Listar 500 f8. Yet another mirror lens

[wupdigoj]

I found this lens paying my weekly visit to a second-hand shop. I didn't need/want such a lens, but with 13,50 Euro price tag I just couldn't resist . The lens is very compact, not much bigger that a Tamron SP 28-80 retracted and lighter also.


I thought the mount was M42 but It has turned to be T2. I have not a T2 adapter yet, but I managed to screw half a turn a M42-K adapter, just to try the lens in a pentax digital.




It is the first time I have ever used or owned a mirror lens. Taking the general comments about no-name mirror lenses, my expectations were really low. I thought I could always use it to make a low power, compact telescope if turned to be a dog. I have taken some pictures with the Listar and a Tamron SP 60-300, the only long telephoto I own, just to have something to compare. First the Tamron: hand held, 300 mm, f8, 1/800, ISO 400, no processed except resize. It was taken thru a window glass, so no the best contrast.



Then the Listar. The field of view is obviously smaller. Same settings as previous (f8 of course).



A comparison of details. First the Tamron:



And now the Listar:



I think the image quality is more or less in par with the Tamron (taken the different focal lengths). The sharpness of the Tamron could be of course improved by stopping down further. Not so with the Listar.
I am generally happy with the IQ of the Tamron, so I think I will also be happy with the mirror. The contrast is low, and it is difficult to focus, but in good light, it is a very decent performer and so easy to carry.

Javier

[Attila]

Congrats! I have to agree with you! Enjoy your new toy and share your pictures with us, please!

[Helios]

I have a copy of this lens , and I find it so-so ...

[Rolf]

Congrats for your find.

Your samples shows 2 typical mistakes.

1. To use such lenses you need very good light to get acceptable results.
2. Use this lens for subjects in a more closer distance - long distance shots are always with low contrast.

[martyn_bannister]

An excellent find. Looking at the detail shots I noticed the mirror lens is a deal sharper with horizontal lines, while the tamron veritcal? I was specifically comparing the tops of the columns and the lines in the roof. Would be good to get a comparison using a tripod.

Certainly a bargain lens though

[AhamB]

[wupdigoj]

Thank you for your responses.

Rolf: I agree with you. This lens is almost useless in other than sunshine conditions. Using film with this lens would be difficult (minimun 800 ASA, I think) if you want to shoot handheld, And of course in distant subjects the contrast will be low.

martyn_bannister: I think the difference is due to the contrast. Although it is not very apparent in the pictures, there was a change in the light between them. I agree a proper comparison would be made on a tripod. But the Tamron is long and heavy, and very difficult to use on a tripod because of that. I made a sort of DIY tripod collar for using it in a film pentax body, but have not adapted it to my new digital yet. Anyway I will use the Listar handheld: if I have to carry a tripod, I will carry the Tamron as well instead of the mirror, for sure.

AhamB: yes, it is probably true. However, there should not be any bluring: I used shake reduction (pretty efficient in my experience), a "safe" speed (1/800) and I supported the lens agains the window glass...

Javier