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

Sigma 600 mirror
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 12:10 pm    Post subject: Sigma 600 mirror Reply with quote

Haven't had time to test during the day yet but....
Goes well with the moon.



PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2015 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks good.
If the weather is sunny this weekend, maybe some outdoor time will show off this lens in daylight.
Thanks for sharing
OH


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2015 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice!

I have one being delivered to me, for Olympus OM mount. I am looking forward to it.


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2015 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a decent moon shot. Reminds me that I plan to get a shot of the moon with my Sigma 600. I'll be shooting with my Tamron 500 as well, see which does the better job. Right now, my money's on the Tamron. I wish that wasn't the case, but it appears that this version of the Sigma 600 I have now is not as good as the one I bought new in 1984. Now, that was one sharp lens.


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2015 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine is in Fuji X mount and came full of fungus and unusable so have dismantled and cleaned. there is some damage to the mirror finish that can not be fixed without replacement of the mirror but it doesn't seem to bother it at all.
As for the sharpness, focus depth is pretty short but if you get it its pretty good.
Am loving this beauty.

Couple shots from this morning.








Beard!


PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2015 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now those are good.
You must be happy with this lens
OH


PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2015 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed nice samples! I've always wondered about this one, seen some as part of a set for good prices but i did not buy them, too scared to buy a lemon i guess... like yours, i have come across too many Sigma lenses full of fungus or haze that could not be cleaned, so i rather skip the attic finds nowadays most people are selling around here!


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne,

You point is a valid one. But to get that great deal, one must accept some risk. Of course, being wise to have it in your favor whenever possible.

Well, as an example. my Sigma 600 arrived this afternoon. It looks intact and not abused. Very clean.
Can detect slight mirror edge damage, like Beardsarebest's sample.
But mine is a dud. Must be misaligned because it has an astigmatism.

The filtermatic insert is present, and no difference with the filter in or removed.

I can demand a full refund, but would like to try to correct this if possible. BeardsareBest, can you elaborate the details of how you disassembled your copy and serviced it? Any tips?



PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I'm interested in this as well. WNG555, my Sigma's problems appear to be similar to yours, although not as bad. Here's a pic I took of a lily in my backyard yesterday, followed by a 100% crop, showing a closeup of the sort of ghosting of the subject that was occurring, as if it were out of focus. Oh, and I had the lens/camera mounted to a stout tripod and was using my camera's self-timer.

NEX 7, Sigma 600mm f/8 Mirror, ISO 100, 1/320 sec.


100% crop:


I noticed that if I removed the clear filter from the back of the lens, this ghosting was reduced somewhat, but still wasn't eliminated. In fact, the above image was shot with the clear filter removed.

I found that, even after applying some saturation, contrast adjustment, and sharpening, it improved things, but as you can see, the ghosting is still there. It almost looks like a double image, caused by camera shake, but it isn't.



I took six shots of this lily, and this is actually the sharpest of the six. So anyway, I wouldn't describe my Sigma as a "dud" but it is far from the excellent copy I owned back in the 80s. Dang it. So, I'm it looks like I'm gonna sell this one and try again.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I'm getting same results except worse.
I also tested it with a tripod and let the assembly stabilize. But I knew it wasn't an issue of camera shake. I'm getting the ghost image as if the point isn't converging regardless of focusing.

So something has been knocked out of adjustment.

The cleaned up shots above are superb. Especially the bird. So it's worth an effort to me to attempt it before moving it on.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My personal experience with manufacturers like Sigma is that they are indeed able to produce good quality lenses, however not all of their lenses of the same model line delivers equal good quality because their quality management is obviously below standard. So you never know what you get when you buy their lenses, even when new. If you are the lucky one you can get a perfect bargain with surprisingly good quality but if you're out of luck then you get just crap. This is somehow comparable with the mean variation of the quality of Russian lenses. Sometimes they deliver stunning quality and sometimes it's better to put them into waste.
At the end of the day it's like playing lottery. I've stopped to buy such lenses because I was already too often out of luck.
Quality producers having a rather good quality control system implemented are avoiding such customer frustrations but demand their prices, though you know what you get in advance.
Just my 2 cents.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've read somewhere that over time the mirror gets somehow slightly bent because it sits too tight in it's fitting. The person who wrote that piece simply loosened the screws a bit to give the mirror a very little more room to relieve the tension and that worked.
Pictures were as sharp as when it was new.

Unfortunately i do not know exactly whether this was about the Sigma or another mirror lens and where to find that piece again.....

Meanwhile i bought our daughter a second-hand Sony DSLR set (didn't want her to leave home with my 5D and L lenses). The seller had a mirrorlens they did not use and threw it in the deal.
It's a manual focus Samyang 800mm f/8, i gave it a quick try on the A3000 and this is fun!
Samples:





PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers peeps.
The bird shot was over exposed so brought that back in PP but the other 2 are resized only.
I have plenty of rubbish photos from this lens as well.
The focus is a challenge. Focus peeking is a must with this lens.
Keep trying and enjoy.
When you nail the focus you will be happy.
Nice pics from the samyang.
Very Happy
WNG555.
it comes apart fairly easily.
i read this
http://stanfordphoto.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/review-sigma-600mm-f8-reflex-part-1-of.html
and this
http://www.ebay.com/gds/Cleaning-Fungus-from-any-Mirror-lens-but-Sigma-600mm-here-/10000000177596050/g.html
then had a go.
Once you get the front off it's pretty simple.
Just don't try to remove the front mirror as it is glued on.
Like is said you should mark the parts before disassembly.
Make sure you have the correct phillips driver for the rear section(only the large black part not the mount) as there is loctite on the screws and they are a pain to remove, you won't break them but if the tip of your tool is not in good condition you will round the fitting and will not be able to unscrew.
Yes the whole front is held there by tape! once i removed it it was binned and used electrical tape for reassembly wurth tape but if you can get 3M tape use it as it has better adhesion and temperature range.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had good luck with a Sigma XQ 400mm purchase. The optics were excellent, albeit the construction was lacking.
So I was encouraged to give Sigma a try again. But I understand that they didn't earn their reputation for no reason back then.

Hey, that Samyang is a very good sample....nice boat shot!

BeardsAreBest:
Thank you for the links and tips. I'll peruse them tonight. And venture into the Sigma mirror.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of quality control, that Samyang 800mm f/8 is a great example. TrueLoveOne, I'm glad to see you got a good example. I bought one a couple years ago, and I bought it because I'd seen many very sharp images on the 'net taken by that lens. Mine was used but in like new condition. it was also a turkey. It was almost impossible to focus because nothing was sharp. A real disappointment. I went ahead and returned it. I think I wrote a review on it at eBay, cautioning buyers against buying it unless the seller had a return policy. So, yeah, obviously Samyang's QC leaves a lot to be desired with their mirrors.

BeardsAreBest, thanks for the links and your description of dismantling this lens. But you didn't mention any sort of adjustments you did. Are we supposed to believe that just dismantling it may relieve the stresses TrueLoveOne mentioned?

My experience with dismantling mirrors is limited to a Tamron I used to own. It was actually very easy dismantling the Tamron, but I could see no adjustments anywhere at the level of dismantlement I took it to. Seems to me, though, that it would require a special tool to indicate correct focus when the lens is in a dismantled state.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael,
BeardsareBest disassembled and cleaned his lens because it had lots of fungus.
He was asked how he did it and any tips on the process.
"Are we supposed to believe that just dismantling it may relieve the stresses TrueLoveOne mentioned? "
I don't think he expects you or TrueLoveOne to believe anything, he simply describes his procedure for getting inside the lens.
And the problems in his lens may not have been the same as those giving grief elsewhere. He dismantled his and gave tips on how others could do the same if they want to have a go at identifying what is wrong with their lens. If that is not possible they might have to get it seen to by a professional.
Good luck with it
OH


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mea culpa. I guess I had tunnel vision when I was reading his response.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No worries I'm sure. I saw his lens when he got it and it was very badly infested with fungus. He tried it out before cleaning and it showed that it had the potential for very sharp images with the fungus gone. There must be something seriously awry with these other lenses for them to be so bad. I am not sure how they could be rectified in a DIY manner without some form of calibration - even with great care in aligning the parts by marking them before disassembly.
I had a Tamron (55B) which I had CLA'd by a professional, for fungus issues, and it had to be re-aligned when done. It gave a satisfactory result but was not anything to get excited about so I sold it. This Sigma 600 is better than it was.
Recently I was given a Minolta AF Reflex 500, which is nearly as good as the Sigma that BeardsaAreBest has, just doesn't reach as far Very Happy
Cheers
OH


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who was it who said.."You usually only get what you pay for" or "There is a difference between cost and price"

Someone actually offered me $50 for mine,I am still laughing.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

Recently I was given a Minolta AF Reflex 500, which is nearly as good as the Sigma that BeardsaAreBest has, just doesn't reach as far


Besides the 100mm difference of focus length, do you really believe that the Sigma is delivering the better quality pictures compared to the Minolta lens? Would be a more than a big surprise for me. I have the older Version, namely the "RF Rokkor 500/8" and this lens is able to deliver very sharp pictures under optimal conditions which are required anyway for such long distances. However, I didn't hear so far that the newer version (which is more or less identical) for the AF system is worse than mine.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Oldhand wrote:

Recently I was given a Minolta AF Reflex 500, which is nearly as good as the Sigma that BeardsaAreBest has, just doesn't reach as far


Besides the 100mm difference of focus length, do you really believe that the Sigma is delivering the better quality pictures compared to the Minolta lens? Would be a more than a big surprise for me. I have the older Version, namely the "RF Rokkor 500/8" and this lens is able to deliver very sharp pictures under optimal conditions which are required anyway for such long distances. However, I didn't hear so far that the newer version (which is more or less identical) for the AF system is worse than mine.


That is interesting.
Do you have some images from yours?
OH


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

Do you have some images from yours?


Will check that later and post it in the forum. Which way or sensor size do you prefer? I could eventually offer APS-C (equals 750mm) or MFT (equals 1000mm) or FF in combination with the old famous Minolta M/A converter which leads to actual 1000mm on FF (I am still on the "old fashioned" SLR system with my Sony A850 which is not directly compatible with Minolta MF). Originally with the FOV of 500mm (as designed) I can still use it only with film so far. I have the lens since ages as I bought it originally for my Minolta X-500 in the 1980's. Maybe I can try to use a glass-less adapter for closer focus to use it as 500mm on FF. I've never tried this before with this lens. Would be an opportunity.

However, this lens was also sold by Leitz as a Leica branded lens although produced by Minolta. Do you really believe that they would have done that, if the lens would have been crap? I don't think so.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Oldhand wrote:

Do you have some images from yours?


Will check that later and post it in the forum. Which way or sensor size do you prefer? I could eventually offer APS-C (equals 750mm) or MFT (equals 1000mm) or FF in combination with the old famous Minolta M/A converter which leads to actual 1000mm on FF (I am still on the "old fashioned" SLR system with my Sony A850 which is not directly compatible with Minolta MF). Originally with the FOV of 500mm (as designed) I can still use it only with film so far. I have the lens since ages as I bought it originally for my Minolta X-500 in the 1980's. Maybe I can try to use a glass-less adapter for closer focus to use it as 500mm on FF. I've never tried this before with this lens. Would be an opportunity.

However, this lens was also sold by Leitz as a Leica branded lens although produced by Minolta. Do you really believe that they would have done that, if the lens would have been crap? I don't think so.


Oldhand,

I've done some examples on my NEX: http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rf-rokkor-500mm-f8-used-on-nex-t71129.html

Please advise if that's good enough or if you prefer to see some more as mentioned before.

Edited: Test concluded with additionally MFT and FF as a separate posting in the same thread.


Last edited by tb_a on Wed May 13, 2015 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This Sigma 600 of mine is giving me fits. It's like it has a split personality. I just went back and looked at some of the shots I took with it a few days ago, and among a pile of almost sharp images, there's this one that's a real stand-out. Virtually tack sharp. No trace of the halos of ghosting that I had in many of the other shots, either. So where did these ghosting halos go? Like I said, this lens is giving me fits.

NEX 7, 1/60, ISO 320, mounted to a stout tripod, self-timer used.


A 100% crop:


I think I just need to get comfortable with this lens -- use it a lot more so I can discover its quirks. One of the things I'm also gonna do is use it with my film cameras. Unfortunately, it has an EOS mount, which means I have only one camera to use it with -- an Elan IIe -- which is actually a quite decent camera. It just doesn't get used much is all. Still, I'm thinking that its performance may be entirely different on film as opposed to a crop-body digital camera.

I don't know why I concern myself so much with this lens when my Tamron 55BB is an excellent performer. I guess much of it has to do with pleasant memories of the old C/FD mount one I owned back in the 80s and at least the perception at this point that this one isn't as good.


PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael,

Would you do me a favor and post some 100% crops from this shots?
I could then compare it better to my Minolta mirror lens also taken with a NEX.
I am really curious now as to how the "real" pictures look in comparison.
In your posted size my pictures also look more than sharp.....
However, rather heavy purple fringing is already visible in your pictures already in this size.