View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7581 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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. _________________ The best lens is the one you have with you.
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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 |
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. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7581 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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.
http://ecpz.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=114666 _________________ The best lens is the one you have with you.
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3439 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
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? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3439 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
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.
Last edited by Minolfan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015 Posts: 86
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
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
By the way: The thread is missing an image of the lens
_________________ http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7581 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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. _________________ The best lens is the one you have with you.
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ "The eyes are useless when the mind is blind."
Sony ILCE-6000, SELP1650, SEL1855, SEL55210, SEL5018. Sigma 19/30/60mm f2.8 EX DN Art.
Rokinon 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye, 14mm f2.8 IF ED UMC. Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fish-Eye.
And a bunch of Manual-Focus Lenses
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|