Are Mirror Lenses Cool or What?

Here are a pair of 'sample' images taken with a 1000mm f11
Reflex-Nikkor lens:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2462148


http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2386728

....donuts are sometimes in the background but mainly from 'points of
light' and if you think before shooting, no donuts.
= = =
"Mark M" wrote in message news:1phYc.110696$Lj.22209@fed1read03...
"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:4gdYc.257149$gE.33705@pd7tw3no...
I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?

Rob

If you like doughnuts, you'll love mirror lenses.

With mirror lenses, you'll get doughnuts in every shot with OOF highlights.
Lovely.

The only attraction to mirror lenses is size and weight, and possible lower
cost. Other than that, they're not as sharp, offer no aperture control, no
DOF control, absolutely horrid bokeh, and no AF. Unless you must have
something that small, take a pass on them. I had one a long time ago and
could not live within the lens' limitations.

"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:4gdYc.257149$gE.33705@pd7tw3no...
I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?

Rob

Basic Wedge wrote:

I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?


Most people get over them after a few rolls. While they do offer
great mm/$, they are slow (500mm f/8 is typical) and the oof
donuts get old after a while. Having given this warning, I'll
confess I've never used one... a friend had one and he did some
decent nature shots with it ... and then upgraded to a 400mm fast
prime... which of course did the job right.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Jerry L." wrote in message
m...
Here are a pair of 'sample' images taken with a 1000mm f11
Reflex-Nikkor lens:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2462148


http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2386728

...donuts are sometimes in the background but mainly from 'points of
light' and if you think before shooting, no donuts.

Well, let's see... Your "points of light" would be my "out of focus
highlights", I believe...



= = =
"Mark M" wrote in message
news:1phYc.110696$Lj.22209@fed1read03...
"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:4gdYc.257149$gE.33705@pd7tw3no...
I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?

Rob

If you like doughnuts, you'll love mirror lenses.

With mirror lenses, you'll get doughnuts in every shot with OOF
highlights.
Lovely.

"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:GEkYc.259539$gE.35091@pd7tw3no...
"Chris Brown" wrote ...
I had a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. It's the only lens I've used where
one
had to focus-bracket.

Eventually, I sold it on at a loss and bought a second hand Canon 30mm
f/4.0
IS USM L, plus a 1.4x teleconvertor. Despite the 180mm difference in
focal
length in favour of the mirror lens, I still get sharper detail by using
the
Canon and cropping.

--------------------------------------

Thanks Chris. "Focus bracket"? That's a good one

I also have a 300 and a 1.4x, so I guess I'll just stick with them.

Rob



"Had a Sigma, sold it, got a Canon" - I think I'd expect an improvement here
(assuming anything other than the lowest of Canon's consumer/kit stuff)
whether we were talking about mirrors or not: this isn't really a fair
comparison!


Peter

"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:4gdYc.257149$gE.33705@pd7tw3no...
I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?


Yes, they can be good, but they have limitations. Of course, a non-mirror
500 or 600mm lens has limitations too: size and weight!

There are good and bad mirrors, and the bad ones can be truly awful. The
good ones though can be very good indeed, with excellent sharpness and fewer
aberrations than most reflractive lenses - but they do have those doughnut
highlights and in most situations unattractive bokeh. Used for the right
subjects neither of these need be a real issue, but that does mean that a
lot of subjects are almost ruled out.

Still, a mirror lens is so much more compact and 'usable' than big
refractive glass that they can be very useful. I have a 600mm f4
(refractive) lens which is wonderful - and weighs 15lb. I use it in
preference, but there are ocassions that I know I might want a long lens but
will certainly not carry 'the monster'. For those times I also have a
mirror lens and it has produced some very good shots. But I'm not a
wildlife photographer: a slow lens with ugly bokeh is not a good choice for
that, however appealling it may seem on paper.

My mirror lens is a Pentax 400-600mm zoom (yes, a catadioptic zoom - weird,
huh?) and it is wonderfully sharp, incredibly small and light... and very
slow with funky bokeh. Very useful in some situations, but not a universal
answer.



Peter

"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:4gdYc.257149$gE.33705@pd7tw3no...
I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?


Yes, they can be good, but they have limitations. Of course, a non-mirror
500 or 600mm lens has limitations too: size and weight!

There are good and bad mirrors, and the bad ones can be truly awful. The
good ones though can be very good indeed, with excellent sharpness and fewer
aberrations than most reflractive lenses - but they do have those doughnut
highlights and in most situations unattractive bokeh. Used for the right
subjects neither of these need be a real issue, but that does mean that a
lot of subjects are almost ruled out.

Still, a mirror lens is so much more compact and 'usable' than big
refractive glass that they can be very useful. I have a 600mm f4
(refractive) lens which is wonderful - and weighs 15lb. I use it in
preference, but there are ocassions that I know I might want a long lens but
will certainly not carry 'the monster'. For those times I also have a
mirror lens and it has produced some very good shots. But I'm not a
wildlife photographer: a slow lens with ugly bokeh is not a good choice for
that, however appealling it may seem on paper.

My mirror lens is a Pentax 400-600mm zoom (yes, a catadioptic zoom - weird,
huh?) and it is wonderfully sharp, incredibly small and light... and very
slow with funky bokeh. Very useful in some situations, but not a universal
answer.



Peter

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:1phYc.110696$Lj.22209@fed1read03...

"Basic Wedge" wrote in message
news:4gdYc.257149$gE.33705@pd7tw3no...
I've never used one, so I'm asking... can you get decent shots with a
mirror lens? The idea of having so much magnification in such a small
package seems kind of appealing. Has anyone else given one a try?

Rob

If you like doughnuts, you'll love mirror lenses.

With mirror lenses, you'll get doughnuts in every shot with OOF
highlights.
Lovely.


Well, you could always become the official photographer for Krispy
Kreme......

"Bowser" wrote in message
news:ClnYc.89669$mD.23964@attbi_s02...
The only attraction to mirror lenses is size and weight, and possible
lower
cost. Other than that, they're not as sharp, offer no aperture control, no
DOF control, absolutely horrid bokeh, and no AF.

......I wonder why they offer no AF? - I don't see any intrinsic reason why
they couldn't put AF into a mirror lens........

Bowser wrote:
The only attraction to mirror lenses is size and weight, and possible lower
cost. Other than that, they're not as sharp, offer no aperture control, no
DOF control, absolutely horrid bokeh, and no AF. Unless you must have
something that small, take a pass on them. I had one a long time ago and
could not live within the lens' limitations.


Surelly adding aperture control near the secondary mirror shouldn't
be a big deal?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++