Mirror Tele Lenses/EF Mount - any good?

herion

Are 600mm mirror lenses any good?

Rob Galbraith did a review which seemed to be neutral to accepting, but I've seen other opinions that are far more negative.

Has anyone used a mirror lens on a Canon mount? What brand? What were your experiences?

I do mostly birding and nature shots, not too much action/sports. I am looking to do a bit more action photography, so the tele would be used for this also - I *really* don't want to be lugging a Bigma or such around, but I can always drag out the Soloflex to strengthen the back muscles

Thanks in advance.

luckyrwe

I have used the Sigma 600mm, Nikon 500mm, and Vivitar 800mm solid CAT. The solid CAT is definitely the best quality, but unless you have a tripod, bright light, and a good depth of field, something goes missing from images shot with these lenses. I even had a 300/5.6 mirror that looked the size of a 50mm lens. The results were always very bland. No vivid colors or sharp contrast. It looked as if everything was being shot through a screen door.

wxwax

The other thing is that the bokeh looks pretty bad. I've seen some examples. Instead of a nice blur, you get circles with varying degrees of light, like doughnuts. And on a long lens, good bokeh is a big deal.

herion

Mirror lenses
Well, it looks like I break out the Soloflex ... ... and my credit card...

Red Bull

What exactly is a mirror lens? I've seen and heard of them but I'm not quite sure what the difference is between a regular lens and a mirror lens.

herion

Red Bull wrote:

What exactly is a mirror lens? I've seen and heard of them but I'm not quite sure what the difference is between a regular lens and a mirror lens.

A mirror lens utilizes mirrors to increase the focal length of the lens. By reflecting the light around the inside of the lens, you can effectively increase the "size" of the lens. F'instance, a 500mm mirror lens would probably be about 5" long, while a "regular" refractive lens would be about 10" long.

Unfortunately, mirror lenses (and the grinners here confirm it) lack "pop" as well as AF, differential apetures, etc.

BrettG

I think that non-mirror lenses (lens lenses ) are generally better than mirror optics, but I have seen some nice pictures taken with the reflex lenses.

I you need reach with light weight and size they can be useful.

Minolta makes a 500mm reflex that auto focuses, don't know if it's the only one

I've got a meade spotting scope that I've been meaning to get an adaptor for to try out...

pathfinder

BrettG wrote:

I think that non-mirror lenses (lens lenses <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > ) are generally better than mirror optics, but I have seen some nice pictures taken with the reflex lenses.

I you need reach with light weight and size they can be useful.

<minoltapimp> Minolta makes a 500mm reflex that auto focuses, don't know if it's the only one </minoltapimp>

I've got a meade spotting scope that I've been meaning to get an adaptor for to try out...

In theory, pure mirror lenses can be quite good, because they do not suffer from chromatic aberration if they are well made, since the light does not pass through any glass at all, but is merely reflected from front suface mirrors. But most mirror lenses for cameras are made for a certain price point and suffer from some less thatn stellar optical quality. Mirror lenses can be very good if properly constructed, just like glass lenses.

gus

I dont know anything tech about them but the bokah from most of the ones ive seen would stop me buying one. Not my cup of tea at all.


Gus