Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

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

Any High Quality Mirror Lenses?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:02 pm    Post subject: Any High Quality Mirror Lenses? Reply with quote

A compact long telephoto is something that I'd love to add to my kit at some point, but I'm wondering - did anyone nail a high quality mirror lens? I know physics is physics, but did anyone push the boundaries here?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leitz and Zeiss did with theirs for sure!!

Zeiss Mirotar, scroll to end (long file): http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_cute_DFR_DDR_lenses/00_pag_English.htm


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have had good luck with the 500mm f/8 Canon FD. Suffers from most of the deficits associated with mirror lenses, but nearly so much as the typical 3rd part brands. Sharpness, color and contrast are all adequate for me and the light weight more than makes up for the funky booked (which can be avoided if your photos are composed to accommodate. I will try to post samples soon.

Paul


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw stunning pictures taken by Rolf with his Leitz, Mirrotar is very rare I don't remember perhaps any shoots. Rubinar MC 500mm f5.6 , Minolta MD 250mm f5.6 , Rubinar 300mm f4.5 , MTO 500mm f6.3 , Nikon , Minolta Canon , Tamron comes after in my list.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+1 for the Rubinars!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hehe. I seem to have a knack of finding a need for the most expensive lenses available, even when I'm looking for among the cheap at of lenses, the mirror lens.

The Mirotar does sound like the best available, and the other that seems to stand out is the Olympus OM 500/8. Tiny, light, and (as per usual) one of the rarest Olympus lenses available ...

Was thinking f/8, the f/5.6 and above seem to negate the size advantage.
Reviews of the Rubinar f/8 seems like it doesn't compare to the f/5.6.
That 300mm f/4.5 looks just about right though. Any experiences?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rubinar 500mm f8 what I did try was a garbage, crap like noname mirror lenses. 300mm f4.5 is great lens , but hard to handle thin DOF on APS-C.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For ~300mm, you may consider an AF zoom such as Tamron 70-300 VC. They are not much longer than a mirror when they are fulled retracted.

For 500mm, the Tamron 55BB is just slightly larger than the Olympus. Nikon and Minolta are good too.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The MTO/ZM 3M-5A 500mm f/8 Maksutov-Cassegrain is also an excellent mirror lens.

All the good mirror lenses will be pricey. But luck can get you one for cheap.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WNG555 wrote:
The MTO/ZM 3M-5A 500mm f/8 Maksutov-Cassegrain is also an excellent mirror lens.

All the good mirror lenses will be pricey. But luck can get you one for cheap.

+1


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

None of those mentioned lenses will be able to reach the quality level of a Leitz or Zeiss miror lens, sorry Wink


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the disadvantages (donuts, fixed aperture, contrast loss), and the high costs of getting a good one, I've decided on another path of action. Going to get my hands on a good condition Komura Leica 2x telemore, and chuck my 90mm Elmarit on it when needed.

Yes, definitely some quality loss, and turns the f/2.8 into an f/4 (or is it f/5.6?) but it's small, light, and gives me 180mm full frame, or 270mm if I put the A7II in crop mode, costs about one third as much, and about 20 times smaller than the smallest decent mirror lens. And I can keep donuts out of my diet!


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have only four mirror lenses:

1) Minolta Rokkor MD 500mm 1:8 RF
2) Reflex Nikkor 500mm 1:8 (1982 version, 840g, minimal focus distance 1.5m)
3) Sigma 600mm 1:8
4) Sigma 1000mm 1:8

The two Sigma lenses have quite a good contrast, but they are lacking details even in the center.

The Rokkor is definitely better, with lots of detail also in the corners. However, there's a problem with stray light (well explained in this article by Nikon: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0013/). It looks a bit like vignetting; the center of the image is brighter and has a lower contrast.

The Nikkor 500mm in its newest version (!) is the best of the lenses mentioned above. Lots of detail (similar to the Rokkor, maybe a little bit better), and no stray light problems. In addition, there's the close focus distance of 1.5m (compared to 4m on the Rokkor), and a less steep (more precise) focusing. The latter is very important since one always shoots "wide open".

For practical reasons (not because of resolution / sharpness!) i consider the Nikkor to be the easiest to use on digital system cameras. I would not use them on DSLRs; for slow mirror lenses (f8, f11, or even slower) the EVF of the A7-Series is better than the OVF of any DSLR.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And what do you think about lenses such as Tamron, Soligor, Danubia, Paragon,... 300 mm f 5.6? Any good ref image quality?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antoine wrote:
And what do you think about lenses such as Tamron, Soligor, Danubia, Paragon,... 300 mm f 5.6? Any good ref image quality?

The Tamron 350mm will be the best and it is also the biggest and the most expensive.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When used on a Sony A7 (with the help of an LA-EA4 adapter), the Minolta AF Reflex 500/8 (or the newer Sony version of the same lens) has the interesting particularity of offering autofocus (it's the only autofocus mirror lens covering 24x36). I know we are on MFLenses but on a 500mm lens, autofocus can also be useful... And the optical formula is the same as the old Minolta RF Rokkor 500/8 mirror lens, which had such an acceptable optical quality that it was rebranded by Leitz fas the Leica RF 500/8 for the Leica-R system. With the A7II, you will also benefit from the built-in stabilization, which is very helpful with a 500mm lens having a max aperture of F/8!

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nothing beats the ones made by ZEISS or LEITZ Wink But thats a very different league.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Nothing beats the ones made by ZEISS or LEITZ Wink But thats a very different league.

Sure Klaus. But sometimes you get better results from an average lens with autofocus and image stabilization than from a super-duper sharp lens lacking these modern features, especially when chasing birds with a 500mm lens handheld at F/8! Wink

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abbazz wrote:
kds315* wrote:
Nothing beats the ones made by ZEISS or LEITZ Wink But thats a very different league.

Sure Klaus. But sometimes you get better results from an average lens with autofocus and image stabilization than from a super-duper sharp lens lacking these modern features, especially when chasing birds with a 500mm lens handheld at F/8! Wink

Cheers!

Abbazz

I hope one day Sony will made an adapter with build-in motor but no mirror for the A7 series. This will enable the AF points on camera which will be more effective when chasing birds.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have three mirror lenses, The best is without doubt the AF Minolta 500 / 8, then a Canon FD 500 / 8 which sadly has some fungus but still delivers sharp pictures. And a Tamron 500 / 8 which is the one I use most. It's sharp, maybe when pixel peeping at test charts the Tamron isn't as sharp as the other two? but it's plenty sharp. The reason I go to the Tamron is it's easier to use, it's smaller and has a nice long throw on the focus ring, which is a big problem on cheaper mirror lenses. The short throw makes focusing difficult. My Minolta being AF has a very short throw for manual focusing, and that's the only reason I rarely use it.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
None of those mentioned lenses will be able to reach the quality level of a Leitz or Zeiss miror lens, sorry Wink


Funny, I thought that Leitz mirror lenses were rebadged Minoltas.

Questar 700/8, anyone?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm quite happy with my RF Rokkor 5.6/250. It would be nice to have a 500 as well, sometimes i see Tokina 8/500 mirrorlenses for reasonable money, are they any good? Not been mentioned in this thread..... maybe a bad sign.... Wink

cheers, René!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

danfromm wrote:
kds315* wrote:
None of those mentioned lenses will be able to reach the quality level of a Leitz or Zeiss miror lens, sorry Wink


Funny, I thought that Leitz mirror lenses were rebadged Minoltas.


Indeed, RF 500/8 is a rebadged Minolta lens sold also by Leitz. However, the Telyt-S 800/6.3 was built by Leitz and was also available in SR (Minolta MC/MD) mount.
I don't know whether the Minolta mirror lenses RF 250/5.6, RF 800/8, RF 1000/6.3 and RF 1600/11 have been available for Leica as well. They are quite rare btw.
Maybe a Leitz expert knows more about.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
I'm quite happy with my RF Rokkor 5.6/250. It would be nice to have a 500 as well, sometimes i see Tokina 8/500 mirrorlenses for reasonable money, are they any good? Not been mentioned in this thread..... maybe a bad sign.... Wink

cheers, René!


From my experience the Tokina 800/8 is not able to match the quality of the Minolta RF 500/8 (a friend of mine used to have the Tokina lens and we compared the results with my Minolta sibling). So I would rather recommend the Minolta lens. In terms of sharpness it's certainly one of the best mirror lenses ever built and good enough for Leitz as well. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

May be I'm a liitle bit late with my post.

The 500mm is my favorite focal length. During the last 10-15 years I tried out several types and manufacturer.

Within a used price segment - let say below 500 to 600 Euro - the best one (and I still own and use it) is the Leice R mirror lens (Minolta style), then the Olympus and the Tamron. With Russian lenses (MTO) can can get problems depending cam prism (too large for the MTO's) so you have to check before a purchase.

Regardless of all the manufacturers you need a steady hand and / or a higher ISO value. That is the "price" for going lightweight with a 500mm lens. If you need a tripod better use a classic lens with glass.

http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-leica-mr-telyt-r-f8-500mm-portrait-shots-t27758,highlight,%2B500mm.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-mr-telyt-r-8-500-leica-r-t37958,highlight,%2Btelyt.html

Wink


Last edited by Rolf on Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:52 pm; edited 2 times in total