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

Comparing RUBINAR 500mm with Spiratone 500mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:10 am    Post subject: Comparing RUBINAR 500mm with Spiratone 500mm Reply with quote
Comparing Rubinar f8/500mm with Spiratone Minitel-M f8/500mm

Last edited by kds315* on Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:11 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmmmm. Here's one from each for comparison...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Michael! Which is which?

Here some re-shot versions at better light.

Rubinar f8/500mm is left, Spiratone Minitel-M f8/500mm is right:











PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Hmmmm. Here's one from each for comparison...

Pics


Which is better in your opinion?

kds315* wrote:
Thanks Michael! Which is which?

Here some re-shot versions at better light.

Rubinar f8/500mm is left, Spiratone Minitel-M f8/500mm is right:

Pics



Which is better in your opinion?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rubinar, I suppose


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Between woodrims very nice nesting heron pics I would have to give it to the second image - the spiratone (the rubinar is I am pretty sure the first image, it has the warmer rendering of the rubinar, thats also quite evident in Klaus' pics). Between Klaus lenses i think however the rubinar edges it.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Hmmmm. Here's one from each for comparison...


First Rubinar, second Spiratone, I'd say. I like the first better...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
marcusBMG wrote:
Between woodrims very nice nesting heron pics I would have to give it to the second image - the spiratone (the rubinar is I am pretty sure the first image, it has the warmer rendering of the rubinar, thats also quite evident in Klaus' pics). Between Klaus lenses i think however the rubinar edges it.


I posted two images that had already been edited but not sharpened. I always do a contrast adjustment and some color tone, so these were not out-of-camera. The Rubinar is the second image, which also received a greater crop. I should also mention that my Rubinar is the 5.6/500; Klaus is comparing the 8/500.

I have posted about this Spiratone in my 500mm mirror thread. While I have not tried the earlier Spiratones - the MTO rebranding and the three Minitel made by Tomioka, I can say that the Minitel M I have is surprisingly good. This last Minitel M was not made by Tomioka. It is very small, has close focusing, and fits well in my camera bag.

When pixel peeping, the closer in you get, the more difficult it is to determine differences between mirror images. I believe the difference in sharpness between the better mirrors is probably small if measured on a 100 point scale. There are, however, other factors like focusing ease, size and weight, center hot spots, vignetting, minimum focus distance, etc. to consider - and of course, cost. Considering the $12 I paid for the Minitel M, it is well worth the expense.

The Rubinar, as you might expect, was much more money - around $200 with shipping. I waited patiently for a good price. Even with relatively small differences between the better mirror lenses, I do see the Rubinar 5.6/500 as superior to the others with the MTO 3M-6A being very close if not identical in performance. I seem to do better focusing the Rubinar.

Difference aside, I have many images from my Minitel M that stand very well on their own and may only look deficient when compared very closely to the Rubinar. Fitting in between the Rubinar and Big Mak 3M-6A are the others: Tamron, Yashica ML, and Sigma. I have not had the pleasure of using a Mirotar.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
woodrim wrote:
Hmmmm. Here's one from each for comparison...


First Rubinar, second Spiratone, I'd say. I like the first better...


Me too, however that is the Spiratone. Quite different from prior faulty results, yes?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, all that just shows how close both lenses are in performance.

The Spiratone is quite smaller and lighter than the Rubinar, but not
that easy to nail the focus, the Rubinar is quite better at that.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agreed very much with mirror lenses all-important focus is easier with longer "focus-throw". I guess longer focus-throw lenses tend to be larger? Also, consistent technique focusing on subject from infinity to closer or from closer to infinity, i.e. positioning of subject inside dof, is important when comparing lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looking at images posted by Klaus I see evidence of slight misfocusing and what I suspect traces of shake.
Squinting at the best shots only, Rubinar outedges competition, but judging set as a whole both are pretty much equal.

The main takeaway for me: in long telephoto stable mount and precise focusing action can cost a lot.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
Looking at images posted by Klaus I see evidence of slight misfocusing and what I suspect traces of shake.
Squinting at the best shots only, Rubinar outedges competition, but judging set as a whole both are pretty much equal.

The main takeaway for me: in long telephoto stable mount and precise focusing action can cost a lot.


It was on a tripod, but still there is always a chance for small shake etc. Both lenses have an extremely thing DOF and focusing them is not easy with that rotating focus ring. I usually use pre-release and magnified focusing.

Personally I think the Rubinar is the better lens Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
aidaho wrote:
Looking at images posted by Klaus I see evidence of slight misfocusing and what I suspect traces of shake.
Squinting at the best shots only, Rubinar outedges competition, but judging set as a whole both are pretty much equal.

The main takeaway for me: in long telephoto stable mount and precise focusing action can cost a lot.


It was on a tripod, but still there is always a chance for small shake etc. Both lenses have an extremely thing DOF and focusing them is not easy with that rotating focus ring. I usually use pre-release and magnified focusing.

Personally I think the Rubinar is the better lens Wink


But you chose Spiratone has better image in blind test above. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
kds315* wrote:
aidaho wrote:
Looking at images posted by Klaus I see evidence of slight misfocusing and what I suspect traces of shake.
Squinting at the best shots only, Rubinar outedges competition, but judging set as a whole both are pretty much equal.

The main takeaway for me: in long telephoto stable mount and precise focusing action can cost a lot.


It was on a tripod, but still there is always a chance for small shake etc. Both lenses have an extremely thing DOF and focusing them is not easy with that rotating focus ring. I usually use pre-release and magnified focusing.

Personally I think the Rubinar is the better lens Wink


But you chose Spiratone has better image in blind test above. Wink


Well, sometimes that happens. I have compromised Klaus' test by inserting a different Rubinar, the f/5.6 and also pictures with different degree of crop. I think the biggest point here from both Klaus and myself is that the Spiratone is a dirt-cheap lens with very decent performance. However, the Bubinar ( at least the f/5.6) is clearly superior. I have over 10,000 images taken between my several mirrors and have gotten a good appreciation of ranking between then. I would be surprised to see even the much-touted Mirotar outperform this 5.6/500 Rubinar.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent image as always Michael!

Well, those mirror lenses are (for me that is) the ones quite challenging, and I am used to using handhelf heavy and difficult to use fast projection lenses for quite a while. First I asked myself why this is the case and it quickly dawned on me, that it is the light here, more precisely the MISSING light, as those lenses are rather slow and need lots of light to allow for faster (and well needed) shutter speeds and not too high ISO!

Btw. here is the comparison between the Rubinar 8/500mm and the Tamron SP 8/500mm: http://forum.mflenses.com/comparing-tamron-500mm-with-rubinar-500mm-t80185.html
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1