Mirror lenses?

Here's some examples I have taken (just for testing purposes!!!):


French woman running by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


Slug! by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


Seagulls at Hythe Marina by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr

These were taken with the Tamron SP 350/5.6:

redridinghood.jpg


boat.jpg
 
This question comes up from time to time - a search will give you details but the short answer seems to be that they are not worth considering. :)
 
Last edited:
Mirror lenses are generally of fixed aperture and usually quite slow! My Rubinar 300/4.5 is a decent enough speed, but most mirrors are something like 500mm f8.

Less doughnuts are made when the lens is closer to infinity, hence the girl running and the boat shot look almost normal.
 
onlt problem is the not so nice doughnut bokeh and the manual focus (unless you have the sony). you get no CA with a mirror lens which is nice
 
If you are looking to get critically sharp photos of a once off event, then don't get a mirror lens. If you'd like to hone your manual focussing skills and are happy to spend time taking photos, seeing what works and not pixel peeping then you can get some very nice web->A4 sized shots from mirror lenses with practice. One thing that might seem odd is that they are often fixed f/8 yet we are all talking about them having small depth of field. Think of the aperture and depth of field being slightly decoupled in this design - you'll use the f value to get correct exposure, but they do have smaller depth of field than a refractive (i.e. standard glass lens) at the equivalent aperture value.

I think lots of people bought them expecting stellar results instantly and then were really disappointed in them, hence giving them the bad reputation that they have. I quite like them, but it's worth getting a good one. If you can, a sigma 600mm or (even better) any of the tamron adaptall mirror lenses (there are 2 versions of their 500mm and also a 350mm) are all good copies that will keep their value if you decide you don't like them and sell them on.
 
Cuchulainn said:
If you are looking to get critically sharp photos of a once off event, then don't get a mirror lens. If you'd like to hone your manual focussing skills and are happy to spend time taking photos, seeing what works and not pixel peeping then you can get some very nice web->A4 sized shots from mirror lenses with practice. One thing that might seem odd is that they are often fixed f/8 yet we are all talking about them having small depth of field. Think of the aperture and depth of field being slightly decoupled in this design - you'll use the f value to get correct exposure, but they do have smaller depth of field than a refractive (i.e. standard glass lens) at the equivalent aperture value.

I think lots of people bought them expecting stellar results instantly and then were really disappointed in them, hence giving them the bad reputation that they have. I quite like them, but it's worth getting a good one. If you can, a sigma 600mm or (even better) any of the tamron adaptall mirror lenses (there are 2 versions of their 500mm and also a 350mm) are all good copies that will keep their value if you decide you don't like them and sell them on.
Click to expand...

True enough. They've been around for donkeys years and are a comparatively cheap way to get a long, and fairly small/light, lens; but they have significant drawbacks. Have a look here if you're interested http://www.photozone.de/mirror-lenses.
 
That bokeh sure is weird looking too when you're used to refractive glass
 
I should add to Brian's comments that most mirror lenses are pretty poor (many of my exampes here are from low contrast and low resolution 300mm models). There are however, some really good ones if you can master the technique - that is manual focusing and keeping the damn thing steady! :D

Some of the better lenses I've used have been the Tamron SP 500/8, Tamron SP 350/5.6 & MC Rubinar 300/4.5. I understand some other Russian mirrors are brilliant too (MTO and 3M for example). Nikon, Canon and Minolta also made some really good OEM ones...but they're pricey! I've yet to try the Contax Mirrortar, but I understand that's a good one too :)

I've not tried the Samyang models, but I understand the cheapies such as Centon are very soft. If anyone has any samples, please show us though!
 
In years gone by, I owned a Tamron SP500 F8. Can't say I was very impressed.
More recently, I owned a Canon 400 F5.6 (NOT a mirror lens). OK, it was a LOT more expensive, but then it did have ace AF. More importantly, the IQ was VERY Good. Personally I'd suggest you save your pennies and get a good long prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top