Mirror lenses.

petersmart

petersmart

Messages
5,001
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone any experience of using mirror lenses on a Canon camera?

I saw two mentioned in the Amateur Photographer and wondered what they were like and what adapters I would need to fit them to my EOS 350D.

I rmember that many years ago these lenses gave very good resuts although at a price.

However the ones available now seem very cheap compered to top end prime or zoom lenses.

I realise they have a few disadvantages but wondered whether anyone had actual pictures taken on modern digital cameras using these lenses?
 
I've been looking at this lens, too. It's an intriguing bit of kit

Here's the conclusion to a review I read. I think this guy sums up the lens rather well :)



"In Conclusion

The Sony 500mm f8 Reflex lens is really a reviewers dream. It is so uncomplicated and of such good optical character ( as far as a lack of distortions and aberrations) it has left me with time for a lot of fun without having to get too technical in testing procedures at all. In a way it is sort of an exotic lens with quite a complex personality. It is truly unique and has to be the envy of other mounts such as Canon or Nikon who do not have an auto-focus model. It is hard to say that it is a specific duty lens, because I kept finding new ways in which to use it. Needless to say, many probably will. I find that it renders color extremely well and I was always happy with the sharpness and contrast of the images. Challenging as it may be, it is a lens that I will personally purchase and find much use for.

Part of the joy of photography for me is the challenge it brings, and this lens will challenge you. What it won't do is break your bank, or your neck, and it will be a lens that you will proudly display in your bag, and use with pride in public. As I am writing this review, I keep thinking of new ways in which I can use it and the opportunities that will present themselves for its use; such as taking it to a Major League Baseball or NFL game, to the beach (er-hem!), or a close friends' child soccer match, and of course to the Zoo or botanical gardens.

As much as I have grown fond of this lens I must warn that it probably isn't for everyone. Some I presume will not like the bokeh, or fixed focal length and aperture. I can see how this could be restricting to situations in photography even if I personally don't find it restricting for my own use. I view this lens as an opportunity not as a restriction, but that is just me. So I will caution those looking at this lens to read this review CAREFULLY prior to making a purchase.

Overall the Sony 500mm f8 holds a worthy place in the Alpha lens lineup. I am wondering why now it took me so long to get one to review and subsequently purchase. I have to rate this lens with mixed results, only if to be fair and objective overall. As a stand alone lens I'd never recommend it, but as a lens to add to a kit I'd always highly recommend it.

If for any other reason as to give a photographer a swift kick in the butt to get them out shooting again, smiling all the way.

As always, happy shooting and be safe!"

-C.Garrard
 
Not worth the money.:nono:
 
I used to have a sigma mirror lens when I had my old manual focus Pentax system. Did not use it that much, got silvery rings in the picture in some situations with the lighting which was the norm with a lens like that. I also found focusing to be a bit hard due to the focus screen on the camera the centre bit that you used half blacked out if your eye was looking in the screen a certain way. Don't think I would use one these days.
 
I got a sigma 600mm mirror from Ebay for around £100 mixed results followed, hard to use and as said bokeh can be a bit distracting, but for £100 with case and filters. I don't think I would sell it.
 
I think the main problem is the overwhelming dominance of the donuts in every background. They are more than distracting, they are ugly.

Plus manual focus (except the Sony) and fixed aperture. And I think they also 'cheat' with the f/number, not taking into account the light loss caused by the central mirror. My guess is that the light transmission is usually nearer f/11 than the f/8 quoted (not 100% certain on that one though).
 
I used mirror lenses with my film cameras - one was a very cheap one with the T2 (or whatever) convertable mount so it was a standard lens that just came with an adaptor to suit your camera which gave pretty poor results.

I later got a second-hand yashica 500/8 mirror lens which was wonderfully made and gave much better results:

http://www.mirrorlenses.co.uk/images/lenses/yashica_mirror.jpg

So I would guess now if you are after one it may pay to look for a decent one rather than the no/make versions.

The fixed aperture shouldnt be such an issue with the variable ISO on digital cameras.

The other thing I think leads to poor pictures with mirror lenses is people think because the lens is so compact they can hand hold it rather than use a tripod.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think the main problem is the overwhelming dominance of the donuts in every background. They are more than distracting, they are ugly.
Click to expand...

the funny thing is that back in the 70's people were buying mirrors specifically to get that effect ...
There are plenty of circumstances though where you won't get them so it's within the purview of the photographer.

I think that there is little doubt that the pinnacle of generally available mirror lenses is the Minolta/ Sony 500 RF because
a) it's the only AF 1
b) it's pretty good optically unlike the majority of the really cheap ones.
c) it's stabilised on a KM or Sony DSLR

It's not a replacement for a really good e.g. 500/4 but it's a lot smaller, lighter & cheaper.
For another opinion http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sony500.shtml
 
I've no interest in buying (or selling) one, but the Tamron Adaptall mirror lenses are:
a) usable on many past and present camera mounts
b) pretty good optically
c) stabilised on Pentax, Olympus and Sony dSLRs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top