MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

5,6/250 catadioptric lens
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:25 pm
Post subject: 5,6/250 catadioptric lens
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:25 pm
Post subject: 5,6/250 catadioptric lens
Reply
I saw it today morning at old shop. I don't remember the brand, but not first one.

It's very small and light. A 250 lens that fits in any place. It is very tempting to me.

What about these lenses?

Bad
Poor
Good
(I know, not very good).

Thanks in advance.

Rino.


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Is that lens Minolta made?
If so, it is relatively rare.


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Hi Koji.

No, not Minolta (I think). Not first class brand. I don't remember the brand Rolling Eyes Embarassed

May be in T mount. It has an adapter that seems to be T/M42.


Rino.


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Lentar ?


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
CarbonR wrote:
Lentar ?


BINGO.

You win. Laughing

Do you know anything about it? IQ?

Thanks, Rino.


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:10 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:10 pm
Post subject:
Reply
What did I win ? Razz

I only know it because a french guy interested in catadioptrics mentionned it on a forum, but he hasnt bid so no more infos than the brand name Rolling Eyes


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:18 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:18 am
Post subject:
Reply
Don't buy it! I've got a similar no-name one, and it was crap. Easily the worst lens I ever owned. Here are the pics - resized, not even cropped.





This is NOT camera shake, and this is NOT misfocusing. I didn't have a problem holding and focusing Nikkor*ED 300/4.5, and this mirror lens is even shorter and not much slower.

Contrast is uber-low. There is no sharpness whatsoever. Not fixable in PP.

If you want a good 250mm mirror lens, look at Tamrons, they were good. Mine ended up this way:



Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:44 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:44 am
Post subject:
Reply
Laughing
Laughing
Laughing


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:37 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:37 am
Post subject:
Reply
Tamron did not make a 250mm, only a 350/5.6 (and 500/8, of course), see my sign Razz


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Laughing Laughing Laughing

Thanks guys.

It seemed too good to be truth. Now yes, it is a bad lens.

Rino.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
estudleon wrote:
It seemed too good to be truth. Now yes, it is a bad lens.


Well, I paid $10 + shipping for mine, and I got a free T2-M42 mount with it. Besides, honestly, the helicoid is great: wide, and with very long focusing throw. I am occasionally using the helicoid to mount weird lenses (such as rangefinder ones, or with some strange mounts) for taking macro pictures. $10 well spent, I say Smile

I tried another cheap mirror (MC Samyang 500/Cool, and it was "better", but still a special effect sort of thing. Glowing and unsharp wide open, low contrast etc. This one I sold.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:33 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:33 pm
Post subject:
Reply
aoleg wrote:
estudleon wrote:
It seemed too good to be truth. Now yes, it is a bad lens.


Well, I paid $10 + shipping for mine, and I got a free T2-M42 mount with it. Besides, honestly, the helicoid is great: wide, and with very long focusing throw. I am occasionally using the helicoid to mount weird lenses (such as rangefinder ones, or with some strange mounts) for taking macro pictures. $10 well spent, I say Smile

I tried another cheap mirror (MC Samyang 500/Cool, and it was "better", but still a special effect sort of thing. Glowing and unsharp wide open, low contrast etc. This one I sold.


Thanks Aoleg.

Not mirror to me. Having the good (and connoisseurs) fellows that are here, not bad purchases any more.

Rino.


Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
I had a 250/5.6 Lentar mirror lens... it's all relative. Mine was better than Aoleg's, but that doesn't make it an especially good lens. As bottom-tier mirrors go, it was the best of the three I had: much better than a 500/8 Samyang, and slightly better than a 300/5.6 Quantaray that I still have. This suggested to me that the nastiness of cheap mirrors tended to run more or less in proportion to focal length.

I turned my Lentar into a sort of long-range macro lens by removing the focus stops and putting a piece of red tape around the barrel which would become visible as a warning just before the front end fell off of the lens. I now have rather better solutions for these situations....


Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:14 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:14 am
Post subject:
Reply
rick_oleson wrote:
I had a 250/5.6 Lentar mirror lens... it's all relative. Mine was better than Aoleg's, but that doesn't make it an especially good lens. As bottom-tier mirrors go, it was the best of the three I had: much better than a 500/8 Samyang, and slightly better than a 300/5.6 Quantaray that I still have. This suggested to me that the nastiness of cheap mirrors tended to run more or less in proportion to focal length.

I turned my Lentar into a sort of long-range macro lens by removing the focus stops and putting a piece of red tape around the barrel which would become visible as a warning just before the front end fell off of the lens. I now have rather better solutions for these situations....


Hi rick!!

I'm looking for a good 250/400 mm tele lens range. It's for my wife, I don't use the larger focal lenses. Exceptionally a 135 mm.

I want not the best, my wallet tell me so. But a good lens for her animals shots.

Very interesant the solution for macro. My J-9 has this - I bought with this feataure - and focus from @ 60 cm.

Regards, Rino.


Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Hi Rino:

I cannot in good conscience call this a good lens. It was significantly better than my 500 Samyang, which looked a lot like the extremely poor images posted above in this thread, but that is a very low standard.

I am very confident that you could get better images with an average quality 135mm f/2.8 lens and an average quality 4-element 2x teleconverter. That would give you 270mm at f/5.6, focusing to about 1.5 meters, about the same overall size, better sharpness and contrast and you can stop it down to increase depth of field. It doesn't look as cool, and you don't get the cool donut bokeh, but for general use it will serve you better.


Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:10 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:10 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Yeeess!

I forget that used a rolleinar 135/2,8 with converter rollei x2 with a rolleiflex SL 35 E.

I don't know why I forget that. Very light and small. My wife will be happy with no monster lens.

She use a mamiya 2,8/135. Purchase only a converter 2x.

Thanks Rick, very much.

Regards, Rino.


Post
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:20 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:20 am
Post subject:
Reply
estudleon wrote:
I'm looking for a good 250/400 mm tele lens range. It's for my wife, I don't use the larger focal lenses. Exceptionally a 135 mm.


Why not getting a zoom then? MF zooms are inexpensive, and some of them (like all Nikkors, most Tokinas, Vivitar Series 1 and Soligor C/D) can be exceptionally good. Even the worst zoom will still take better pictures than any cheap mirror lens. Or you can get an inexpensive AF zoom for about $100 such as Tamron or Sigma 70-300, and you'll still get better images with it than with any mirror lens!


Post
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
aoleg wrote:
estudleon wrote:
I'm looking for a good 250/400 mm tele lens range. It's for my wife, I don't use the larger focal lenses. Exceptionally a 135 mm.


Why not getting a zoom then? MF zooms are inexpensive, and some of them (like all Nikkors, most Tokinas, Vivitar Series 1 and Soligor C/D) can be exceptionally good. Even the worst zoom will still take better pictures than any cheap mirror lens. Or you can get an inexpensive AF zoom for about $100 such as Tamron or Sigma 70-300, and you'll still get better images with it than with any mirror lens!


Hi aoleg and thanks.

Sure you are right but in my country the lenses market is very small, I can choose among a few lenses that are in the few shops.

Ebay? The monetary devaluation made very expensive almost any purchase in u$s or E. Time to wait better situation. Confused

Thanks again. Regards, Rino.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1