| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2005 02:37:15 PM · #1 |
//www.adorama.com/SY5008CA.html?searchinfo=mirror%20canon&item_no=3
Like this perhaps?
Worth it? Crap? Benefits? Downsides?
Any help or suggestions would be great! Thanks.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:45:41 PM · #2 |
I have one very similar.. it's the biggest crap ever made, it´s not worth the wrapping it comes in.
the image quality is by far worse than the worst regular lens you can find with cracked optics and vaseline smeard all over it.
the benefits.. it's very lightweight, the downside, manual focus only (you move it 1/16" and the focuspoint moves 100", so it's really hard to focus, image quality is really bad, build quality, just as bad..
the good thing.. I got a real leather bag with mine, made the purchase worth it.. almost ;) |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:51:29 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
it's the biggest crap ever made, it´s not worth the wrapping it comes in...
the good thing.. I got a real leather bag with mine, made the purchase worth it.. almost ;) |
heh..
Good info.. Thanks for the help.. I was wondering about them, but never seen anyone use one.. As well as the low cost made me think something was up.. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:54:50 PM · #4 |
Anyone have test shots from any of the mirror lenses? I hear the Sigma 600 is not bad.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:33:52 PM · #5 |
take a look at this article.
//bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html
There are also a couple of articles on it at popphoto.com, just do a search on their site.
Message edited by Manic - url-ifying. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:35:35 PM · #6 |
They can be OK if you like donuts in your bokeh.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:36:24 PM · #7 |
| Manual focus, slow fixed aperture, horrible donut-shaped bokeh...BUT really cheap way to get a Long telephoto... |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:36:36 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
They can be OK if you like donuts in your bokeh. |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Doughnuts...............
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:47:02 PM · #9 |
Does my 70-300 IS DO qualifies as a mirror lens?
I've had it about a month, and it's already one of my workhorse lenses. It was pricey though. But part of the attraction for me is a good range and IS in a very compact package with a 58mm lens thread (the filters I bought for the kit lens--which I never use--work on it). I even have used a step down and used my 49mm closeup set with it with good results.
If that's of interest, I can post some samples.
BTW - it has a reputation of not being "sharp", but from what I've read, and what i've seen, it's as sharp as any lens I have. What it needs, however, is what's called "Local Contrast Enhancement", which is basically applying a USM with amount 20, radius 50, threshold 0. Basically, it's a mid-tone contrast boost, not a sharpening.
EDIT: Oops, following the link now, I see you are talking about "cheap" mirror lenses ;)
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 23:47:52. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:54:15 PM · #10 |
No it is NOT a mirror lens. Mirror lenses are just that, Concave mirrors. The DO lens is a Diffration grating lens.
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 23:54:48. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:54:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Does my 70-300 IS DO qualifies as a mirror lens?
|
No, it doesn't. It doesn't use mirrors as optical elements to fold the light path.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 11:58:13 PM · #12 |
What???
No Doughnut Bokeh from the 75-300 DOH!!! lens?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Doughnuts.............
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 12:11:08 AM · #13 |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 12:46:01 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by yido:
What???
No Doughnut Bokeh from the 75-300 DOH!!! lens?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Doughnuts............. |
I don't seem to get any donuts, though I've seen some post them. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 12:52:13 AM · #15 |
I seen one of these on ebay where the guy's description actually said "Will someone please take this piece of Sh@t of my hands as it was the biggest mistake I ever made!" He went on to beat it down more even as he was trying to sell it.
I was laughing for days after reading his ad.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 01:20:50.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 01:02:33 AM · #16 |
The 'doughnut' is caused by the secondary mirror which is right in the center of the aperture and occupies approx 30% of the central diameter. The pricier ones have somewhat better performance but still tend to produce that 'doughnut'. I have a 1000mm, f/8.0 Wollensak "Mirrotel" made in the '60s that does a fair job with only a 24% central obstruction. But it is of the 'Maksutov' type design and the thick correcting concave lens causes some minor chromatic aberration. I use it only for astronomical photos so it's limitations are less bothersome.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:57:11 AM · #17 |
Jsut in case you've not noticed.. That lens is FD mount, not EF.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 08:13:13 AM · #18 |
Just to counterpoint all the mirror lens bashing, remember that all catadioptric telescopes share the same design as these lenses. The Celestron C5 makes a great mirror lens, and will give much better quality images than the "cheapies." Again, you get what you pay for. If you want to see a great mirror lens that's made as an SLR lens, do some research on the old Vivitar "solid cat" lenses. Mirror lenses will always have that funky donut-shaped bokeh, which may or may not be problematic, depending on the situation. Focusing is always an issue as well, as is manual focussing with any really long telephoto.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 10:47:39 AM · #19 |
Way back in the day we saw a LOT of catadioptric lenses being used by pros in sports shooting. There was a time when they were the only semi-reasonable solution for hand-held extreme telephoto shots. Good ones can be extremely sharp, and the donut bokeh is very attractive IMO.
Here's a link to a site discussing the history & performance of Nikon's mirror-reflex lenses: Nikon Catadioptric Lenses.
Here's a drop-quote from that page: To many photographers, if you can live with its relative slow fixed aperture, these lenses are very good alternative to ED glass optic of the equivalent and other optical innovation such as Internal focusing. As no diaphragm can be incorporated in reflex lenses, exposure is controlled by means of the shutter speed of the camera or by neutral density or other filters. The doughnut-shaped blurs of the out-of-focus areas of pictures are a characteristic of reflex lenses and can produce fascinating visual effects.
I would NOT dismiss catadioptric lenses out-of-hand; they are a very cost-effective way to get extreme telephoto into yourarsenal, and especially useful for dSLR cameras as we have the capability of dialing up our ISO as needed to get a faster shutter speed. However, it shoulkd go without saying that you need a VERY good example of the breed, the cheap ones (as pointed out by the earlier posters to this thread) are absolute junk.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:01:12 AM · #20 |
All the doughnut joking aside, everyone should look at the review by Bob Atkins where he compares a 500mm Tamron Mirror lens with a 500mm L prime. The mirror lens performs very well for about 10th of the price.
The downside is that it is a manual focus and has a constant f8 aperature. And of course you cannot forget the , Hmmmmmmmmm... doughnuts........ for Bokeh.
I would not use a mirror as my main and only supertelephoto but if it's a fun lens for occassional use and you don't want to spend $1000-$5000 for a regular supertelephoto, it's a good buy. You just have to use it in outdoor lighting and not on rapidly moving objects as it will be difficult to focus. Before bashing lens/lens design, we should know the limitations of the design and how to use it. Mirror lens can produce some wonderful images at a very low cost. You however cannot expect it to as versatile and easy to use as a $1000+ supertelephoto lens.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:08:37 AM · #21 |
The Vivitar 500 Mirror gets a fair old slating..
Here's some mirror lenses on B & H
I'm curious how well the Sigma 600mm Mirror performs..
To answer my own curiosity.. Not very well.. 600 mirror sample pics
The site also has samples for LOTS of Sigma lenses.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 11:14:38.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:17:39 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
The Vivitar 500 Mirror gets a fair old slating..
Here's some mirror lenses on B & H
I'm curious how well the Sigma 600mm Mirror performs.. |
The Sigma's a 600mm f:8 for just under $400.00. The Vivitar is 500mm f:8, for $109.00. The Vivitar, from all I've hard, is a piece of junk, and I believe it at that price, but what I've heard of the sigma is very enticing. If you're running a 1.5 ratio on sensor size, which is in the ballparl of most dSLRs, that Sigma is 900mm for less than $400.00 PLUS they are lighweight and compact, which is definitely NOT true of 1000mm conventional telephoto lenses...
Robt.
Those samples seem pretty decent to me for the price. They are definitely useable pictures. here's one that shows the bokeh well:
Sigma Catadioptric Image
R.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 11:20:15.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:24:16 AM · #23 |
They can also be used pretty effectively in urban candid photography, where the strangeness of the bokeh can enhance the rigidly graphic nature of a lot of urban scenery.
Obviously, if you want a pin-sharp, smooth-as-hell turbo-telephoto, you shouldn't even be considering this.
e |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:27:32 AM · #24 |
Oh, and according to the blurb on the Sig 600, it has a ZEN finish. Now what could be cooler than that?
e |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:34:34 AM · #25 |
bear that sample has some ugly ugly bokeh :-(
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 06:21:01 AM EDT.
