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

Makinon 5.6/300 Mirror
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:50 pm    Post subject: Makinon 5.6/300 Mirror Reply with quote

I have posted about this in a general mirror thread that I started, but now that I have more experience with it I thought better to make a dedicated thread. This particular lens has no brand markings on it, but after comparing pictures I am certain it is the same lens as Makinon, although I have no idea why it has no markings. This one seems to have had a mount modification from CA to OM and does not reach infinity. Initially, I found it nearly impossible to focus accurately and equally difficult to hand hold steady. It does not do well (or I do not do well) in poor light. Fortunately, we have many very bright days here. After some use, I have gotten better at focusing and handling still. I suspect this lens may have helped me become more accurate at focusing all lenses. The focus ring is silky smooth and will move in and out of focus with the smallest movement. A icture that has no sharp spots indicates a missed focus. I have discovered that the lens is capable of decently sharp images with spot -on focus. Bokeh is as one might expect from a mirror, some very bad, some artsy, and some very good; all depending on background distance and content. These are my better shots - there are many more that were no good.



























Foolish to even try...




PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is certain it is a Makinon if it has 1:4 Macro. I would say that it is a sharp lens but the result will be OK if resized for web. Good for practicing manual focusing, though.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, and it focuses very close. The book picture shows lens ability separate from my ability.

100% crop...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful shots and colors, I really like this set overall. The focal plane looks awfully thin, I can imagine how hard it is to focus, especially with no infinity. I like them all.

I've not used a 300/5.6 mirror (all of mine are 500+/fCool and I tend to only use mirrors on the FF A7 (my Nex 6 APSC is harder to focus/balance for the long shots).

My only comments beyond beautiful pics are:

- the way you describe it, this lens seems hard to work with, even for a mirror, I'm betting if you tried a better/unmodified one you would be happier.
- I have seen the quality of sample you usually deliver and while I think these are great, I would love to see what you could do with something like a Tamron
- I agree Mirror Lenses help with focus skills, you have to finesse them like crazy depending on focus throw. You do end up having to trash more shots than with non mirrors in my experience.

Ken


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenetik wrote:
Beautiful shots and colors, I really like this set overall. The focal plane looks awfully thin, I can imagine how hard it is to focus, especially with no infinity. I like them all.

I've not used a 300/5.6 mirror (all of mine are 500+/fCool and I tend to only use mirrors on the FF A7 (my Nex 6 APSC is harder to focus/balance for the long shots).

My only comments beyond beautiful pics are:

- the way you describe it, this lens seems hard to work with, even for a mirror, I'm betting if you tried a better/unmodified one you would be happier.
- I have seen the quality of sample you usually deliver and while I think these are great, I would love to see what you could do with something like a Tamron
- I agree Mirror Lenses help with focus skills, you have to finesse them like crazy depending on focus throw. You do end up having to trash more shots than with non mirrors in my experience.

Ken



Thank you, Ken. I agree that Tamron is probably better. My preference is Rubinar 300mm, but so far from what I have seen, way too expensive. Maybe a Rubinar 5.6/500 because it is much more affordable, however if DOF is thin with 5.6/300, it must be worse with 5.6/500.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks good to me, some nice pictures there as well Very Happy

Looks like it is summer, where do you live? Surprised


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is certainly a difference in how mirror lenses perform 'in the hand'. I've had a Canon FD 500 for probably 25 years, and it focuses easily with a nice throw on the helical. The Tamron 500 is good, but it's a quicker helical than the Canon. The Samyang is quicker still, and not easy to focus - If it was the only 500 mirror I'd got, I think I'd be OK with it. But I've been spoiled by the Canon, and now the Tamron.

Nice pictures though Woodrim, you've shown that a mirror lens can be a very useful lens.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Lloyd.

Nordentro: I live in Charleston, South Carolina. It is along our east coast in the deep south. It is officially the fall season here as of September 23rd, but the temperatures have been very warm, a little too warm, and the sun is always bright. To give you some idea, stairway picture was 1/1250 sec @ ISO100 f/5.6 and dragon fly was 1/2000 sec.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really good results considering it's one of the worst mirror lenses I've used! I found it soft by default (and very hard to focus as a result). Resized down and sharpened it can be OK though. The Makinon 400mm is worse, a really difficult lens.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
Really good results considering it's one of the worst mirror lenses I've used! I found it soft by default (and very hard to focus as a result). Resized down and sharpened it can be OK though. The Makinon 400mm is worse, a really difficult lens.


There is little doubt that the Tamron 350mm is better, and the Rubinar 300mm looks best to me. I do think that this Makinon is reasonably sharp at that precise point of focus. It would be very easy to take many pictures and never hit the focus perfectly. Of the shots I shared, not all are perfectly focused. The book picture was a good test because at the angle, something had to be in focus. With the same focal length and aperture parameters, I would imagine the Rubinar having the same thin DoF, but probably easier to focus because of a sharper viewfinder image.

I should also mention that I added no sharpening after camera and did not re-size with sharpen.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to ask ask I'm not certain if this is true but the makinon lens came with corrective filters, apparently from what one of my friends said the filter is actually part of the optical design and without them the lens is quite soft! did you get the lens with one? there were 3 that would normally come with the set.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know about filters; I'll have to look and see if there is one on the rear.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The filters that I have seen are an A1 and an ND2 and a ND4, which would lead me to believe that they are just normal filters??


PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Layer-cake wrote:
The filters that I have seen are an A1 and an ND2 and a ND4, which would lead me to believe that they are just normal filters??


That's Skylight and two neutral density, right?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some more from today. I may be getting better at focusing as some of the shots surprised me with decent sharpness. However, I could imagine having this lens and never taking a sharp picture. If it weren't for the excellent focus aids of the NEX, I don't think I would have gotten any perfectly in focus except by chance.

I shop into the sun with some of them and got big time flare. That flare showed every dust bunny on my sensor.






























PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To conclude, a good lens can have a decent sharp photo even the focus is slightly off but an average one need precise focusing to get a decent sharp photo. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt too this lens can be sharper, these are nice results , this lens is not competitor of a good normal tele lens, but if you find special subjects it can be bring great success. Selective sharpening also an option an lot less cost than better mirror lens in this focal length.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say your getting to grips with the lens, there's a lot of good, sharp, images there. I think you're right - the focus ring is probably too 'critical', there is sharpness in the lens though.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As the old saying goes"A bad workman blames his tools...."

The lens looks to be capable of better results but even so, looks mediocre compared to the best.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I'd say your getting to grips with the lens, there's a lot of good, sharp, images there. I think you're right - the focus ring is probably too 'critical', there is sharpness in the lens though.


Exactly. Perhaps what Calvin says is correct. This is the best this workman can do with it - it's just too precise a focus. I will continue my search for a Rubinar, whether 350mm or 500mm as they seem to be the best I've seen.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still a challenge to get perfect focus, but there's something about the rendering that I find pleasing.





PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you nailed the 2nd shot. Did you use a tripod or handheld?


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Handheld. Tripod would have helped.


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why persist with a 'mediocre at best' lens?

Looks soft, muted colours, lack of detail and contrast....


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps its simply because he can,and we as a bonus get to see what this lens can do....without having to buy it ourselves. I have the much more "favoured" SP Tamron 350/5.6 mirror lens, and its a tough nut too handle....even on a tripod Very Happy