 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / February 2004Mirror Lenses
I have a Centon 500 F8 mirror lens, which I like for its size and compactness, but feel that the image quality could be a lot better. I know that Tamron and Sigma both make mirror lenses: has anyone any experience of using these and better still would anyone know if they are appreciably better than the Cosina? I believe that Nikon also used to / still do make a mirror lens. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks David Byford My email isn't funny > I have a Centon 500 F8 mirror lens, which I like for its size and > compactness, but feel that the image quality could be a lot better. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I believe that Nikon also used to / still do make a mirror lens. Does > anyone know anything about this? Mirror lenses generally sucks, and are often a bit soft. Seen a comparison between the Canon 28-135mm IS USM and a cheap 500mm f/8, and magnifying the 28-135mm IS picts in Photoshop produced almost as good a result as the 500mm mirror lens. I have a telescope, which is a 1250mm f/12 lens, and it is OK but not great. Performs just as good or better in afocal mode (i.e. I take a photo with the normal eyepieces inplace) as it does without the Plössl eyepiece. Canon has an EF500mm f/4.5L USM. A bit large at 3 kg and 39cm, but it is way better than the one you have now. > I have a Centon 500 F8 mirror lens, which I like for its size and > compactness, but feel that the image quality could be a lot better. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks > David Byford Is the Centon lens one of those designs in which, looking from the back, you can see past the front mirror without going via the main mirror? (i.e poor baffling) That will reduce the contrast, and a more mainstream design will give you better results. The Tamron had a good reputation, and will fit a variety of bodies.  SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ms1938/ >I have a Centon 500 F8 mirror lens, which I like for its size and >compactness, but feel that the image quality could be a lot better. I >know that Tamron and Sigma both make mirror lenses: has anyone any >experience of using these and better still would anyone know if they >are appreciably better than the Cosina? Yes, both are very much better than the Cosina. I have used the Tamron 500mm extensively. There is also a 350mm. I have two friends who have older Sigma 600mm catadioptric (mirror) lenses and they get superb results. However all mirror lenses suffer from the same weaknesses, namely only one aperture and the strange, doughnut shaped out-of-focus highlights. >I believe that Nikon also used to / still do make a mirror lens. Does >anyone know anything about this? It's another very good lens, but maybe shaded by the Sigma. The Russian MTO lenses are also worth considering. There are two focal lengths, 550mm and 1100mm. T. P. <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ablj3013n5mtnnlf2h1sou04ibopejkp2n@4ax.com... > >I have a Centon 500 F8 mirror lens, which I like for its size and > >compactness, but feel that the image quality could be a lot better. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who have older Sigma 600mm catadioptric (mirror) lenses and they get > superb results. > However all mirror lenses suffer from the same > weaknesses, namely only one aperture and the strange, doughnut shaped > out-of-focus highlights. That is an inescapable feature of the catadioptric design and not down to the maker. > >I believe that Nikon also used to / still do make a mirror lens. Does > >anyone know anything about this? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Russian MTO lenses are also worth considering. There are two > focal lengths, 550mm and 1100mm. >TP wrote: >> However all mirror lenses suffer from the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That is an inescapable feature of the catadioptric design and not down to >the maker. ... which is the reason why I wrote "all mirror lenses suffer from the same weaknesses". You must have an honours degree in stating the bleeding obvious. I have used the > Tamron 500mm extensively. There is also a 350mm. I have two friends > who have older Sigma 600mm catadioptric (mirror) lenses and they get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The Russian MTO lenses are also worth considering. There are two > focal lengths, 550mm and 1100mm. Hi all (my first post on here, so forgive any poor etiquette please), I have three of the above mirror lenses: Tamron 350/5.6, Tamron 500/8, and MTO 1100/10.5 . The Tamrons are both of the SP series, which was their premier line. The 350 in particular is very good, and not so common. I notice pincushion distortion with the 500, particularly with a sea horizon that goes across the top or bottom of the frame. The 1100 is a real beast and greatly benefits from a camera with mirror-lockup, to reduce the vibration. Even with a tripod (without the mirror lock) you can get camera shake at 1/125! The slow speed is a problem too, but I have used it for eclipse photos, and for last year's transit of Mercury across the face of the Sun (using a suitable filter I must add, which lets through 1/100,000 of the light and none of the heat). It's not my sharpest lens, but great when you need maximum pulling power. I hope to use it again in June (8th I believe)when Venus transits the Sun for the first time since 1882 - worth a look, but don't blind yourself! Thanks for all your comments everyone. It does sound as though it is worth my while changing the Centon for a Tamron/Sigma/MTO depending on which I can pick up. TheTamrons and Sigmas seem to appear fairly regularly on ebay which is where I got the Centon from in the first place. David Byford My email isn't funny > I have used the >> Tamron 500mm extensively. There is also a 350mm. I have two friends [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >believe)when Venus transits the Sun for the first time since 1882 - >worth a look, but don't blind yourself! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.