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

Who actually produced a 250mm mirror lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:03 am    Post subject: Who actually produced a 250mm mirror lens? Reply with quote
Yesterday on eBay I stumbled across a Berolina 250mm 5.6 mirror lens in M42 mount. I was vaguely aware of the Berolina brand name (a German reseller?) but had never before heard of a mirror lens in a 250mm focal length. I am fairly sure that Berolina did not produce its own lenses, so the question is: Who actually built a 250mm mirror lens?

Some googling tells me that Minolta did, but the Minolta 250 does not resemble the Berolina on eBay. So assuming these were not built by Minolta, anyone have any idea who else could have built this 250mm mirror lens?

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My assumption is they were built by Minolta from glass to finish... yet I can be wrong...


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:24 am    Post subject: Re: Who actually produced a 250mm mirror lens? Reply with quote
connloyalist wrote:
Yesterday on eBay I stumbled across a Berolina 250mm 5.6 mirror lens in M42 mount. I was vaguely aware of the Berolina brand name (a German reseller?) but had never before heard of a mirror lens in a 250mm focal length. I am fairly sure that Berolina did not produce its own lenses, so the question is: Who actually built a 250mm mirror lens?

Some googling tells me that Minolta did, but the Minolta 250 does not resemble the Berolina on eBay. So assuming these were not built by Minolta, anyone have any idea who else could have built this 250mm mirror lens?

Regards, C.


There is also a "Lentar" and "Focal" version in M42.
It is said that Cymko made most of the Lentar lenses, but unable to find more information on that subject on the web, same story like with most of the third party Japanese lens manufacturers of the 1960's...

Minolta did not supply lenses to other manufacturers or brands except Leitz/Leica.

I think it will remain a miracle but I doubt that it will be nearly as good as the Minolta lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Found a discussion from a few years ago on a German forum about this lens (the Berolina 250mm 5.6 mirror). The upshot of that was that this is "not the best you are likely to find" (understatement).

In German:
https://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=22987

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I suspect as this 300mm is only 1000g 250 mirrors were not too competitive:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/300mm.htm
And this zoom was 870g
http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/23A.html

So the Mirror would not be a big saver on weight or balance.

350mm may be a better point to start mirrors and 500+ is even more justifiable.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Haven't ever heard of the Berolina 250/5.6 but I did own the Ohnar 300/5.6 Mirror lens for a brief period. Maybe it was because I picked it up inexpensively, but I was more than pleased with the results combined with the extremely compact form factor. Loved having that little thing in the bag. It was not the best quality mirror lens I have used, which for me, is the Tamron 350/5.6, but it certainly was still useful and could get some nice results. Close focus wasn't too bad if I recall either. I know that one was rebranded several times (Spiratone, I think, and some others). I digress, but shared in case you're in the market for a small affordable mirror lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought Lentar 250/5.6 in near mint many years ago. It is the worst mirror lenses I have tired: low resolution and very low contrast! Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry, I'm late for the discussion. I suspect all the 250mm mirrors were made by the same company except for the Canon movie lens and Minolta. The Minolta has been the superior mirror and those other 250mm like Lentar don't come close. The Lentar has been on eBay for bigger prices, leveraging the Minolta reputation. I'd stay away from it and have.

The common 300mm lenses are a mix. It seems most are made by the same supplier with only a few exceptions like Spiratone and MTO. I have noticed from others' experiences that there is a great copy variance. I sought an Ohnar and found a very good one. Others have not been as lucky. I also have a good Super Danubia which looks to be the same lens as some others. FYI, the Ohnar was also labeled as Cambron and sold by Cambridge Photo. The 300mm can be quite good but you have to hope for a good copy. There is less risk but higher cost with some others.

The Minolta 250 is superb but very expensive. The Tamron SP 350 is also very good but again, expensive. The Minolta Vectis 400mm is on the level of their 250mm and while less costly, is very rare and requires an adapter that provides power and protocols to the lens. It was also made for APS, so has some vignetting in the corners.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder what would be the advantage of such a mirrorlens over a cheap 70-300mm Tamron or Sigma Telezoom.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I wonder what would be the advantage of such a mirrorlens over a cheap 70-300mm Tamron or Sigma Telezoom.


Bokeh perhaps -- some people like those doughnuts!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I wonder what would be the advantage of such a mirrorlens over a cheap 70-300mm Tamron or Sigma Telezoom.


Most probably size and weigth.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I wonder what would be the advantage of such a mirrorlens over a cheap 70-300mm Tamron or Sigma Telezoom.


Most probably size and weigth.


Definitely size and weight. Not bokeh for the donuts but when donuts can be avoided, the bokeh can be quite nice. When I started with mirrors, I was looking for a longer lens. I do have some but have not enjoyed using them due to their size and difficulty focusing accurately. Then there's also the CA. Many of the mirrors out there are not very good. That coupled with poor technique lead to a bad rap. The good mirrors can be very easy to focus in combination with mirrorless cameras with focus magnification. I do believe the images I'm getting from my mirrors are sharper than what many vintage lenses will provide and much easier to use.

This is from last evening as the sun was going down. 1/200 second and ISO 640. Minolta 8/400 Vectis. Donuts well controlled.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I wonder what would be the advantage of such a mirrorlens over a cheap 70-300mm Tamron or Sigma Telezoom.


Most probably size and weigth.


absolutely - i have both the tamron SP 350/5.6 mirror, and the tamron SP 300mm/5.6 glass, and the tamron SP 70-300, and the mirror is far and away most pleasant to use, while providing comparable results; the refractive lenses weigh 2x-3x as much and are both nose-heavy, making them extremely unpleasant to shoot without a tripod, and they're both nearly a foot long while in use. the 350 mirror weighs almost nothing, and with the hood and adapter packed away, fits nicely in the smallest camera bag.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah but I am talking about the Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro That weighs only 455 grams. Less than the SP 350mm 5.6. On my Pentax K-1 it is still perfectly balanced when fully extended. I am sure the Sigma alternatives are about the same. It is also cheaper than the Tamron 06B and it has AF. Of course there is the purple fringing it suffers from but that is mostly a problem at 300mm not stopped down. Around 250 mm it is already a lot less. I will admit that Minolta 250/5.6 looks good. More like a compact 135mm, but that is an expensive lens people want $1000 for it.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Yeah but I am talking about the Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro That weighs only 455 grams.


it's my understanding that this is the manual focus lenses forum

that aside, the tamron 70-300 di iii rxd will still set you back at least $500 new, while most of these mirror lenses (besides the minolta 250mm, a true collector's item) can be had for $100 or less if you keep an eye on ebay


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
benadamx wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Yeah but I am talking about the Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro That weighs only 455 grams.


it's my understanding that this is the manual focus lenses forum

that aside, the tamron 70-300 di iii rxd will still set you back at least $500 new, while most of these mirror lenses (besides the minolta 250mm, a true collector's item) can be had for $100 or less if you keep an eye on ebay


Mirror lenses are in a different class and so different that it doesn't make much sense to compare to refractors. Today's high-end refractors will outperform any mirror lens and cost more too. When speaking of mirrors, some things should be understood as limitations and benefits. There is no stopping down. There are donuts. But they are smaller and lighter and are virtually free of CA. The better ones are plenty sharp. The bokeh can be bad or very good. Here is another example from last evening where I think the bokeh is quite pleasing.



PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
benadamx wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Yeah but I am talking about the Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro That weighs only 455 grams.


it's my understanding that this is the manual focus lenses forum

that aside, the tamron 70-300 di iii rxd will still set you back at least $500 new, while most of these mirror lenses (besides the minolta 250mm, a true collector's item) can be had for $100 or less if you keep an eye on ebay


so there is a forum rule AF lenses cannot be mentioned? Then why are you mentioning a modern 70-300 by Tamron while I was talking about a model That has been sold for $100 new? Just to show me how damn wrong I am and how right you are? I find that kind of insulting.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ Woodrim:
Great bird pictures!
Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
The better ones are plenty sharp. The bokeh can be bad or very good. Here is another example from last evening where I think the bokeh is quite pleasing.



Sharp where it counts - and the bokeh is quite wonderful.
A lovely image indeed
Tom


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is a nice CANON CL f4/250mm, does not cover FF, but works very well on mft-cameras. Has great sharpness, contrast and colors!

Album is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157706849937545

Samples:









PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What a wonderful thread full of great information and photos. I have a copy of the Lentar 250mm f5.6 and I agree it’s the “worst” mirror lens of all time (and I have dozens and dozens of mirror lenses. However it takes incredible photos. What I mean is if you like interesting rendering, you will be hard pressed to find more interesting rendering than this lens. It distorts reality with all kinds of glorious crud.

It manages not only to make the typical donut bokeh, but astonishingly, it breaks the rules of mirror lenses and has terrible chromatic aberration too. Normally people take it for granted that mirror lenses have little to none of that. It turns high-contrast edges into rainbows, and that’s not all. It also has optical vignetting off-axis, so it turns the donuts into cats-eye donuts near the edges of the frame. This is the same thing that causes the famous “swirly bokeh” of the Helios 44-2 and other similar lenses.

The outcome is really funky color rendering and contrast with a swirling vortex of rainbows in the background. One of my daughters was playing in the lawn sprinkler on a hot summer day and a boxwood bush was behind her, and I happened to snap an action shot of her that, miraculously, was in focus. The effect is indescribable and it’s a favorite photo: a look of sheer delight on her face, with this incredible moody-looking backdrop. I won’t post it because I don’t post photos of my children online.

I saw someone on a forum once got one of these Lentar lenses and converted it into a pen-holder for their desk. To each their own, I guess. I wouldn’t trade mine for anything. You can pay a real premium for really bad lenses that are, objectively, garbage — and there are modern companies making their entire business off of producing niche cheap novelty knockoffs of simple vintage designs and selling them prices you might sneer at depending on your standards of “good.” I have some of these lenses and seriously, they’re garbage: the mounts aren’t even toleranced close to correctly and they wobble around in the camera like a Cracker Jack toy. And yet, are they really garbage if you can create amazing memories with them? Any character/novelty effect can be overdone, but can also create photos that are unforgettable and people will mention as their favorites—they’ve never seen anything like it. And some of these things simply cannot be emulated in post-processing.

So if you want the most crystal-clear photos of birds with creamy-smooth backgrounds, I wouldn’t recommend the Lentar, but I also don’t think it has no reason to exist :-)


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Based on the physical appearance of the Berolina shown in the following link, as well as the rendering of the sample images, I am nearly certain it is identical to the Lentar I have (which I have also seen as Focal, as another member mentioned). https://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=22987


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
xaprb wrote:
What a wonderful thread full of great information and photos. I have a copy of the Lentar 250mm f5.6 and I agree it’s the “worst” mirror lens of all time (and I have dozens and dozens of mirror lenses. However it takes incredible photos. What I mean is if you like interesting rendering, you will be hard pressed to find more interesting rendering than this lens. It distorts reality with all kinds of glorious crud.

It manages not only to make the typical donut bokeh, but astonishingly, it breaks the rules of mirror lenses and has terrible chromatic aberration too. Normally people take it for granted that mirror lenses have little to none of that. It turns high-contrast edges into rainbows, and that’s not all. It also has optical vignetting off-axis, so it turns the donuts into cats-eye donuts near the edges of the frame. This is the same thing that causes the famous “swirly bokeh” of the Helios 44-2 and other similar lenses.

The outcome is really funky color rendering and contrast with a swirling vortex of rainbows in the background. One of my daughters was playing in the lawn sprinkler on a hot summer day and a boxwood bush was behind her, and I happened to snap an action shot of her that, miraculously, was in focus. The effect is indescribable and it’s a favorite photo: a look of sheer delight on her face, with this incredible moody-looking backdrop. I won’t post it because I don’t post photos of my children online.

I saw someone on a forum once got one of these Lentar lenses and converted it into a pen-holder for their desk. To each their own, I guess. I wouldn’t trade mine for anything. You can pay a real premium for really bad lenses that are, objectively, garbage — and there are modern companies making their entire business off of producing niche cheap novelty knockoffs of simple vintage designs and selling them prices you might sneer at depending on your standards of “good.” I have some of these lenses and seriously, they’re garbage: the mounts aren’t even toleranced close to correctly and they wobble around in the camera like a Cracker Jack toy. And yet, are they really garbage if you can create amazing memories with them? Any character/novelty effect can be overdone, but can also create photos that are unforgettable and people will mention as their favorites—they’ve never seen anything like it. And some of these things simply cannot be emulated in post-processing.

So if you want the most crystal-clear photos of birds with creamy-smooth backgrounds, I wouldn’t recommend the Lentar, but I also don’t think it has no reason to exist Smile


I think that is a very good characterization of faulty art lenses. I have several that give me great joy. If the Lentar only had a sharp center, I might really like it. The faults you described sound like the mirror may be out of collimation, which is common with cheap mirror lenses. I have two Makinon 300mm and neither is much good for the same reason. I have taken them apart but have not been able to improve them. I had actually gotten a few sharp images but found it very difficult, probably because of the mirror not being perfectly aligned and it going in and out of focus with the turning of the focus ring (not in the usual way).


PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
so there is a forum rule AF lenses cannot be mentioned? Then why are you mentioning a modern 70-300 by Tamron while I was talking about a model That has been sold for $100 new? Just to show me how damn wrong I am and how right you are? I find that kind of insulting.


no, just that it seems to me you're essentially asking is "why would anyone use a vintage MF lens when AF lenses exist" when this forum is already a massive answer to that question - we're using these old lenses because we want to, for whatever reason; in this particular case (at least for me) its largely a price advantage, the teles and zooms for sony FF mirrorless are expensive; getting the alpha adapter to use maxxum lenses isn't any cheaper.

for dslr it's a different matter, i got my tamron 06B in a bundle for $200 with an older pentax DSLR + tamron 28-300 AF .. who knows what that guy was up to (maybe it was leftover from a film camera?). if the last 30 years of AF zooms and teles are accessible to you, i probably wouldnt recommend getting a mirror lens, or at least not any shorter than 500mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2