Russian mirrors: Which is the best?

[fenris]

I've been reading quite a few reviews of Russian mirror lenses, and they seem to say the following:

In order of sharpness, from sharpest to least sharp
ZM-6A
ZM-5A MC
ZM-5A
ZM-5CA
MTO 1000mm

Did I get anything wrong? I presume by "sharp", the mirror lenses are described as somewhat-sharp, rather than biting-sharp. Even the best images I've seen so far are somewhat soft'ish, though I'm not sure if it's user error or a real limitation of the mirror lenses in question.

Also, does anyone know how good copies of these lenses shape up against the Pentacon 500mm f5.6?

[Attila]

My experience is same 6A is sharper than 5x.


And 6A faster but with larger diameter.

They are shorter and lot less heavier perhaps 6A sharper too , but I am not sure. For me Pentacon is unusable heavy and long, but 6A has huge diameter so you can't use with any camera. I found Olympus E-1, Olympus E-300 fit for 6A.

[fenris]

I'm with you on the Pentacon. I have one, myself, and I find myself using it a lot less than I'd like to, because it turns me into a gun turret. I gota carry the tripod and lug the lens around, which basically prevents me from using my other lenses in any short order. It doesn't help that the lens is long as well as heavy, which means I gota wait awhile for vibrations to settle due to the leverage.

That's why I've been pondering whether I oughtta trade it in for a mirror instead, or maybe a more usable 35mm supertele. I know that 35mm superteles are generally more portable, but then I think the ones of quality are less than affordable.

[aoleg]

You forgot to add Rubinar to your list (they come in a few focal lengths as well, at least 500/8 and 300/4.5). They are mostly MC, later designs.

http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/rubinar.shtml (in Russian, but *very* useful insight with test shots). Rubinars replaced 3M and MTO lenses, and feature higher resolution and more lightweight design at the same time. A good copy of Rubinar should cost $120-190.

As to image quality, my experience is that getting a good 300mm lens such as Nikkor*ED 300/4.5 and simply cropping produces better images by far than any moderately priced 500mm mirror. This includes significantly better contrast and colors (and we're not talking Nikon vs. Zeiss colors here, it's more like cheap Korean zoom vs. Leica Summilux), more resolution and better bokeh.

My advice: don't buy a mirror to use as a long telephoto. It's a special purpose, special effect design that comes handy in a few rare situations (such as where you absolutely must travel light).

[fenris]

I do suppose Nikon's mirrors are quite respectable, though I guess that's out of the scope of this thread. Any thots?

I was considering Rubinar, too, but I have no real idea of how they weigh up against the MTOs and ZM/3M stuff.

So basically, good advice would recommend that I stick with my Pentacon till I can find some better telephoto?

[Anu]

[fenris]

Heh. and plenty of burn for the wallet, to boot. The Rubinars seem to be pretty uncommon on ebay, and unfortunately there aren't many camera stores stocking affordable lenses, nor garage sales around here.

[rick_oleson]

I have some shots posted from the 3M-6A if you'd like to see them:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3623340516/in/set-72157621612648040/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3623833178/in/set-72157621612648040/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3733314828/in/set-72157621612648040/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3733312238/in/set-72157621612648040/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3809957638/in/set-72157621612648040/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3790647562/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3674041810/

The lens is very large and hefty: about 3 pounds. Minimum focus is marked as 6 meters but mine gets down to about 14 feet in practice.

[aoleg]

[rick_oleson]

that's a good point.... so far, I've never found a mirror that could match a comparably priced glass lens for resolution (even after cropping the glass lens image), although I've seen some extremely impressive shots posted by people who have better mirrors than I have the budget for. I probably should have included this image in the set above: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/3676731355/

The compactness and closer focus distances of the mirrors are still attractive, though, and the performance of both of these mirrors has been good enough for many situations.

[fenris]

Hmm well. I guess I have my answer, then. Stick with what I have until I can afford better long glass...or a good mirror lens.

[Pancolart]

If you like doughnuts, i can confirm 3M-6A 5.6/500mm as sharp above average. At least 1280px size photo is useful on my Pentax K10D.
This is first warm day in my hometown Celje. Serial processing resize only.

[egidio]

I actually like that bokeh!

[Attila]

[ManualFocus-G]

Pancolart - great samples!

I read somewhere that the Russian mirrors are a pain to mount on DSLRs and often need a short extension tube in order to clear the onboard flash. Can anyone confirm this? Is this just for the 500mm versions? I just love the doughnot bokeh

[calvin83]

Wow! Amazing photos.

[Pancolart]

[ManualFocus-G]

That's great news that it reaches infinity with the macro ring, I might keep an eye out for one

[pirius]

I had Tamron SP 800/8, Rubinar 500/5.6 and MC MTO-11 (1000mm/8.0). The 1000mm one was not inspiring at all. I guess back in days people had to use it despite poor sharpness and contrast, but don't expect to love the images. Rubinar was sharpest of all, at least if use moon shots as a measure. I sold both Russians and kept Tamron because it is much more compact and lightweight.