Posted by Brad Mangas on March 23, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Has anyone had any experience with a mirror lens? I hadn't even heard of such a thing until a few months ago. I read a short review on Bob Atkins site comparing a 500 f/8 mirror lens to a Canon 500 f/4.5L.
I wasn't surprised that there was a difference in quality. But what really surprises me is the difference in cost.
500 f/8 mirror lens: hundreds of $$$
Canon 500mm : thousands of $$$
I may ask this on the imaging forum but I trust you all as much as anyone.
Thanks
Posted by Daniel Loomis on March 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Brad - The cost is the tipoff. I costs a lot less to make a mirror lens than a straight through. I have not heard anyone on any of the photography discussions say a nice thing about them.
My guess is they are more subject to vibration, CA, damage from normal use, etc., but that is not from personal experience.
Of course, all the huge observatories use mirrored telescopes so the technology is probably capable enough. Then again, they have little choice as a straight through scope would be impossibly large and heave for an equivalent resolution.
You may have noted my reference to using this lens for my Billy Joel shot in 1979 on another thread - that photo is one of my most valuable images of all time. The short of it is that a mirror lens is very small, lightweight, has a fixed f-stop (usually f8), has no IR/VR, and is inexpensive while a normal super tele lens is very large, heavy, expensive, can have IS/VR, and of course has variable f-stops.
With a mirror lens you will see that out-of-focus highlights appear as tiny donuts, which can be very distracting. I have an incredible image of a loon I took back in the 70's with my 500 mirror but the loon looks like it's being attacked by killer donuts from the sparkling sun on the water all around.
You would not expect an $8,000 500mm lens to come even close to the image quality of a $600 500mm mirror lens.
You CAN get wonderful images with a mirror lens if you use proper technique - we've been doing it for 40 years or more - however with today's uber-zoom lenses that are even smaller (like an 80-400 for example) you can get better image quality at 500mm by shooting with the zoom and rezzing up (or by using a 400mm f5.6 lens and 1.4x converter). I would probably never buy a mirror lens today unless forced to do so - I would pick a zoom and rez up or use a 400 w/converter instead.
Posted by Aaron Szabo on March 23, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Yep, Tim's right. The bokeh looks like doughnuts. Sounds good until people try to eat your photographs...
I'm selling this Tokina 300mm 2.8 that works well with a 1.4 teleconverter if anyone is interested.
Posted by Larry Fischer on August 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Brad,
I just got back to Garden of the Gods. Used a 500 mm Nikor Reflex on some antelope, some rock faces, and a mule deer at o-dark thirty.
These shots were decent and I was happy to be able to get the big buck on record at 600 yards. ISO at 3200. Didn't turn out too bad.
Stop by sometime and I'll show you the photos.
The main thing I've read about mirror lenses is the "brokah"? is not pleasing. One get circles in some shots for background. And color saturation is supposed to be better with glass. I can take care of that in processing....
I'm keeping mine because of the cost. I already owned it when I got my digital cameras...
Discussion
4 repliesI wasn't surprised that there was a difference in quality. But what really surprises me is the difference in cost.
500 f/8 mirror lens: hundreds of $$$
Canon 500mm : thousands of $$$
I may ask this on the imaging forum but I trust you all as much as anyone.
Thanks
My guess is they are more subject to vibration, CA, damage from normal use, etc., but that is not from personal experience.
Of course, all the huge observatories use mirrored telescopes so the technology is probably capable enough. Then again, they have little choice as a straight through scope would be impossibly large and heave for an equivalent resolution.
With a mirror lens you will see that out-of-focus highlights appear as tiny donuts, which can be very distracting. I have an incredible image of a loon I took back in the 70's with my 500 mirror but the loon looks like it's being attacked by killer donuts from the sparkling sun on the water all around.
You would not expect an $8,000 500mm lens to come even close to the image quality of a $600 500mm mirror lens.
You CAN get wonderful images with a mirror lens if you use proper technique - we've been doing it for 40 years or more - however with today's uber-zoom lenses that are even smaller (like an 80-400 for example) you can get better image quality at 500mm by shooting with the zoom and rezzing up (or by using a 400mm f5.6 lens and 1.4x converter). I would probably never buy a mirror lens today unless forced to do so - I would pick a zoom and rez up or use a 400 w/converter instead.
I'm selling this Tokina 300mm 2.8 that works well with a 1.4 teleconverter if anyone is interested.
I just got back to Garden of the Gods. Used a 500 mm Nikor Reflex on some antelope, some rock faces, and a mule deer at o-dark thirty.
These shots were decent and I was happy to be able to get the big buck on record at 600 yards. ISO at 3200. Didn't turn out too bad.
Stop by sometime and I'll show you the photos.
The main thing I've read about mirror lenses is the "brokah"? is not pleasing. One get circles in some shots for background. And color saturation is supposed to be better with glass. I can take care of that in processing....
I'm keeping mine because of the cost. I already owned it when I got my digital cameras...
the fisch