Any good 500mm Mirror lenses? Or are they all fuzzy?
Steve Haehnichen
I recently purchased a 500mm f/8 Mirror lens, made by "Sakar", for $150.
I'm pretty unimpressed with the first roll of prints I got back.
I am aware of the typical quirks of a mirror lens, like the dougnut
focus blurs, extremely small depth of field, and fixed aperature.
These I can handle.
What bothers me is that even at its sharpest, it's very soft. I have
two pictures of a helicopter in flight, one with a Canon 100-300USM at
300mm, and one with the Sakar 500mm mirror.
The Sakar picture is hazy and soft, even in the "sweet spot" of focus.
The colors are a bit drab and contrast low, but I can live with that.
The Canon is about what I would expect: nice colors, good contrast,
pretty sharp. For small prints, the Canon is OK, while the Sakar
looks out of focus.
So here's the question: Did I get a lemon? Should I return the Sakar
and get another mirror lens (like the Vivitar or Tokina)? Or, are all
lenses of this design a bit on the soft side? (Maybe Sakar just
sucks.)
I hope I'm not expecting the impossible from a $150 lens, but I'd like
to think that they can get a crisp picture in bright light. Is anyone
out there happy with their f/8 mirror lens?
To keep or exchange, that is the question..
Thanks.
-Steve
Steve Haehnichen Vigra, Inc. San Diego, CA
st...@vigra.com (619) 597-7080 x169 Fax: (619) 597-7094
Kenneth Norton
I was blessed to have my Vivitar Series-1 600mm F8 stolen last fall. It was
relatively sharp, but the depth-of-field seemed like 2 inches at 1000
yards.
Actually, sharpness with mirror lenses has more to do with shutter speed
than anything else. I found that I needed to push my film to ISO 200
inorder to keep the shutter speed anywhere near the 500-1000 range needed
for these lenses. Make sure that you are using a HEAVY tripod too. I
spent more on wasted film with this lense than what it cost me to buy it.
Insurance company couldn't locate another Series 1 so they bought me a new
camcorder instead. Gotta love "full replacement value" insurance.
Ken.
Ron Walton
Kenneth Norton <keno...@bdcast.com> wrote in article
<01bb8a2b$17106d80$7225...@bei114.bdcast.com>...
: I was blessed to have my Vivitar Series-1 600mm F8 stolen last
fall. It was
: relatively sharp, but the depth-of-field seemed like 2 inches at
1000
: yards.
:
You neglected to mention lens mount needed. The S-1 600mm solid cat
was one of the sharpest mirror lenses made, and few others can equal
it. Sigma makes a 600mm f/8 mirror, and Vivitar makes a 500mm f/8
mirror. I'm sure there are others. I dought if you find anything to
equal the Vivitar S-1 600mm.
Ron Walton
: Actually, sharpness with mirror lenses has more to do with shutter
:
:
:
Bob Neuman
In article <ogsp9qx...@hobbes.vigra.com>, st...@vigra.com says...
Hmmm...., I guess, rather than answering your specific questions, I
will relate some of my experience with mirrors, since the answers are
not simple. My first experience was with an older-style Nikkor 500mm f8
borrowed from a friend long ago. I could not get a sharp photo with it
(using a tripod at medium speeds in poor weather), and returned it with
a low opinion of it. Years later, I tried another similar Nikkor on a
sunny day with Tri-X hand-held, and was surprised to find that a high
percentage of my images taken with it were quite sharp. It has become
a favorite lens, producing sharp images (even with a TC14 converter
attached to get 700mm) when used with an understanding of its limitations:
hand-held shutter speeds must be 1/500th or higher; tripod shutter
speeds must be either fairly high, or low, to avoid the 1/2-1/30th or
so "vibration" range (unless the tripod is not extended, is weighted
down, and the reflex mirror is locked up); air quality (heat uniformity
and freedom from contaminants [smog or fog]) must be sufficiently good.
Having tried some other mirror lenses, I have seen no others of similarly
high quality (including other Nikkors), though a newer-style Nikkor 500mm
f8 and a Minolta 250mm f5.6 were pretty good. The cheap mirrors were
uniformly terrible. the Tamron wasn't too bad. (I have not tried the
Vivitar Series I or Sigma 600mm's, though.) 500mm f8 mirrors, being
light and physically short, hard to focus, and with fixed (slow)
apertures, are easy to carry, but hard to use even when they are
optically excellent.
Hope This Helps
Greg Katz
In article <ogsp9qx...@hobbes.vigra.com>, st...@vigra.com
says...
>
>I recently purchased a 500mm f/8 Mirror lens, made by "Sakar", for
$150.
Steve,
I would return it. I recently bought a an old JC PENNY 500mm/f8 at a
local flea market for only $35. It is Made in Japan and seems to be
sharp for a mirror lens. I use it on my N70 Nikon body. If I were you,
I would look for a higher quality USED one rather than a lower quality
new one.
Greg Katz
Stroudsburg, PA (USA)
Andrew Durey
steve,
One of the better deals in a 500mm Mirror lens is from Vivitar.This lens
is sharp (as can be for a 500mm Mirror) gives good contrast,will close
focus at five feet and is very well made.Your next best bet would be a
Samyang lens.Now for some inside info.Both lenses are made in Korea by
the Samyang Optical Corp..Samyang is a large optical manufacturing
factory and the only one in Korea.Any lens stamped Made in Korea comes
from Samyang.Samyang lenses have a great reputation and they make some
nice sharp lenses at good prices.They might be a little hard to find but
Samyang is distributed by Phoenix Corp. out of New York.You Can buy the
Vivitar lens from B & H Photo in N.Y.C. for $124.00.You can get the
Samyang lens from Porter's Camera store in Iowa.Its listed in their
catalog under great bargains for $119.00.The ad doesn't say Samyang but
call Porter's and they will verify it is. Both of these prices are
current as of 8-17-96.
Good Luck!!!
Jesse
Saint Petersburg,Florida
Chris Kidd
I've just bought a Vivitar 500mm f8 mirror lens, and tested it out around
DC on Sunday. I have no problems with sharpness, and in fact I was
pleasantly supprised at the contrast (I've been using a Vivitar 400mm f5.6
before). This lens was $137 (all inclusive) from B&H, which was ordered on a
Tuesday, and delivered on Thursday morning (UPS standard delivery) - so no
complaints here. Okay, the lens has no aperture control, and is a little
odd in that you can focus past infinity, but otherwise, value for money it's
very good.
Chris Kidd
Brian Matsumoto
Steve Haehnichen wrote:
>
> Chris Kidd <kidd> writes:
>
> > I've just bought a Vivitar 500mm f8 mirror lens, and tested it out
> > around DC on Sunday. I have no problems with sharpness, and in fact
> > I was pleasantly supprised at the contrast (I've been using a
> > Vivitar 400mm f5.6 before).
>
> I have some more info to add.
>
> I just received a processed roll of slide film that included several
> pictures taken with the Sakar before I returned it. A few of *these*
> shots are much sharper. They were all taken on a tripod with mirror
> lockup.
>
> So, it seems the Sakar mirror lens was not so soft after all. The
> tripod made a huge difference, even though I kept the shutter speed
> faster than 1/500 when hand-holding. Also, these new photos were of
> distant buildings where I had plenty of time to compose and adjust
> focus. The focus ring was extremely sensitive, which may explain why
> the other pictures are soft.
>
> Regardless, I have already returned the lens, and now have a Kenko 2x
> teleconvter instead. From what I can tell, the pictures using the 2x
> TC and Canon 100-300 are on par with the mirror lens, so I'm happy
> with this arrangement. Additionally, I get to adjust the zoom and go
> all the way to 600mm. With magnifications like this, I find the focal
> length adjustment is very useful, since I would have to walk miles to
> accomplish the same thing. :)
>
> Sometime in the future I may buy another mirror lens, since it was
> very small, compact, and cheap. I have heard many good comments on
> the Tokina and Nikon mirror lenses, but those are priced on par with
> "real" glass. I would probably get the Vivitar model.
>
> -Steve
>
> --
>
> Steve Haehnichen Vigra, Inc. San Diego, CA
> st...@vigra.com (619) 597-7080 x169 Fax: (619) 597-7094
Steve:
You might consider the Tamron. It is pretty sharp and its price is
considerably lower than the Nikon. I've owned one, used it frequently,
and find its sharpness acceptable. However, if you use a 300 mm f4.0
with a teleconverter 1.4B (Nikon) you may be willing to carry the extra
weight and go with the refractor system. Of course it costs!
Brian
Don M. West
In article <50207v$l...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Chris Kidd <kidd> wrote:
> I've just bought a Vivitar 500mm f8 mirror lens, and tested it out around
> DC on Sunday. I have no problems with sharpness, and in fact I was
> pleasantly supprised at the contrast (I've been using a Vivitar 400mm f5.6
> before). This lens was $137 (all inclusive) from B&H, which was ordered on a
> Tuesday, and delivered on Thursday morning (UPS standard delivery) - so no
> complaints here. Okay, the lens has no aperture control, and is a little
> odd in that you can focus past infinity, but otherwise, value for money it's
> very good.
>
> Chris Kidd
And I purchased a second hand Sigma 600mm mirror recently (let's be
honest...I CAN'T afford an all glass lens of that focal length right
now!). I ran it through some tests at the San Francisco Zoo...and I am
quite happy with the results, sharpness seemed quite acceptable for such a
lens.
Don
Rich Zuchowski
In <west-29089...@437.rahul.net> we...@rahul.net (Don M. West)
writes:
>honest...I CAN'T afford an all glass lens of that focal length right
>now!). I ran it through some tests at the San Francisco Zoo...and I am
>quite happy with the results, sharpness seemed quite acceptable for
such a
>lens.
>
>Don
What was the color rendition like? I recently purchased a 800 - 1200
Kalimar zoom which I thought might be the answer to my prayers for an
inexpensive long lens. The sharpness was fair, but the color rendition
was terrible. Everything had a light brownish-orange cast to it. This
wasn't noticeable when just looking through the camera/lens, but was
only apparent when the photos came back. I alternated a few shots
using a Nikkor 75-300 for comparison and the color was just so much
better on the Nikkor that I decided that the Kalimar just wouldn't do.
I sent it back for a refund the next day.
Rich Zuchowski
Steve Haehnichen
Chris Kidd <kidd> writes:
> I've just bought a Vivitar 500mm f8 mirror lens, and tested it out
> around DC on Sunday. I have no problems with sharpness, and in fact
> I was pleasantly supprised at the contrast (I've been using a
> Vivitar 400mm f5.6 before).
I posted the initial inquiry/complaint about the Sakar 500mm lens, and
John Kalucki
Greg Katz (gk...@prolog.net) wrote:
: In article <ogsp9qx...@hobbes.vigra.com>, st...@vigra.com
: >
: >I recently purchased a 500mm f/8 Mirror lens, made by "Sakar", for
: $150.
Sigma makes a 600m mirror. It's not the best lens in the world, but it's
probably better than most other mirror lenses out there. Sigma usually
makes pretty good stuff. I haven't used any other mirror lenses, but my
results aren't as uniformly bad as others have reported with other mirror
lenses.
I've noticed that it's hard to get a really top notch image with the
mirror lens. Even at 1/1000 or using a big heavy tripod, the image
isn't all that sharp. Colors tend to wash a bit when taking a picture
of something really far away as well - especially here in (cough), LA.
If you are just looking for a 4x6 enlargement, you'll be pretty happy. I've
never tried to go any larger.
-John Kalucki
jo...@gordian.com
Marvin Morris
You wrote:
Colors tend to wash a bit when taking a picture
of something really far away as well - especially here in (cough), LA.
There are several problems that most people do not take into account
when shooting with long lenses. First, no matter what the weight of
the lens is, you should use a tripod or at least a monopod. You are
not only magnifing the image 10 times but any motion on the part of
the camera will also be magified 10 times. Though mirror lenses are
very light, does not also mean you can hand hold them. Even vibration
from the mirror flapping can induce some movement.
Second, and this relates to the loss of color in the LA skyline. When
you shoot through long distances through haze, you magnify the haze 10
times as well. You need special haze filters with a very high degree
of filtration to handle this. The longer the open area the more haze
you have to cut out.
Marvin Morris
Tamron/Bronica
John Y. Liu
In article <504a57$9...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> wrote,
>What was the color rendition like? I recently purchased a 800 - 1200
>Kalimar zoom which I thought might be the answer to my prayers for an
>inexpensive long lens. The sharpness was fair, but the color rendition
>was terrible. Everything had a light brownish-orange cast to it. This
>wasn't noticeable when just looking through the camera/lens, but was
>only apparent when the photos came back. I alternated a few shots
>using a Nikkor 75-300 for comparison and the color was just so much
>better on the Nikkor that I decided that the Kalimar just wouldn't do.
>I sent it back for a refund the next day.
>
How much was the Kamilar and how were the results other than the weird
color? How would it be for black and white?