenses' performance? And why do they often disagree with what look like objective performance measures published in, e.g., the Modern Photography that used to be?

Way back when I shot Super 8, tried to film distant birds. This called for long lenses so I collected and summarized tests of long lenses, many of them reflectors. Here's what I told myself about them:

I recently went through back issues of Modern Photography to see whether
mirror lenses have improved over time and to look for tests of longish lenses
for 35mm still that I might use on a Super 8 movie camera. I took notes on
some, not all, of the long lenses MP tested. I focused on lenses that
probably could be obtained used at reasonable prices or that would be usable
on my Nikon still bodies. And I was curious to see how lenses I own tested
out. I generally ignored zoom lenses, but did note down MP's results for a
few outstanding ones. I paid most attention to lenses with focal lengths of
at least 300 mm, but a few shorter lenses caught my attention so MP's test
results for them are reported below too.

Resolution is in lines/mm, measured however MP did it around the test date.
Contrast is in percent, again measured however MP did it around the test date.
Please note that MP's test procedures changed from time to time, so that
results are not always exactly comparable between tests. I didn't report MP's
verbal ratings, as the relationship between verbal rating and measurements
changed over time.

One thing that leapt out of my reading is that very few long lenses for 35
still are fit to be used on Super 8. MP claims that lenses that resolve less
than 43 lpmm produce unacceptable results on S8, and the very poor pictures
I've taken when trying out my 200/4 MicroNikkor on several Beaulieus bear this
out. I understand long lenses' vulnerability to shake, but as my 150/3.3
MacroYvar takes acceptable pictures, both with and without a 1.4x Canon
teleconverter screwed into its front, I think that the 200/4 MicroNikkor just
isn't good enough for this application.

In any case, what's most important to me for movie applications is central
resolution at apertures no smaller than f/8. I find that the subjects for
which I need a long focal length tend to be in shadow. When I
shoot at the highest framing rates available (45 fps = 1/100) with KMA, the
smallest aperture I'm likely to use is f/8 and I often shoot at larger ones,
e.g., f/2.8 - f/4.

Mirror lenses, by focal length and date within focal length:

Date Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

Minolta 1600/11 10/82 44 36 30 20

Celestron 1250/10 2/77 64 56 44 40

Meade 1000/8 3/82 50 44 38 32

Minolta 800/8 RF 5/73 44 44 n/a n/a
Minolta 800/8 10/75 45 32 42 30
Minolta 800/8 10/82 51 40 38 30

Honeywell Lumetar 750/6 7/75 64 44 48 38

Questar 700/8 1/77 64 60 40 37

Vivitar 600/8 10/76 34 27 38 38
Sigma 600/8 11/81 50 40 37 29

Minolta 500/8 1/79 48 42 44 34
Spiratone 500/8 1/79 44 36 42 34
MTO 500/8 (new) 3/79 54 42 40 28
Tamron 500/8 SP 6/79 48 36 44 28
Soligor 500/8 CD 10/80 44 32 36 25
Tokina 500/8 RMC 10/80 44 32 34 24
Olympus 500/8 10/84 40 40 58 55

Pentax 400-600/8-12 @400 10/82 40 36 35 27
@500 45 40 35 27
@600 40 32 33 28

Spiratone 300/5.6 11/83 44 39 44 31

Minolta 250/5.6 2/80 44 40 44 33

The general conclusion is that few mirror lenses produce outstanding image
quality. About the only really good ones are the Questar 700 and the two
Celestrons (1250/10 and 750/6 sold as a Honeywell Lumetar). It is a pity that
MP published no tests of mirror lenses after 1984. Refracting lenses seem to
have improved markedly during the '80s. It seems reasonable to hope that
recently designed mirror lenses would perform better than the oldish ones for
which I found tests, but there's no way of knowing.

A side point. The Celestron lenses that MP tested are very different from
Celestron's C-90 spotting scope. MP never published a test of the C-90. This
may be because they never got around to testing it, or it may be because the
lens didn't meet their minimum standards. I've had two, the second a warranty
replacement for the first, and am confident that they didn't meet MP's
minimums.

Pentax 300 mm lenses:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

300/4 Super MC Takumar 4 36 32 n/r n/r
1/74 5.6 40 32 n/r n/r
8 45 36 n/r n/r
11 50 40 n/r n/r
16 50 40 n/r n/r
22 45 40 n/r n/r

300/5.6 Super Achromatic 5.6 56 56 40 28
Takumar 5/74 8 56 56 40 28
11 64 56 45 33
16 56 56 45 36
22 50 50 40 36

300/4 SMCP-A 1/85 4 41 33 49 32
5.6 41 37 60 32
8 46 41 66 34
11 52 46 62 31
16 46 41 53 36
22 41 37 42 35
32 37 33 23 21

Pentax 300 mm lenses interested me because they are fairly available used and
are less expensive than equivalent used Nikon or Canon lenses. Based on MP's
tests, none of them is really good enough for my application.

Three 400 mm lenses:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

Fuji 400/4.5 3/82 4.5 50 36 36 28
5.6 56 36 42 32
8 56 40 48 37
11 50 44 47 38
16 45 44 43 33
22 45 44 36 30
32 40 40 30 24
45 36 36 25 22

Hexanon 400/4.5 8/73 4.5 40 36 n/r n/r
5.6 44 40 n/r n/r
8 44 44 n/r n/r
11 50 44 n/r n/r
16 56 44 n/r n/r
22 50 44 n/r n/r
32 44 40 n/r n/r

Sigma 400/5.6 APO 9/81 5.6 44 55 31 27
8 50 40 43 33
11 56 44 48 38
16 50 44 48 39
22 44 40 40 36

None of these will quite do for me either, but on MP's tests the 400/5.6 Sigma
compares favorably with the 400/5.6 Nikkor. Not quite as good, but much less
expensive.

Some 200ish Nikkors:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

180/2.8 9/85 2.8 50 45 44 40
4 56 50 50 42
5.6 56 50 57 46
8 63 56 60 50
11 63 56 56 44
16 56 50 48 41
22 56 50 40 32
32 50 45 34 28

200/2 5/81 2 44 39 20 22
2.8 55 44 33 23
4 62 44 45 25
5.6 55 49 46 25
8 55 49 50 27
11 49 44 46 27
16 49 44 43 24
22 49 39 34 21

Its pretty clear that who buys the 200/2 Nikkor instead of the 180/2.8 gets
f/2, a lot more weight, and little more.

A 200 mm interloper:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

Vivitar 200/3.5 S1 AF 4 50 45 59 30
5.6 56 50 67 34
8 63 56 68 47
11 63 50 64 50
16 56 45 57 44
22 56 45 49 40

By f/5.6 the Vivitar matches the 180/2.8 Nikkor centrally and comes close at
the edges. At smaller apertures it is as sharp centrally, and has better
contrast. Despite its worse central resolution at f/4, I like the thought of
it for S8 because it is self-focusing. And used ones, when they can be found,
are much less expensive than used 180/2.8 Nikkors.

Three 300 mm Nikkors:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

300/4.5 ED 10/78 4.5 44 40 51 36
5.6 48 44 56 38
8 56 48 57 40
11 56 48 52 40
16 48 48 47 36
22 48 44 39 32

300/4.5 EDIF 9/80 4.5 35 32 25 21
5.6 40 35 30 24
8 45 40 40 28
11 50 40 44 32
16 45 40 44 34
22 40 35 35 32

300/4 AF 3/89 4 49 44 56 43
5.6 49 44 60 41
8 49 39 60 41
11 49 39 59 41
16 49 44 51 41
22 49 39 48 40
32 32 44 40 27

What's surprising here is that the 300/4.5 ED reported on in 1978 is sharper
and contrastier than the 30/4.5 EDIF tested two years later, and that it comes
very close to the 300/4 AF at f/5.6 and smaller apertures. I'd have thought
that internal focusing would buy better performance, and expected that the
newer lenses would be all 'round superior to the older ones.

400/5.6 ED 10/78 5.6 48 43 45 35
8 48 43 55 37
11 54 48 56 40
16 48 43 56 40
22 38 34 50 38
32 31 31 38 32

Three MicroNikkors:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

55/2.8 11/80 (@1:49) 2.8 69 49 52 30
4 69 55 54 48
5.6 78 55 58 55
8 69 62 58 57
11 69 62 54 55
16 62 49 48 48
22 49 44 38 40
32 40 35 24 36

(@1:2) 2.8 48 36
4 64 48
5.6 64 54
8 64 54
11 54 48
16 48 48
22 42 42
32 38 36

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

105/2.8 7/85 (@1:49) 2.8 55 49 45 33
4 62 55 47 37
5.6 69 62 52 45
8 69 62 60 51
11 69 62 60 49
16 62 55 57 45
22 55 49 47 39
32 49 44 34 27

(@1:4) 2.8 57 51
4 64 57
5.6 64 57
8 57 51
11 57 51
16 51 45
22 45 40
32 40 36

(@1:2) 2.8 45 40
4 45 40
5.6 45 40
8 51 45
11 45 40
16 45 36
22 40 36
32 36 32

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

200/4 5/81 (@1:49) 4 44 39 38 21
5.6 44 39 42 22
8 44 39 48 26
11 49 44 49 29
16 49 44 46 27
22 44 44 40 25
32 39 35 30 23

The shocker here is that the 200/4 MicroNikkor has such (relatively) low
resolution on MP's test. It appears to be a much worse lens for distant
subjects than the Vivitar 200/3.5 S1 AF. For general use, the Vivitar or,
even better, the 180/2.8 Nikkor, appear to be preferable. I own all three
of the MicroNikkors reported on here, and find the 105/2.8 best for most uses.
It is sharper than the 200/4 and easier to focus, and it gives better working
distance than the 55/2.8.

The Tokina 100-300/4 ATX (MP 7/85) is another shocker:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

@ 100 mm 4 55 49 sorry, 100 mm
5.6 55 49 contrast
8 62 55 measurements
11 62 55 not xeroxed
16 55 49
22 55 49
32 49 44

@ 200 mm 4 55 49 49 40
5.6 55 49 64 48
8 62 55 71 55
11 62 55 73 65
16 55 49 67 57
22 55 49 53 47
32 49 44 45 34

@ 300 mm 4 57 51 53 43
5.6 57 51 58 48
8 64 57 73 58
11 64 57 69 56
16 57 51 64 50
22 51 45 57 45
32 51 45 48 40

and now for some news from CI$:

#: 62751 S3/35mm (Small Format)
16-Mar-91 01:10:08
Sb: #62686-#which 300 mm lens?
Fm: Richard L. Hess SysOp 72647,622
To: dan fromm 76266,333

Dan,

Unfortunately, Lepp's tests are center/edge combined, so these numbers may not
be totally meaningful. Lepp uses a scale of 1-10, with 6 being his minimum for
professionally sharp results.

Nikon EDIF 300/4.5 7.5
Nikon AF 300/4 7.5
Tokina ATX 100-300/4 at 100 7.5
at 300 7.5

Sorry I did not see ratings on the Canon lenses in that speed range.

Good luck!

--Richard [Glendale, CA]

#: 97102 S3/35mm (Small Format)
12-Sep-91 00:38:41
Sb: #96926-Tokina/Sigma lenses?
Fm: Richard L. Hess SysOp 72647,622
To: Christopher L. Koon 72600,3273 (X)

Christopher,
Here is a summary of some currently available long lenses and the test
results from George Lepp's newsletter:
Lens options for 300mm and over:
Maker FL/f Lepp Score Wide Open Date
Sigma 500/4.5 APO 6.0 " 4.8 w/1.4x 3/89

Nikon 400/3.5 EDIF 9.5 " 9.0 edge 12/88
8.0 TC14B 3/89
Tamron 400/4LD 8.0 center 7.2 edge 12/88
6.8 w/1.4x 3/89
Canon 400/4.5 (FD) 7.2 " 6.0 " 12/88
Nikon 400/5.6 EDIF 7.5 " 6.5 TC14B 9/89
Tokina 400/5.6 5.4 " 4.8 " 12/88
Sigma 400/5.6 APO 6.2 " 3/89
6.5 " 5.0 TC14B 6/89

Canon 300/2.8 (EF) 8.5overall 6.5 w1.4x 3/89
Nikon 300/2.8 EDIF AF 7.5 " 6.5 " 3/89
Sigma 300/2.8 APO 7.0 " 5.8 w/1.4x 3/89
Tamron 300/2.8 LD 6.5 " 5.5 w/1.4x 3/89
Nikon 300/4 EDIF AF 7.5 " 6.0 TC14B 3/89

Lepp considers that 6.0 is the absolute minimum threshold for marketable
images. 7.5 is his borderline for lenses which will be acceptable with a
quality 1.4x converter. Lepp has published no numbers on the 500/4P only John
Shaw's rave review (he sold his 400/3.5 to buy the 500/4). All in all, I would
buy the Sigma APO 400mm f/5.6. The Tokina was NOT the SD.

Regards, Richard [Glendale, CA]

In Lepp's testing, BTW, he said that there is a difference in resolution
between the APO and non-APO Sigmas when tested in B&W that is a possible result
of the color fringing.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Minolta 5.6/250, i know they are expensive, but just take a look at the performance, i need to take it out on the A7 soon! At some point i was thinking about selling it because of the little use it gets, but i just couldn't part from it....

http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rf-rokkor-250mm-f-5-6-mirror-lens-t66821,highlight,%2Brokkor+%2B250mm.html

Cheers, René!

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

kryss · Expire: 2017-09-18

This is for sale locally,anyone have any info re how good,how much it is going for?Thanks.

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

^^
[3M-5A]

I do.

Karma works in mysterious ways.
Cool

SonicScot · Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:58 am Post subject:

I have a Russian 3M-5A, the slightly more compact version, but something is wrong with it and I can't work out what it is. As it is, it's useless, which is a shame because it was great when it was working ok.

So I got a Tamron 500/8 BB instead and I'm quite impressed. I went to visit a Red Kite feeding station last year, here's a few examples from the Tamron on a Canon 5D Mkll (I think I was using 1600 ISO).

It's a lot easier to follow birds with this than a 3-foot long monster 500mm, particularly hand-held.

Red Kite-10 by Gary Sutherland, on Flickr

Red Kite-13 by Gary Sutherland, on Flickr

Red Kite-9 by Gary Sutherland, on Flickr

Red Kite-15 by Gary Sutherland, on Flickr

Red Kite by Gary Sutherland, on Flickr

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

^Excellent results hand-held! Mad skills.

I have two copies of each, a pair of 55BB, and a pair of 3M-5A, multi-coated and non. Both have their plus and minuses, but I like the Russian more.
What's wrong with your later, compact version?

SonicScot · Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:12 am Post subject:

Thanks

I can't focus from near to middle distance, it seems ok-ish at far objects but it's still not quite right there either. There are a couple of elements at the rear which may have been cleaned and put back wrongly, I've tried changing them around but no success. I got frustrated because I don't have much patience so I bought the Tamron instead.

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Wow Gary! Impressive bird shots!

SonicScot · Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:37 am Post subject: