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

Mirror lens not good for Moon shot?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As a sidenote, there are quite a few good 500/8 mirror lenses:

Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, Tamron (55BB), MTO, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Canon FD, Tokina

edit: Removed the Vivitar 600/8 Solid Cat. First of all, It's not a 500mm secondly I have yet to see good sample pictures from this lens. It has a good reputation though.

Last edited by Pontus on Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:08 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:
As a sidenote, there are quite a few good 500/8 mirror lenses:

Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, Tamron (55BB), MTO, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Canon FD, Tokina, Vivitar (600/8 solid cat)


Yes, but some of those are not the 'cheap' ones I was referring to.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste, I wasn't writing in reply to your post. I just wanted to point out which 500/8 mirror lenses are good, regardless of price.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:
Oreste, I wasn't writing in reply to your post. I just wanted to point out which 500/8 mirror lenses are good, regardless of price.


OK, no problem. It's just that there are a lot of bad ones.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
even if good, I dont like the "donut" bokeh you get from mirror lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
even if good, I dont like the "donut" bokeh you get from mirror lenses.


We these lenses first appeared in the 1960s, that effect was rather interesting. That lasted about two weeks though.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:
As a sidenote, there are quite a few good 500/8 mirror lenses:

Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, Tamron (55BB), MTO, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Canon FD, Tokina

edit: Removed the Vivitar 600/8 Solid Cat. First of all, It's not a 500mm secondly I have yet to see good sample pictures from this lens. It has a good reputation though.

Do you know what the focal length of the Pentax mirror lens was?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Pontus wrote:
As a sidenote, there are quite a few good 500/8 mirror lenses:

Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, Tamron (55BB), MTO, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Canon FD, Tokina

edit: Removed the Vivitar 600/8 Solid Cat. First of all, It's not a 500mm secondly I have yet to see good sample pictures from this lens. It has a good reputation though.

Do you know what the focal length of the Pentax mirror lens was?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I made a mistake, the shortest Pentax Reflex is the 1000/f11 and I have no idea how it performs. I was sure I had read several positive reviews on the non - existing 500mm Confused

My mind plays tricks on me sometimes...


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think when you are taking photos of the moon you don't have to worry about the doughnut bokeh.. Very Happy If there is a cheap enough mirror out there why not buy it and try for yourself.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder why cheap mirror lenses are often crap.
It's theoretically very easy to make a sharp mirror lens. Some people are making their own mirror lenses at home and and producing much better mirrors than these Vivitar mirror lenses are - so I don't get why lens makers like Samyang don't do it better, it would be so easy.

Are maybe the cheap 500/8 mirror lenses unparabolized?
(unparabolized means not corrected for aberrations, if they are faster than ~F10-12 mirror lenses need such a correction to produce sharp images)


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:05 am    Post subject: http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6842892286/in/photostream Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I wonder how good very cheap asto-mirror-teleskopes are.
For example
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Skywatcher-Newton-Teleskop-114-1000-SkyHawk-EQ-1-/230819756409?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Teleskope&hash=item35bdedf979
etc... there are many options betwenn 50€ and a few thousand euros.
At least they are optimized for a sharp center at infinity so maybe they could easily beat the Vivitar/Rokinon etc. crap - and they often come with very good or at least decent tripods

I try to buy some and try it.


Be careful trying to image with a cheap newtonian scope. Some of these don't have enough backfocus for cameras (just enough for eyepieces). The focuser is also questionable for imaging. However, there are reasonably cheap "imaging newtonians" out there -- check with the folks over at the site "www.cloudynights.com" for better guidance.

I've never tried an imaging Newtonian, but I have tried a relatively cheap Celestron 8-inch SCT scope. The resolution at infinity at the center is diffraction limited after you get proper collimation -- you can see a pretty good in-focus airy disk at f/20 (using a 2x Televue powermate) on a video cam, with a red filter or near IR filter to help calm the effects atmospheric seeing. The earliest preliminary imaging results on Jupiter (with awful seeing conditions and approximate collimation only) show that the 8-inch scope easily outresolves the conventional Nikon 800mm f/5.6 lens.

800mm Nikkor at f/8 (DSLR): http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6842892286/in/photostream

4000mm Celestron SCT at f/20 (Video cam): http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/7926550804/in/photostream


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It could just be that those who used the so called "crap" mirrors rushed the process of image taking and did not get to know/understand the lens .I know for the best results of the Tamron SP500/8 you need really good light,clear clean air and a steady hand/tripod for the best results.I suppose for the best moon shot you need clear skies a very steady tripod....an ounce of luck Laughing


Attila, I would love to try one of those Russians...have you/or anyone else had any experience with the MTO 1000mm.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
It could just be that those who used the so called "crap" mirrors rushed the process of image taking and did not get to know/understand the lens .I know for the best results of the Tamron SP500/8 you need really good light,clear clean air and a steady hand/tripod for the best results.I suppose for the best moon shot you need clear skies a very steady tripod....an ounce of luck Laughing


Attila, I would love to try one of those Russians...have you/or anyone else had any experience with the MTO 1000mm.


I did try 1000mm few weeks ago it was hard to shoot even with very sturdy tripod (I thought very sturdy), seems must have a rock before lens. Weather was little windy and lens is shaked, I couldn't made any good shoots.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I wonder why cheap mirror lenses are often crap.
It's theoretically very easy to make a sharp mirror lens. Some people are making their own mirror lenses at home and and producing much better mirrors than these Vivitar mirror lenses are - so I don't get why lens makers like Samyang don't do it better, it would be so easy.

Are maybe the cheap 500/8 mirror lenses unparabolized?
(unparabolized means not corrected for aberrations, if they are faster than ~F10-12 mirror lenses need such a correction to produce sharp images)


I don't know, I suppose they don't really care.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
It could just be that those who used the so called "crap" mirrors rushed the process of image taking and did not get to know/understand the lens .I know for the best results of the Tamron SP500/8 you need really good light,clear clean air and a steady hand/tripod for the best results.I suppose for the best moon shot you need clear skies a very steady tripod....an ounce of luck Laughing


Attila, I would love to try one of those Russians...have you/or anyone else had any experience with the MTO 1000mm.


1000mm
http://forum.mflenses.com/mto-1000mm-f11-mirror-lens-t54186.html

500mm f6.3 I kept this one
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/russian_lens/3m-6a/?

500mm f8
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/russian_lens/mc3m5ca/?

Longer than tamron and diameter also a bit more large.


and probably one of the most rare and expensive

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/czj_spiegelobjektiv_500mm_f4/?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I shot this with one of those God awful cheap 70-300 sigma super zooms last winter. Freehand at F/5.6, iso 200 at 1/500th sec.
I absolutely love my MR-telyt 500/8, it does have it's shortcomings but I usually pack it anyways. For those moments when I use it, it excels.
Unfortunately, I have yet to use it to shoot the moon, since I haven't seen the moon on a dark sky since last winter.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
I shot this with one of those God awful cheap 70-300 sigma super zooms last winter. Freehand at F/5.6, iso 200 at 1/500th sec.
I absolutely love my MR-telyt 500/8, it does have it's shortcomings but I usually pack it anyways. For those moments when I use it, it excels.
Unfortunately, I have yet to use it to shoot the moon, since I haven't seen the moon on a dark sky since last winter.
Jeez i would be happy to be able to produce a pic like that, i don't believe my hands would be steady enough though.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This was one of 12 shots atleast, and 1/500th is decent enough with a 300 lens on crop if you really focus and breathe.
Tho the thing with very clean atmosphere and no light pollution helps aswell. I'm amazed at the super zoom now that I look back tho. It's usually rather unsharp at 300, as per reputation and this would be wide open for it. Not bad for an AF, 100 euro lens. I'm sort of sad now that I gave it to my sister Smile


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, it seems I did shoot the moon with the MR-telyt this spring, must have been a very joyous occasion to see the sky.. If I recall it was very low on the horizon still, so lower resolution is ensured. The second one is a rather extreme crop from a shot with the apo-telyt 180/3.4. Not bad for a 180mm lens shot wide open. Also taken in the blue hour through some trees.




PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nisseliten wrote:
Oh, it seems I did shoot the moon with the MR-telyt this spring, must have been a very joyous occasion to see the sky.. If I recall it was very low on the horizon still, so lower resolution is ensured. The second one is a rather extreme crop from a shot with the apo-telyt 180/3.4. Not bad for a 180mm lens shot wide open. Also taken in the blue hour through some trees.


wow, that first one is good!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4