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

Makinon 5.6/300 Mirror
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


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


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought a copy for my friend. It is not as good as the best one but it is good enough for certain kind of photos.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
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


Mo: Don't take it too seriously; Ian is desperate to criticize me as can also be seen earlier in this thread. You surely know why even if others don't. His delusions spill over.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ROFL. Woodrim is quick to tell others their pics are crap but if you point the same out to him, then it's you who has some issue.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ROFL. Woodrim is quick to tell others their pics are crap but if you point the same out to him, then it's you who has some issue.


Interesting. Can you.... can anyone point to such an occurrence?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ROFL. Woodrim is quick to tell others their pics are crap but if you point the same out to him, then it's you who has some issue.


Interesting. Can you.... can anyone point to such an occurrence?

No problem . Here are some photos in Oriental style. Wink
http://ecpz.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=114666


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ROFL. Woodrim is quick to tell others their pics are crap but if you point the same out to him, then it's you who has some issue.


I'm still waiting for an example(s), Ian. Maybe can anyone else help me understand whose pictures I called crap? I need to find them so I can apologize. Or maybe an apology is due from Ian?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ROFL. Woodrim is quick to tell others their pics are crap but if you point the same out to him, then it's you who has some issue.


I'm still waiting for an example(s), Ian. Maybe can anyone else help me understand whose pictures I called crap? I need to find them so I can apologize. Or maybe an apology is due from Ian?


Hello? Ian? Any examples? Maybe a false flag?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
I'm still waiting for an example(s), Ian.

Ian is still searching, I think, not yet prepaired to admitt he made a mistake.
I visit the Forum some years longer and I don't remember me such things.

There is something that is bothering me more.
I think the results you get with the lens are not stellar, but may be good enough.
I have purchased a copy on a thriftmarket. Looked great. Couldn't let it there!
At home mounted the lens on a camera and saw ... nothing at all at first.
Well, there was a very little bit of a picture, seen by staring in the viewfinder.
Caused by an absolutely matte mirror! I had not seen that when I had the lens in my hands.
So I have to try to clean the thing.
Maybe yours isn't 100% clear either!? This kind of troubles can be a production problem.
Ofcourse it is not one of the top notch mirror lenses, but may be it can a bit better still?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolfan wrote:

I think the results you get with the lens are not stellar, but may be good enough.
...
So I have to try to clean the thing.
Maybe yours isn't 100% clear either!? This kind of troubles can be a production problem.
Of course it is not one of the top notch mirror lenses, but may be it can a bit better still?


I think you are correct that it is just "good enough", not great. BUT, it has been fun using it and certainly a challenge. The focus has to be perfect and it is not forgiving. Of course if I were able to use it for more distant subjects, it would provide a greater depth of field. However, there is a mount issue that prevents distance use. It is actually in very good condition with no dirt or haze.

The Minolta 250mm is excellent, but costly; the Rubinar 4.5/300 also looks excellent to my eye, but again, costly. This one will have to do for me.

Thanks for your comments.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, for mr the challance to get mine working by cleaning the mirror.
Mechanically it is great. If I don't succeed I can still use the focusing unit for a projection lens. Smile

Last edited by Minolfan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Had one of these some months ago. Mine showed mediocre contrast, strong astigmatism and "sharpness" wasn't a word that was applicable to the lenses performance. I'm pretty sure that there was something wrong with either the mirror or some of the lens elements. Apart from this, foscusing is generally very tricky with mirror lenses, in my experience. At least your's seems to be dencently sharp when used correctly Smile


By the way: The thread is missing an image of the lens Wink



PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many copies I have seen suffer form condensation on the mirror surface(easy to clean). However, even a mint copy will be nowhere as good as the Minolta 250/Rubinar 300/Tamron 350.

P.S. Don't use the rear filter on a digital camera. It will decrease the quality of the lens.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
After experiencing shooting with a mirror lens (Tamron 55BB and Sigma 600), I'd say your results are quite satisfactory. And well composed. Your thread helped convince me to pass on a Makinon 500 f/8 that appears complete. Conclusion is that it's a good mirror lens, just not an excellent mirror lens. And I already own a 55BB, so no point in struggling with the Makinon.

I did notice that the 500 and your 300 doesn't come with a lens hood. It's sort of accepted that these lenses require a long hood to help with contrast.

For higher focal lengths, the mirrors get competitive with the refractors. But at 300mm, I don't think so. It's still smaller and lighter, but optically, especially at f5.6, a conventional lens won't have the mirror drawbacks.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
After experiencing shooting with a mirror lens (Tamron 55BB and Sigma 600), I'd say your results are quite satisfactory. And well composed. Your thread helped convince me to pass on a Makinon 500 f/8 that appears complete. Conclusion is that it's a good mirror lens, just not an excellent mirror lens. And I already own a 55BB, so no point in struggling with the Makinon.

I did notice that the 500 and your 300 doesn't come with a lens hood. It's sort of accepted that these lenses require a long hood to help with contrast.

For higher focal lengths, the mirrors get competitive with the refractors. But at 300mm, I don't think so. It's still smaller and lighter, but optically, especially at f5.6, a conventional lens won't have the mirror drawbacks.


Thank you. You are correct about benefits at 300mm, but it sure is small in comparison. More like one of my 50mm lenses. In my experience with these older MF lenses, 300mm seems a challenging length. I have an eye out for one more, hoping it will be the one. At 400mm, I'm fairly satisfied with my Novoflex Noflexar.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2