Tokina mirror lens

Rich

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 10:28:14 PM2/3/12

to

Most mirror lenses are...trash. Nothing to do with the donut-bokeh, but
just crap optics. There are two mirror lenses I know of that aren't crap,
the Tamron 350mm f5.6 (rare and increasingly expensive, with very good
optics) and the best mirror lens ever made, the Questar 700mm. However,
I'm hoping this new one (hoping) is decent.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/03/tokinareflex300_6p3

Kenneth Scharf

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 11:06:04 PM2/3/12

to

I'll keep my Spiratone 400mm F6.3 T mount with adapter.

Nervous Nick

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 11:55:07 PM2/3/12

to

On Feb 3, 9:28 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Most mirror lenses are...trash. Nothing to do with the donut-bokeh, but
> just crap optics. There are two mirror lenses I know of that aren't crap,
> the Tamron 350mm f5.6 (rare and increasingly expensive, with very good
> optics) and the best mirror lens ever made, the Questar 700mm.

Please post links to photos that you have taken with either of these
lenses.

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Bruce

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 6:53:42 AM2/4/12

to

This will be the first catadioptric lens that has been designed for
digital. It should be near-telecentric to give best results. All
previous mirror lenses were originally designed for film.

The 300mm focal length is useful for Micro Four Thirds - it's the
equivalent of 600mm on full frame FX or 35mm film. An APS-C version
would be a 450mm equivalent.

I hope the Tokina optics will be a significant step up from those of
the Samyang/Rokinon/Opteka/name your brand/... 500mm mirror lenses
that don't perform especially well with digital sensors.

The Tamron 350mm f5.6 is an outstanding optic that fully justifies its
price tag. I have sold seven examples to buyers in Hong Kong, Japan
and China where it is a cult classic. Prices are rising in Europe but
that is largely because buyers from the far east are snapping them up,
with a little help from me. ;-)

PeterN

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 10:18:28 AM2/4/12

to

What will you use it for?

--
Peter

PeterN

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 10:20:23 AM2/4/12

to

Barf!

--
Peter

Bowser

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:08:37 AM2/4/12

to

Sports and nature? Scenics?

PeterN

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:20:50 AM2/4/12

to

That's hat you and I might use it for. What about the OP?

--
Peter

Savageduck

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:30:49 AM2/4/12

to

He has already demonstrated what he would use it for, Newsgroup troll fodder.
...and he didn't even have to buy one.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Rich

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 10:15:44 PM2/4/12

to

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6v5qi7d6gsnsgi2t3...@4ax.com:

I picked one up 2 years ago (complete, with the case, filters) for $150.
Last one I saw, dealer wanted $700.

This is a shot with it.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

Rich

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 10:18:03 PM2/4/12

to

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
news:2012020408304916807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

No, trolling would have been, "Those poor suckers who think any of these
mirror lenses are good:"
-Nikon 500 or 1000mm f8
-Sigma 600mm (awful)
-Tamron 500mm f8

PeterN

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 10:25:11 PM2/4/12

to

I guess Rich won over the duck. He is more of a troll than the Duck
could ever be.

--
Peter

Savageduck

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 1:14:23 AM2/5/12

to

I remain a mere shadow in the bright light of the depth of his skill set.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Chris Malcolm

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 10:15:19 AM2/7/12

to

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Most mirror lenses are...trash. Nothing to do with the donut-bokeh, but
>>just crap optics. There are two mirror lenses I know of that aren't crap,
>>the Tamron 350mm f5.6 (rare and increasingly expensive, with very good
>>optics) and the best mirror lens ever made, the Questar 700mm. However,
>>I'm hoping this new one (hoping) is decent.
>>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/03/tokinareflex300_6p3

> This will be the first catadioptric lens that has been designed for
> digital. It should be near-telecentric to give best results. All
> previous mirror lenses were originally designed for film.

Is not the design of a long focal length mirror reflex lens inherently
near telecentric? Is not the only change required to adapt a mirror
lens designed for film adapting it to the greater reflectivity of
digital sensors? A change of final lens element coatings and perhaps
some more care given to blackening nearby surfaces?

If so those aren't difficult changes. In other words it should be very
easy to adapt a film-designed mirror lens for digital.

> The 300mm focal length is useful for Micro Four Thirds - it's the
> equivalent of 600mm on full frame FX or 35mm film. An APS-C version
> would be a 450mm equivalent.

> I hope the Tokina optics will be a significant step up from those of
> the Samyang/Rokinon/Opteka/name your brand/... 500mm mirror lenses
> that don't perform especially well with digital sensors.

What's the peformance problem introduced by the digital sensors? Or
are they simply poor lenses which weren't good on film either?

> The Tamron 350mm f5.6 is an outstanding optic that fully justifies its
> price tag. I have sold seven examples to buyers in Hong Kong, Japan
> and China where it is a cult classic. Prices are rising in Europe but
> that is largely because buyers from the far east are snapping them up,
> with a little help from me. ;-)

What do you think of the price the Minolta 250mm is commanding?

--
Chris Malcolm

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 2:14:34 PM2/9/12

to

I've seen spectacular shots from the Nikkor 800/5.6 mirror lens.

With a 2x converter.

Mounted on a Nikon 1.

:-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info