mirror lens ?
- Thread starter taff63
- Start date
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
mirror lenses basically use mirrors - they tend to be fixed apperture (f8 is usual) and you get donuts on your photos in bright light - because they don't depend on moving lots of glass elements they are cheaper - but to be honest i'd give them the swerve unless you really can't afford anything better (and to be frank you can get a moirror lens second hand for about 80 quid - theres no way in hell i'd pay 200 for one)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,903
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you tried a mirror lens before? They are manual focus, fixed and slow aperture and are generally pretty poor. The only decent (affordable) ones I've come across are the Tamron SP 500/8, 350/5.6 and Rubinar 300/4.5. The Tamron 500/8 with a mount is usually about £100.00, the 350mm is usually closer to £300.00. The Rubinar is also into the multiple hundreds now too as there are not many about.
Other capable performers are the MTO 500/8 (although it's big and heavy) and there was a Tokina 500/8 that wasn't too bad either. But none will wow you like a proper non-mirror lens.
Other capable performers are the MTO 500/8 (although it's big and heavy) and there was a Tokina 500/8 that wasn't too bad either. But none will wow you like a proper non-mirror lens.
- Messages
- 41,898
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
A mirror lens is a cheap option that normally has a fixed aperture of f8 and therefore needs good light, it also produces a 'doughnut' like light bokeh in use which some find distracting - I have seen a few really good photos using a mirror lens but also some messy ones
- Messages
- 1,130
- Name
- John 'Jack'
- Edit My Images
- No
Most people would advise against a mirror lenses due to its fixed aperture which tend to be around f 8 or f 5 or thereabouts depending on model, and the fixed aperture leaves less choice of exposure controls, that being, if subject is bit darker, your shutter speed will be lower, but you can't open up the aperture to let in more light to get little faster shutter speed, as you're stuck with the same aperture. Most people will advise against mirror lenses due to the way the mirror works leaving most background lights as donut shapes and also due to the fact that they don't work with AF so you have to manual focus them,
but...
The point is they were designed to be lighter and shorter, often helpful in some cases where a proper long telephoto lens is too heavy and bulky. An example would be that if you enjoy going for a walk over hills and take landscape photos which tend to favour wide-angle lenses more than telephoto lenses, but if you wanted a telephoto lens in case you spot anything interesting too far away, you would find the mirror lenses a benefit due to their lenght and weight in your camera bag than a heavy and longer telephoto lenses.
The fixed aperture problem that leaves you with limited choices of shutter speeds is actually not really a big problem, as the digital camera's ability to change ISO settings to a higher one anytime you want makes up for it.
It can be of use if you are on a tight budget as mirror lens tend to be cheaper than telephoto lens.
As for the donut effects, they are not always an annoyment, if you frame the subject right, depending on subject and background, sometimes the donut effects can be of creative art.
but...
The point is they were designed to be lighter and shorter, often helpful in some cases where a proper long telephoto lens is too heavy and bulky. An example would be that if you enjoy going for a walk over hills and take landscape photos which tend to favour wide-angle lenses more than telephoto lenses, but if you wanted a telephoto lens in case you spot anything interesting too far away, you would find the mirror lenses a benefit due to their lenght and weight in your camera bag than a heavy and longer telephoto lenses.
The fixed aperture problem that leaves you with limited choices of shutter speeds is actually not really a big problem, as the digital camera's ability to change ISO settings to a higher one anytime you want makes up for it.
It can be of use if you are on a tight budget as mirror lens tend to be cheaper than telephoto lens.
As for the donut effects, they are not always an annoyment, if you frame the subject right, depending on subject and background, sometimes the donut effects can be of creative art.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
umm - no you wouldnt - mirror lenses are lighter , but they are also substantially fatter , so they'd be crap in a camera bag for a long walk.
True as far as it goes , but shutter speed isnt the only reason people change appertures - dof is a far more likely one. Also most consumer cameras won't AF reliably with a lens with a max apperture of less that f5.6 except in the brightest light
but a second hand telephoto can be had for a couple of hundred notes and would be a far more versatile option
A
Theres not much creative about a bunch of donut bokeh - it just says "used a mirror lens" which isnt really that creative in my book
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
afaik there is only 1 mirror lens that will AF anyway - the Minolta/Sony 500/8 Reflex (which is 1 of the best anyway).
It has utility but imo is a niche lens.
magicaxeman
An Idiot
- Messages
- 3,095
- Edit My Images
- No
Whilst a mirror lens may have shortcomings in some respects they can still produce pleasing results.
Worse by far are the preset telephoto lenses offered on ebay such as the optomax etc which are either a 300mm f5.6 or 500mm f8 with teleconvertors fitted, these often result in fixed apertures of f11-f16 which renders them practically useless here.
They also tend to suffer from image softness and CA.
The cheapest practical solutions are either the sigma 170-500mm which can be picked up cheaply, its a beast of a lens, heavy, slow and suffers from zoom creep but its workable.
The other is a sigma 400mm F5.6 APO, its better to go for the older manual focus ones as often autofocus is a no go anyway, but you do need to look out for a clean one with no fogging or fungus. (Don't bother with the non APO version, its soft)
Another solution is to go for an older 300mm F4.5 nikkor, again its a manual focus job, but some a real gems and can be picked up for around the £100 mark.
The 300mm f4.5 EDIF is the one to look out for as its the sharpest of the lot, again look out for fogging/fungus, worn mounts and make sure it has the tripod clamp with it as they're nigh on impossible to find and mega expensive if you can find one (more than the lens itself)
The final solution needs more funds really but a secondhand older nikkor 80-200mm F2.8 or sigma 70-200mm f2.8 + a 2x teleconvertor would give you a 400mm f5.6 with autofocus, my brother uses an older 80-200mm nikkor + TC200, you lose a bit of contrast & its a little slower to focus but it works for him
Worse by far are the preset telephoto lenses offered on ebay such as the optomax etc which are either a 300mm f5.6 or 500mm f8 with teleconvertors fitted, these often result in fixed apertures of f11-f16 which renders them practically useless here.
They also tend to suffer from image softness and CA.
The cheapest practical solutions are either the sigma 170-500mm which can be picked up cheaply, its a beast of a lens, heavy, slow and suffers from zoom creep but its workable.
The other is a sigma 400mm F5.6 APO, its better to go for the older manual focus ones as often autofocus is a no go anyway, but you do need to look out for a clean one with no fogging or fungus. (Don't bother with the non APO version, its soft)
Another solution is to go for an older 300mm F4.5 nikkor, again its a manual focus job, but some a real gems and can be picked up for around the £100 mark.
The 300mm f4.5 EDIF is the one to look out for as its the sharpest of the lot, again look out for fogging/fungus, worn mounts and make sure it has the tripod clamp with it as they're nigh on impossible to find and mega expensive if you can find one (more than the lens itself)
The final solution needs more funds really but a secondhand older nikkor 80-200mm F2.8 or sigma 70-200mm f2.8 + a 2x teleconvertor would give you a 400mm f5.6 with autofocus, my brother uses an older 80-200mm nikkor + TC200, you lose a bit of contrast & its a little slower to focus but it works for him
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,130
- Name
- John 'Jack'
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes it is bit fatter but it's not that bad, it would depend on what's in your camera bag, my mirror lens is fine in my bag, so it just depend on everybody's bags.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,709
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never used or even seen a mirror lens myself but I'm sure I read somewhere that one of their advantages was the (almost?) lack of CA? Maybe it's only the crappiest that have CA?
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not so sure that they are soft but they do tend to have low contrast.
Of course with digital that's easily rectified in pp.
This might be interesting to some http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html
Of course with digital that's easily rectified in pp.
This might be interesting to some http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html
- Messages
- 1,662
- Name
- Derek
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This was taken with a Tamron 500mm mirror lens attached to a Canon 40D, and the highlight ring below the tail shows what sort of bokeh such a lens produces. The effect is far more pronounced if there are lights in the background.
Mirror lenses are capable of producing decent results under the right conditions, but generally are not as flexible as a lens of a more traditional construction. Whether a mirror lens would work for you would very much depend on what sort of use you would put it to and the conditions you were able to use it in.
Mirror lenses are capable of producing decent results under the right conditions, but generally are not as flexible as a lens of a more traditional construction. Whether a mirror lens would work for you would very much depend on what sort of use you would put it to and the conditions you were able to use it in.
magicaxeman
An Idiot
- Messages
- 3,095
- Edit My Images
- No
I was talking about the preset telephoto lenses there Alan, not the mirror lenses
- Messages
- 4,903
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Some of the older Tokina made teles were actually very good. For example the 300/5.5 branded Soligor and Hanimex has very little ca and gives more detailed results than a mirror. Agree that the thinner optomax / Samyang models aren't brilliant though.
Another good one is the Tamron Nestar 400/6.9. Again, very little ca unlike many of the automatic 400/6.3 models of the time.
Another good one is the Tamron Nestar 400/6.9. Again, very little ca unlike many of the automatic 400/6.3 models of the time.
