Are Mirror Lenses Cool or What?

"Bowser" wrote in message
news:RROYc.337322$a24.167668@attbi_s03...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:cztYc.91369$mD.67109@attbi_s02...

"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........

Got to be a business decision. I wouldn't buy one, with or without AF.
Would
you?

Yes. - I have the 500 mm f/8.0 Nikkor mirror lens. It isn't my best choice,
but it's pretty good considering that I only paid about $250 for it. It's
the longest lens I have, and on nice clear days, with a tripod, I can get
some pretty nice images with it. To me, photography is fun, and not a
life/death business. I try to maximize my fun/dollar, and until I win the
lottery, this 500 is for me........

William Graham wrote:

Yes. - I have the 500 mm f/8.0 Nikkor mirror lens. It isn't my best choice,
but it's pretty good considering that I only paid about $250 for it. It's
the longest lens I have, and on nice clear days, with a tripod, I can get
some pretty nice images with it. To me, photography is fun, and not a
life/death business. I try to maximize my fun/dollar, and until I win the
lottery, this 500 is for me........

Hi,

I have a 500/8, and haven't used it for years except for testing
it with my dSlr. I paid little for it, and for the price,
you cannot beat it. It was soft on my dslr, but on 6x4 prints
when I was using film, it was reasonable, constrast was a little
lacking though. You can avoid the doughnuts sometimes if you
comprose correctly, but very distracting when they show up.

Now I use a 300/2.8, and I can say it is not comparson. But it
was 30x more expensive. You get what you pay for.

Regards,
--
Vin
Melbourne, Australia
Remove no and spam from both sides of the @ sign email address to reply

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

William-

What is this, an all-Nikon and Canon bunch? I have had the Minolta 500mm f/8
AF mirror lens for several years, used with an 8000i body. I'm very happy with
it because of its compactness, and have no complaints about its sharpness or
contrast. Yes, you can see an occasional doughnut. Yes, a refractor would
probably be better, but might cost a LOT more!

One reason there aren't more AF mirrors around, may be that a larger aperture
is required for AF to work. You will also note that a split image finder
doesn't work for apertures smaller than about f/8. One half will always be
black so the two halves can never be lined up.

Fred

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

William-

What is this, an all-Nikon and Canon bunch? I have had the Minolta 500mm f/8
AF mirror lens for several years, used with an 8000i body. I'm very happy with
it because of its compactness, and have no complaints about its sharpness or
contrast. Yes, you can see an occasional doughnut. Yes, a refractor would
probably be better, but might cost a LOT more!

One reason there aren't more AF mirrors around, may be that a larger aperture
is required for AF to work. You will also note that a split image finder
doesn't work for apertures smaller than about f/8. One half will always be
black so the two halves can never be lined up.

Fred

"vhl" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

Yes. - I have the 500 mm f/8.0 Nikkor mirror lens. It isn't my best
choice,
but it's pretty good considering that I only paid about $250 for it.
It's
the longest lens I have, and on nice clear days, with a tripod, I can
get
some pretty nice images with it. To me, photography is fun, and not a
life/death business. I try to maximize my fun/dollar, and until I win
the
lottery, this 500 is for me........

Hi,

I have a 500/8, and haven't used it for years except for testing
it with my dSlr. I paid little for it, and for the price,
you cannot beat it. It was soft on my dslr, but on 6x4 prints
when I was using film, it was reasonable, constrast was a little
lacking though. You can avoid the doughnuts sometimes if you
comprose correctly, but very distracting when they show up.

Now I use a 300/2.8, and I can say it is not comparson. But it
was 30x more expensive. You get what you pay for.

Regards,
--
Vin
Melbourne, Australia

That's for sure, and, if you aren't a pro, you will take the pictures you
want to take, and not the ones that other people want you to take. Also, you
will have to confine yourself to pictures that your equipment (budget)
allows you to take. Since I don't have a 400 mm f/4 lens, I can't take the
sports pictures that some others can, but that's OK. I enjoy the stuff I can
take, and that's good enough for me. No matter how rich you are, there will
always be stuff that you can't photograph. Only the Hubble can get pictures
of galaxies that are a Billion light years away......

I think that if you digitize your pictures, you might be able to eliminate
those doughnuts with Photoshop 7.....(It probably has a, "bokeh enhancement
command.")

"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
.....I wonder why they offer no AF? - I don't see any intrinsic reason
why
they couldn't put AF into a mirror lens........

William-

What is this, an all-Nikon and Canon bunch? I have had the Minolta 500mm
f/8
AF mirror lens for several years, used with an 8000i body. I'm very happy
with
it because of its compactness, and have no complaints about its sharpness
or
contrast. Yes, you can see an occasional doughnut. Yes, a refractor
would
probably be better, but might cost a LOT more!

One reason there aren't more AF mirrors around, may be that a larger
aperture
is required for AF to work. You will also note that a split image finder
doesn't work for apertures smaller than about f/8. One half will always
be
black so the two halves can never be lined up.

Fred

The key word(s) here a "might cost a lot more". There are a lot of
elitists on this newsgroup who extol the virtues of stuff that costs an arm
and a leg, and don't seem to understand that some of us can't lay out $5
grand for a lens just because it's a stop or two faster......We are not all
the star cameramen for National Geographic.......I like my 500 mm f/8
Nikkor, and I too don't care if the out-of-focus stuff has some doughnuts in
it. I am not taking pictures of the out-of-focus stuff. If I were, it would
be in focus.....:^)
Minolts makes perfectly good cameras and lenses, and the only reason I
have Nikon stuff is because back in the 70's I bought a Nikkormat ELW and
started a lens collection to go with it. Then, many years later, when I
wanted a new camera, I couldn't see throwing away all those lenses, and I
was pleasently surprised to find out that Nikon still made new AF cameras
that took all my old glass, so I bought a top of the line F5. (the money I
saved by not having to change lens sets justified it) Now, with over a dozen
Nikkors, I am locked into Nikon for the rest of my life. If I buy a good
digital camera, It will have to take Nikon glass too. (Fuji makes a good
one) If I could turn back the clock and do it all again, I would either go
with Minolta or Pentax, whose Takumar lenses are classics.......

"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
.....I wonder why they offer no AF? - I don't see any intrinsic reason
why
they couldn't put AF into a mirror lens........

William-

What is this, an all-Nikon and Canon bunch? I have had the Minolta 500mm
f/8
AF mirror lens for several years, used with an 8000i body. I'm very happy
with
it because of its compactness, and have no complaints about its sharpness
or
contrast. Yes, you can see an occasional doughnut. Yes, a refractor
would
probably be better, but might cost a LOT more!

One reason there aren't more AF mirrors around, may be that a larger
aperture
is required for AF to work. You will also note that a split image finder
doesn't work for apertures smaller than about f/8. One half will always
be
black so the two halves can never be lined up.

Fred

The key word(s) here a "might cost a lot more". There are a lot of
elitists on this newsgroup who extol the virtues of stuff that costs an arm
and a leg, and don't seem to understand that some of us can't lay out $5
grand for a lens just because it's a stop or two faster......We are not all
the star cameramen for National Geographic.......I like my 500 mm f/8
Nikkor, and I too don't care if the out-of-focus stuff has some doughnuts in
it. I am not taking pictures of the out-of-focus stuff. If I were, it would
be in focus.....:^)
Minolts makes perfectly good cameras and lenses, and the only reason I
have Nikon stuff is because back in the 70's I bought a Nikkormat ELW and
started a lens collection to go with it. Then, many years later, when I
wanted a new camera, I couldn't see throwing away all those lenses, and I
was pleasently surprised to find out that Nikon still made new AF cameras
that took all my old glass, so I bought a top of the line F5. (the money I
saved by not having to change lens sets justified it) Now, with over a dozen
Nikkors, I am locked into Nikon for the rest of my life. If I buy a good
digital camera, It will have to take Nikon glass too. (Fuji makes a good
one) If I could turn back the clock and do it all again, I would either go
with Minolta or Pentax, whose Takumar lenses are classics.......

"William Graham" wrote in message news:qjTYc.363$3l3.336@attbi_s03...
Now, with over a dozen
Nikkors, I am locked into Nikon for the rest of my life. If I buy a good
digital camera, It will have to take Nikon glass too. (Fuji makes a good
one) If I could turn back the clock and do it all again, I would either go
with Minolta or Pentax, whose Takumar lenses are classics.......

The good news for you is that Nikon lenses have the largest BFL of any
35mm brand, so you can use them on other brand camera bodies via a
purely mechanical adapter (no optics) and maintain infinity focus.
The Canon EOS mount, for instance, can be adapted for use with both
Nikon-F and Pentax screw mount lenses. The Olympus 4/3 mount should
be similarly versatile.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

"William Graham" wrote in message news:qjTYc.363$3l3.336@attbi_s03...
Now, with over a dozen
Nikkors, I am locked into Nikon for the rest of my life. If I buy a good
digital camera, It will have to take Nikon glass too. (Fuji makes a good
one) If I could turn back the clock and do it all again, I would either go
with Minolta or Pentax, whose Takumar lenses are classics.......

The good news for you is that Nikon lenses have the largest BFL of any
35mm brand, so you can use them on other brand camera bodies via a
purely mechanical adapter (no optics) and maintain infinity focus.
The Canon EOS mount, for instance, can be adapted for use with both
Nikon-F and Pentax screw mount lenses. The Olympus 4/3 mount should
be similarly versatile.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:17:49 GMT, "William Graham"
wrote:

Yes. - I have the 500 mm f/8.0 Nikkor mirror lens. It isn't my best choice,
but it's pretty good considering that I only paid about $250 for it. It's
the longest lens I have, and on nice clear days, with a tripod, I can get
some pretty nice images with it. To me, photography is fun, and not a
life/death business. I try to maximize my fun/dollar, and until I win the
lottery, this 500 is for me........

I also have a Reflex-Nikkor C 500mm f/8.
Thought it would be nice for aircraft photography and was prepared for
everything:
- The sky does not make doughnuts
- F/8 is OK for me
- It would not meter on my F50, but it was not big deal. Used my
70-300 first to meter.

Tried with a roll of slides and the lens is in the closet since then.
I do not know about its sharpness or contrast (didn't enlage them).
This lens vignettes bad as I have never seen before. For me, it is an
unusable lens. Well, some say it is "uneven illumination":
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5008.htm
I was not prepared for that.

Perhaps now with the D70 I will give it another try. After all
Photoshop makes miracles with vignetting...

PS: Yes, there is also a lot of vignetting with the smaller DX sensor
of the D70!!!
--
Óscar Laborda