/p/ - Photography » Thread #3530864

[94 / 21 / ?]

Mirror telephoto lenses?

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 00:48:42 No.3530864 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3530887 >>3530916 >>3531940 >>3531966 >>3532732 >>3535595 >>3535801 >>3537057 >>3539102 >>3542930

Has anyone tried cheap mirror lenses? Are they worth the money?

I'll never have the cash to buy a 500mm glass lens so I'm looking at cheap chink mirror options.

Anyone have one? Would you recommend it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 01:38:06 No.3530887 Report

Quoted By: >>3530923 >>3532635

>>3530864
>Are they worth the money?
No, you'd be better off buying a 70-300mm kit lens and cropping out an area to give you the same FoV. it would have better quality. thats how shitty those lenses are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 02:46:06 No.3530916 Report

Quoted By: >>3530923 >>3532635

>>3530864
Have one, regret buying it.
Mine is a 800mm F/8, I get better results with my east german Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 and cropping the shit out of it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1552317068055.jpg, 246KiB, 1068x713

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 02:57:34 No.3530923 Report

Quoted By: >>3530930 >>3540063 >>3540073

>>3530887
>>3530916
Can you really crop 300mm and 135mm and get something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rRT6-aL6DM

I have hard time believing that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 03:12:33 No.3530930 Report

Quoted By: >>3530934 >>3530962

>>3530923
I tested both lenses at a highway sign standing about 1,5 km away and got better results with my Pentacon at f/2.8 than with the 800 mm mirror lense.
To make sure it wasn't due to the slow lense and high shutter speed I cranked the ISO up untill I maxed out my fastest shutter speed of 1/4000 second and still got shitty results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 03:20:03 No.3530934 Report

Quoted By: >>3530962

>>3530930
To be fair I should add that my camera is a 24 MP crop sensor and therefore unsharp lenses have more of an effect than on fullframe bodys of identical resolution while unsharp edges get less noticeable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 05:31:39 No.3530962 Report

Quoted By: >>3530980

>>3530930
>>3530934
Interesting. Did you save any photos by any chance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:37:05 No.3530980 Report

Quoted By: >>3530984

>>3530962
Sadly no, I don't have them around anymore.
Probably going to take some shots for you though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:42:18 No.3530984 Report

Quoted By: >>3531027

>>3530980
you rock! thanks anon

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO EF-S 18-55 IS2.jpg, 64KiB, 476x780

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:22:34 No.3531027 Report

Quoted By: >>3531166 >>3532472

>>3530984
Here the test:
>every lense stopped down to f/8
>shot at ISO 200
>church is 760m away

Starting with my Canon EF-S 18-55 F/3,5 IS-II

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Pentacon 135mm f2,8.jpg, 242KiB, 972x1912

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:23:37 No.3531028 Report

Quoted By: >>3531029 >>3531166 >>3536257

Pentacon 135mm f/2.8

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:24:56 No.3531029 Report

Quoted By: >>3531030

>>3531028
Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6
(not seen on image, but that thing shits chomatic abberations near the edges like crazy)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Tamron 28-200 f3,8-5,6.jpg, 406KiB, 1273x2533

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:25:59 No.3531030 Report

Quoted By: >>3531031 >>3531166

>>3531029
And retard me forgot the pic...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Walimex pro 800mm f8.jpg, 833KiB, 3000x2000

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:27:02 No.3531031 Report

Quoted By: >>3531036 >>3531166 >>3531835

>>3531030
Walimex Pro 800 mm F/8
(not cropped, just scaled down)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:34:28 No.3531036 Report

Quoted By: >>3531037

>>3531031
wow thats fucking terrible

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO chromatic abberations.jpg, 96KiB, 921x518

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:38:02 No.3531037 Report

Quoted By: >>3531040

>>3531036
Guess why I regret buying this lense.
But to be fair:
It has no chromatic abberations while my Tamron 28-200 does this:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:50:22 No.3531040 Report

Quoted By: >>3531041

>>3531037
How do the auto correction profiles deal with that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:51:52 No.3531041 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531040
I don`t have one for the 28-200.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 14:57:20 No.3531166 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531027
>>3531028
>>3531030
>>3531031
amazing! thanks so much anon!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 15:17:44 No.3531835 Report

Quoted By: >>3531842 >>3531885 >>3531951 >>3532698

>>3531031
Call me blind but that looks fine. You should have cropped other pictures to same view too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 15:42:30 No.3531842 Report

Quoted By: >>3531885

>>3531835
yeah. in addition to the lack of chromatic aberration. there's more detail visible on the cock and on the iron work beneath the cock. it actually makes me want a mirror lens more now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 17:19:27 No.3531885 Report

Quoted By: >>3531907 >>3531937 >>3531951

>>3531835
>>3531842
Are you two mad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 18:13:13 No.3531907 Report

Quoted By: >>3531937 >>3531948 >>3531951 >>3532698

>>3531885
Me - yes. Can't speak for other anon.
But that asside - when zooming to same crop as mirror lens photo it seems that mirror lens has more detail. Maybe it is due to conversion to jpeg or something. That is why I would like to see all pictures cropped to same exact spot.
Hell, gibs raws please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 19:03:10 No.3531937 Report

Quoted By: >>3531948 >>3532698

>>3531885
>>3531907
to be clear, I don't think it looks "fine", just better than an equivalent crop of the non-mirror lens would look.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 19:11:20 No.3531940 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530864
No. Always get the good glass lenses. Can't afford the 600mm prime? Make do with a 300mm + 2x TC, I guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 19:30:48 No.3531948 Report

Quoted By: >>3531951 >>3532321

>>3531907
Not op or churchanon. Is this bait? The Mirror lens image has been re sampled from 24mp to 6mp and is still a blurry mess. Why would you want to see the raws.

An older Sigma 70-30mm is like $50. It has af, is faster, you can change aperture and you don't get the weird bokeh.

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of mirror systems but these Samyang ones aren't worth it. Even the much better quality ones from Nikkor, Tamron etc. are almost impossible to focus.

If you are looking for extreme magnification better off looking for a telescope. A 90mm Maksutov type (1250mm f1:13) will give sharp images but opens up a whole new can of worms.

>>3531937
I've looked carefully at the two images, up and down sampled both to compare them. Considering we're comparing 200mm vs 800mm and a cheap super tele vs cheap mirror lens the Tamron still wins for resolution.

I should point out that over long distances atmospheric distortion is a resolution killer in all long lenses. However, a while ago I did test a Samyang 500mm f8 on close targets, the results were the same, very soft.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO comparison.jpg, 43KiB, 391x530

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 19:55:38 No.3531951 Report

Quoted By: >>3531952 >>3531957 >>3532322

>>3531948
>>3531885
>>3531907
>>3531835
I rotated, scaled, eyeballed exposure matching, and cropped a comparison.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 19:58:09 No.3531952 Report

Quoted By: >>3531957 >>3532698

>>3531951
in the non-mirror I see bad chromatic aberration, and some oversharpening (someone trying to make mirrors look bad?). both actually look pretty similar in terms of resolving power, possibly hitting atmospheric limitations as a previous anon mentioned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 20:25:23 No.3531957 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531952
Ok, so this is bait.

>>3531951
Yeah, looks the same as my observations. For even cheaper some of the old 400/500mm "preset" lenses (drainpipes) can be ok. Not great but for $20 from a thrift store they're fun to play around with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 20:51:30 No.3531961 Report

Quoted By: >>3531971

Sorry for asking here, but I couldn't find the gear thread and I don't want to create another gear thread. Subject is kinda related.

I already own an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II. Was thinking on buying the 2x TC version III from Canon -- there's a good deal here where I live.

Is it worth it? Seems to be a good deal for someone without money to buy a native 400mm-capable lens...

Using everything on a 5D3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 21:11:26 No.3531966 Report

Quoted By: >>3531984

>>3530864
I don't see the point here, buy a spare m43 body and fit one native zoom to it, and it instantly outresolves all these lenses. Even if you just use as a side cam for some fooling around, it's better option that mirror lenses, and even nearly all old ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 21:18:03 No.3531971 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531961
In general x2 converters have a negative impact on image quality and may effect auto focus accuracy/speed.

As is always the case, photo gear gets very spendy. I'm looking at getting an older 300mm f4 prime with a x1.4 converter.

The trade off with converters isn't always worth it. I'd have a long hard think about it before you pull the trigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 22:20:55 No.3531984 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531966
You have a point...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Webp.net-resizeimage (3).jpg, 542KiB, 662x1000

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 00:23:59 No.3532021 Report

Quoted By: >>3532323 >>3532471

I have a Rockinon 500mm F8. It was like $50 when I bought it. Be ready for several things: really touchy focus ring and paper thin DOF, cranking high ISOs if you are shooting anything other than a stationary object, the need for a rock solid tripod and live view, and zero sharpness whatsoever. I'll try to take some photos in the day, it was pretty dark when I just went out and snapped a quick pic of the stray cat that wanders near my house. As a note this was shot with a set of gitzo legs and a arca monoball so that is why it was able to be shot at sut a low shutter speed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 13:23:36 No.3532321 Report

Quoted By: >>3532463

>>3531948
No. Not bait. From pictures posted by op it seems to me that mirror is actually better here.
Why do I need raws? Because then I could crop to exact same place and see how much detail I can recover from mirror vs nonmirror lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 13:25:29 No.3532322 Report

Quoted By: >>3532463

>>3531951
Left looks better to me.
Might be due to bad postprocessing on right side or me just being stupid but left looks better. Not bait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 13:27:19 No.3532323 Report

Quoted By: >>3532463

>>3532021
How far was that cat?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 19:18:03 No.3532463 Report

Quoted By: >>3532564 >>3532698

>>3532321
>see how much detail I can recover
Good luck with that.

>>3532322
>Left looks better to me.
When anon took the photos the Sun came out on the 200mm Tamron shot. The mirror lens shot has more contrast which you may be mistaking for resolution.

>>3532323
>How far was that cat?
I'd say anon took this from about 10m/30ft, so the atmosphere didn't effect it (also overcast sky). The title says "resizeimage" so it's not a crop at 100%. and it's still soft.

I'm not trying to put you off mirror lenses anon. It's just that the Samyang/Rokinon/Wallimart (all the same) aren't good at all. I think the best bet is the Tamron SP 500mm f8. It can be adapted to any mount (Adaptall), is quite sharp and built like a tank. If you search about you'll find them for under $100 in good condition (make sure it has the filters). Some people say the first version is sharper but doesn't focus as close. Also the earlier version comes in a nice wooden box (fancy).

Eggy must be on a bender or something lol. He's the resident mirror expert on /p/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 19:32:24 No.3532471 Report

Quoted By: >>3532496 >>3532567

>>3532021
How far was the cat? Give her some food pls.
Also, take more pics and post!
THanks!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 19:33:40 No.3532472 Report

Quoted By: >>3532496 >>3532698

>>3531027
anon, thanks for the test! do you have some RAWs you could share? I'm curious what I could do with it in Lightroom.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO timothy james byrne.jpg, 12KiB, 320x400

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 20:06:43 No.3532496 Report

Quoted By: >>3532500

>>3532471
>>3532472
Cowardly vile scum! You're with the Sainsbury's aren't you!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 20:15:23 No.3532500 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532496
>09/07/19(Sat)21:06:43

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 22:43:54 No.3532564 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532463
Spot on, about 30 ft, very soft. Like toy lens soft. I've thought about high quality mirror lenses, I think they are a better choice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 22:46:36 No.3532567 Report

Quoted By: >>3532568

>>3532471
I give it food everyday.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 22:49:55 No.3532568 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532567
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 02:29:53 No.3532635 Report

Quoted By: >>3532698

>>3530887
>>3530916
>no donut bokeh

BOOOO!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 07:29:55 No.3532698 Report

Quoted By: >>3532713 >>3534446 >>3538835

>>3531835
I will call you blind now.
Even scaled down it looks like a mess and that lense is a bitch to focus.
I had it enlarged 10x on the LCD sceeen to make sure to hit the focus perfectly.
>>3531907
>>3532472
IDK where should I upload them?
Probably will do it tomorrow as I don't have the RAWs with me now.
>>3531937
The zoom lense has about the same sharpness but indeed chromatic abberations.
However that's a dirt cheap zoom cropped to 4x its focal length compared to a lense in its native focal lengths.
That little advantage isn't worth the money nor the effort, size or focusing that bitch of a lense.
>>3531952
I did not sharpen them in post, these are probably jpg compression artifacts.
>>3532463
The light situation did not change to any significant degree during the shot.
>>3532635
With an effective focal length of 1280mm you don't realy have situations where you get nice bokeh, the background is pretty much alway the sky anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 08:57:32 No.3532713 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532698
>IDK where should I upload them?
>Probably will do it tomorrow as I don't have the RAWs with me now.
you can use filehosting site like Mega.nz, Dropbox or any other file upload site.
Thanks and the thread will be around so no rush.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO X-T2 2019-03-24 247.jpg, 2MiB, 2741x1827

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 10:20:18 No.3532732 Report

Quoted By: >>3532887

>>3530864
For the same price you can get russian mirror lens that have better IQ. ZM-5SA or ZM-5A for example, both are 500/8.
My samples
https://www.flickr.com/photos/linebrell/albums/72157704864786774

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 17:08:15 No.3532887 Report

Quoted By: >>3533064 >>3533154

>>3532732
holy shit! that's pretty amazing for a cheap lens. It blows these mirror South Koreans lenses out of the water.

what's the current state of russian optics today? do they still make any lenses? any cameras?

I still have a few old soviet Zenith cameras... always liked them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 02:27:47 No.3533064 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532887
you must really like ducks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 04:38:30 No.3533088 Report

Quoted By: >>3534651 >>3537528

I did it. I bought a Canon FD 500mm F/8 mirror lens from Japan today. I'll post some test shots when it arrives in Canada in a few weeks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 09:43:16 No.3533154 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532887
Modern Zenitar lenses are still producing. There are 50/1.2, 50/0.95, 16/2.8, 8/3.5
Also Helios 40-2 is still in production.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1356b.jpg, 1MiB, 3232x2220

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 02:03:20 No.3534446 Report

Quoted By: >>3534461

>>3532698
>With an effective focal length of 1280mm you don't realy have situations where you get nice bokeh, the background is pretty much alway the sky anyway.
I make sure to get bokeh for my mirror nearly every time I take it out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 02:48:48 No.3534461 Report

Quoted By: >>3534619 >>3534679

>>3534446
>I make sure to get bokeh for my mirror nearly every time I take it out.
Donuts are obvious but how do you get stars?
Also, which mirror lens do you have?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 12:06:07 No.3534619 Report

Quoted By: >>3534679

>>3534461
>how do you get stars?
Not him, but just put a star-shaped aperture in front of the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 13:54:09 No.3534651 Report

Quoted By: >>3534723 >>3537528

>>3533088
it's arriving tomorrow

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_9184b.jpg, 134KiB, 1024x683

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 14:41:42 No.3534679 Report

Quoted By:

>>3534461
Opteka 500mm f/6.3 And it is as >>3534619 stats. Just cover part of the dot in the middle of the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 16:09:57 No.3534723 Report

Quoted By: >>3537528

>>3534651
sweet! post some pics when it arrives.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Sep 2019 10:47:59 No.3535595 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530864
Buy used. Try for the best, longest lens you can afford, get a doubler. I normally can't throw cash down when I want something, i have to save for months. It's worth the wait.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC06494-01.jpg, 2MiB, 1920x1357

Anonymous Sat 14 Sep 2019 19:46:11 No.3535801 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530864
Get a cheap something-to-240mm and chuck on a cheap 2x teleconverter. Use a tripod, hold shit steady, use external shutter trigger.

Cry that your results are cheap. Or be satisfied and strive for better.

This was an old Tokina at 150mm desu, no tele, but was manual focus too so come at me bro. Love my birb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Sep 2019 19:47:30 No.3535802 Report

Quoted By:

no 2x-teleconverter*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Sep 2019 18:29:12 No.3536257 Report

Quoted By: >>3536354

>>3531028
Update:
I just found out the infinity focus wasn't as spot on as I thought, this pic is focused beyond Infinity and therefore useless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Sep 2019 22:01:08 No.3536354 Report

Quoted By: >>3536355

>>3536257
understandable. really nailing focus on long lenses is hard. lots of sharpness comparisons are tainted by less than perfect focus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Sep 2019 22:02:38 No.3536355 Report

Quoted By:

>>3536354
I'm the one who just bought the Canon 500mm. I still plan on comparing it to my Canon nFD 200mm f4, with and without a 2x teleconverter and posting

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Mon 16 Sep 2019 02:07:55 No.3536431 Report

Quoted By: >>3536458

We had this thread last month.

MTO-11CA MTO-11 1000 mm f10 Maksutov Tele-Optic
SMC Pentax Reflex 1000mm f11
Tamron Adaptall2 SP 500mm f8 mirror 55BB
ZM-6A 500mm f6.3 Mirror M42 882482
or go home

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Sep 2019 03:08:59 No.3536458 Report

Quoted By:

>>3536431
from what I read, the Zeiss and Vivitar series 1 mirrors are better still (just expensive)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Sep 2019 18:07:37 No.3537057 Report

Quoted By: >>3537172

>>3530864

https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Telephoto-Digital-Mirrorless-Cameras/dp/B074SX9KLC/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=preset+telephoto+500mm&qid=1568743630&s=gateway&sr=8-5

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Sep 2019 23:55:41 No.3537172 Report

Quoted By:

>>3537057
that thing is 3x longer and 5x heavier than a mirror lens. And the IQ is probably the same or worse.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image:99569.jpg, 237KiB, 1438x1438

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 18:54:40 No.3537528 Report

Quoted By: >>3537532 >>3537533 >>3537570 >>3537598 >>3538693

>>3534723
>>3534651
>>3533088
first is the refractive reference: a 200mm f4 nFD on a 2x teleconverter. this was actually easier to focus than the mirror since I could just focus for minimum chromatic abberation, which is easier to see than sharpness on such a long and shaky focal length.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image:99568.jpg, 347KiB, 1706x1707

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 18:55:48 No.3537532 Report

Quoted By: >>3537533 >>3537570 >>3537598 >>3537601 >>3538693

>>3537528
here's the mirror lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 18:58:21 No.3537533 Report

Quoted By: >>3537567 >>3537570 >>3537598 >>3537601 >>3537679

>>3537528
>>3537532
on both of these tests, a good bit of the blur is atmospheric. air currents were plainly visible in the viewfinder, but they just look like blur in a still.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 19:42:45 No.3537567 Report

Quoted By: >>3537570

>>3537533
I guess I'll detail the test shots a bit more: both where taken with the same fixed camera setting: neutral jpeg sooc, 1/500s shutter, minimum iso, the 200mm was wide open at f4 because that roughly matched exposure with the teleconverter mounted, electronic front shutter to minimize shake, tripod (on camera for the 200mm, on the lens collar for the 500mm, hence the slight rotation between the two, my fd-nex adapter introduces a slight roll), manual focus obviously, eyeballed a crop so the cross takes up about the center third in both directions, both are 100% crops with no resizing. sorry about the jpeg, but it's /p/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 19:53:30 No.3537570 Report

Quoted By: >>3537580

>>3537528
>>3537532
>>3537533
>>3537567
Wow! Mirror one actually looks better to me. How is that possible?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 20:06:59 No.3537580 Report

Quoted By:

>>3537570
I think mirror lenses have a bad rep because their bokeh is hideous, and people by the cheap junk ones that are still in production. the good mirrors seem to actually be good lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 20:55:19 No.3537598 Report

Quoted By:

>>3537528
>air currents were plainly visible in the viewfinder
>>3537532
>>3537533
>air currents were plainly visible in the viewfinder
>0.4km
Well, that's going to fuck up your image.

Try a test at 20m with overcast skies and a breeze. The Canon 500mm f8 has a good reputation. It's not going to be razor sharp but you may be pleasantly surprised. TV antennas and alarm boxes with text on are good targets.

The Moon is an obvious target but 90% of the time the atmosphere will blur your images.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 20:57:14 No.3537601 Report

Quoted By: >>3537667

>>3537532
>>3537533
>air currents were plainly visible in the viewfinder
>0.4km
Well, that's going to fuck up your image.

Try a test at 20m with overcast skies and a breeze. The Canon 500mm f8 has a good reputation. It's not going to be razor sharp but you may be pleasantly surprised. TV antennas and alarm boxes with text on are good targets.

The Moon is an obvious target but 90% of the time the atmosphere will blur your images.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 22:42:33 No.3537667 Report

Quoted By:

>>3537601
>20m
will do. I did want a real world test of somewhat longer distances: I think it's quite usable at 400m, especially since that's a 100% crop. but you're right that it'd be a better test of the lens to do a relatively short range test

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Sep 2019 23:13:20 No.3537679 Report

Quoted By:

>>3537533
Visible blur on 400m? Were you shooting at noon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 19:30:05 No.3538693 Report

Quoted By:

>>3537528
>>3537532
Goodjob anon.

Mirror seems good to me. Might get overkill mirror myself one day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 01:08:52 No.3538835 Report

Quoted By: >>3539170 >>3539491

>>3532698
>With an effective focal length of 1280mm
you dont understand what focal length is do you? the distance from the rear nodal point to the sensor doesnt change just because you have a APS-C you tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 20:24:11 No.3539102 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530864
Not really, I had a 600m Sigma mirror, ended up ditching it for a Canon 100-400L, am much happier with that

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 00:46:34 No.3539170 Report

Quoted By:

>>3538835
No doubt they meant "35mm Equivalent"
Which is a relevant consideration at these focallenghts because ~50% more of various aspects.
...you tard.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO X-T2 2019-09-22 316.jpg, 2MiB, 3000x1687

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 11:38:15 No.3539357 Report

Quoted By: >>3540055

ZM-5SA 500/8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 17:00:36 No.3539491 Report

Quoted By:

>>3538835
35 mm lens on full frame produces what is considered 35mm photo.
35mm on crop sensor will look like ~50mm on full frame. Thus 35 is equivalent to 50. Tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 19:30:59 No.3540055 Report

Quoted By: >>3543101

>>3539357
Looks great. How far was the duck?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 19:41:50 No.3540063 Report

Quoted By: >>3540072

>>3530923
Londonderry?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1540808572505.jpg, 3MiB, 3328x2352

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 20:15:09 No.3540072 Report

Quoted By:

>>3540063
>Londonderry
I think it's St. Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 20:15:14 No.3540073 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530923
Brooooooooooooo that's my old campus ehehehehehheheh

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 07:01:22 No.3542930 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530864
300mm mirror on an MFT mount... is that a win considering it's small?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO X-T2 2019-09-22 473.jpg, 2MiB, 3000x2000

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 18:38:35 No.3543101 Report

Quoted By: >>3543104

>>3540055
Around 7-10m/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 18:46:02 No.3543104 Report

Quoted By: >>3543148

>>3543101
How hard are these lenses to focus?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO X-T2 2019-09-22 282.jpg, 2MiB, 3000x1687

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 21:02:17 No.3543148 Report

Quoted By:

>>3543104
I'm using focus peeking and LCD screen. Still making 2-3 shots in row to catch focus. Not many of them are focused right.
Would be better with EVF, but i set my camera low on ground and was unable to use it, only LCD screen.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1563528388192.jpg, 1MiB, 3264x2448

Anonymous Thu 03 Oct 2019 03:08:58 No.3544176 Report

Quoted By:

I was at a photo swap meet today and picked up this mirror lens for $80. it's so damn small. it's like 3.5" tall. I'l do some tests this weekend.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Mirror telephoto lenses?