[Michael Piziak]

First off, I ordered it from Japan, and again very satisfied with lens description and again received it fast (via Fedex). This was the 2nd lens I ordered from Japan... Again, the condition of the lens is even, much, better than the description - smiles.... The only downfall is the cost of shipping was $37 - but that is expected from a Japanese order... And with the lens costing only $88, it was a great value IMO...


First impression is the lens was well made of metal and, thus, weighed more than I expected...


Other thoughts...

- This lens was recommended here in Pentaxforums.com, and I am satisfied with the sharpness of the lens
- Doughnut shaped bokeh shows up, but isn't as distracting as I thought it would be. But it does show up in about half the shots I took....

- Depth of Field, as expected from comments on all mirror lens, is quite narrow; therefore, I recommend taking more pictures [in continuous shooting mode (low or high, I like low)] - adjusting focusing in and out while taking continuous shots... which increases ones chances of grabbing keepers


Photos taken, at 25 yards just before sunset, with it below, using the K-S2, post processing of "auto levels" done on each photo using Gimp... No cropping... Click on any photo to access the EXIF via Flickr or to see the other 7 photos...







Comments please

---

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 01-16-2022 at 04:45 PM.

[kypfer]

Comments please

No more or less than I'd expect … you've obviously got an undamaged one, it should serve you well
Enjoy

[wadge22]

Really glad you got a good copy of that lens! I've always thought they were really cool, but I never went for one myself.

The contrast is a little better than I would have expected, just from reading about mirror lenses.

Those are some pretty nice shots, although next steps will be:
-Get the birds without the feeder in the frame ( the middle one is my favorite for that reason)
-Maybe higher shutter speeds and lower ISO will help get even more detail, although obviously that will require more light.

Are you using a tripod for those shots? I'm pretty impressed by how clear they are at such low shutter speeds. I usually try and start at 1/250 as the minimum for little birds, and higher still is better.

Not that I get shots of little birds much better than those myself very often. Small birds + manual focus = hard.

[Michael Piziak]

Really glad you got a good copy of that lens! I've always thought they were really cool, but I never went for one myself.

The contrast is a little better than I would have expected, just from reading about mirror lenses.

Those are some pretty nice shots, although next steps will be:
-Get the birds without the feeder in the frame ( the middle one is my favorite for that reason)
-Maybe higher shutter speeds and lower ISO will help get even more detail, although obviously that will require more light.

Are you using a tripod for those shots? I'm pretty impressed by how clear they are at such low shutter speeds. I usually try and start at 1/250 as the minimum for little birds, and higher still is better.

Not that I get shots of little birds much better than those myself very often. Small birds + manual focus = hard.

Thanks for the comments. You and the other person spoke about a good copy of the lens - I'm just curious if this lens had some bad copies in the past or your just making a general comment that your glad I got a nice copy of the lens.

Perhaps the contrast was helped out by my doing an "auto levels" on each image in Gimp. That is my go to tool in post processing...


I agree with you on getting some better pics. This was just my first go with the lens and posting what I could come up with at the feeder (to more or less just test the lens out)...

As far as ISO and shutter speed. I had the camera in manual mode, but it was choosing both on its own...


No, I wasn't using a tripod. I was leaning my hand/camera against a pole on the back porch as I took the pics to stabilize it a bit though... I would like to try it on a tripod, to perhaps see if the images can be obtain a bit sharper though...


Thanks again,

Michael

[robgski]

2 of 3 came out very well. very sharp with good colors.
I have a 500mm Mirror lens as well, when I get it right the image is great, but it isn't easy. Because your DOF is so narrow, because you should be using a shutter speed at or above 1/500, and because just a little bit of movement is more noticeable with such a focal length, I recommend using a monopod or a tripod for added stability.

[micl161]

Don't forget to put a long hood on these 500mm mirror lens, it will improve the photo!

[Michael Piziak]

2 of 3 came out very well. very sharp with good colors.
I have a 500mm Mirror lens as well, when I get it right the image is great, but it isn't easy. Because your DOF is so narrow, because you should be using a shutter speed at or above 1/500, and because just a little bit of movement is more noticeable with such a focal length, I recommend using a monopod or a tripod for added stability.

Yes, indeed. I will use a tripod in the future. For now I was just kinda trying it out for the first time...

Thanks for your comment(s) !

---------- Post added 01-16-22 at 06:30 PM ----------

Don't forget to put a long hood on these 500mm mirror lens, it will improve the photo!

Funny thing is, I did the same thing I did when I first got my Pentax 55-300mm lens. The hood had been put on in reverse, to make it shorter during shipping. I didn't realize how to properly reverse the hood and put it on correctly for quite some time - LOL. Did the same thing with this one. Now I have the lens hood on properly, which is a fairly long lens hood. I'm sure that will help out with the photos being better! So these photos I posted here, were basically taken with no lens hood at all....

Thanks,

Michael

p.s. As far as how sharp this lens is, I'd have to give it like a 7 out of 10 if I reviewed it on sharpness - for the time being anyways.... That being said, I think it is amongst the sharper mirror lens available.... I think perhaps, that a photo taken from the 55-300 lens and cropped may well deliver an image sharper than this 500mm lens - thoughts? - below is a 300 mm image from my copy of the Pentax 55-300.

---

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 01-16-2022 at 06:36 PM.

[robgski]

thoughts?

I can only go by my own experience with my 500mm Mirror.
1st, Slow is smooth, and smooth produces better results.
Second off, you need a lot of light, especially if your lens is a fixed aperture of f8 as mine does.
Third, the DOF is thin, very thin, so you need to focus at what is closest to the lens, in this case the tip of the beak, not easy.
Consider using Topaz AI software, I used it to improve this image taken with a 500mm mirror lens on K-1, and cropped.

[Michael Piziak]

I can only go by my own experience with my 500mm Mirror.
1st, Slow is smooth, and smooth produces better results.
Second off, you need a lot of light, especially if your lens is a fixed aperture of f8 as mine does.
Third, the DOF is thin, very thin, so you need to focus at what is closest to the lens, in this case the tip of the beak, not easy.
Consider using Topaz AI software, I used it to improve this image taken with a 500mm mirror lens on K-1, and cropped.

Very nice photo and thanks for the advice....
I use Linux, so not sure if Topaz AI is available for me or not... What feature of the software did you apply - perhaps I can find another program that does the same.

[UncleVanya]

People speak of mirror lenses as if they had a shallower depth of field than standard refractor lenses but they are the same. It’s just that they are very “long” lenses with very limited depth of field that is fixed due to the non variable aperture.

[wadge22]

just making a general comment that your glad I got a nice copy of the lens.

This.
Just in general any used lens is a bit of a crapshoot when you first try it, and maybe more so the older it is.
I'm just saying, if those are the first shots you snapped off, I don't think you have to worry about something being misaligned or hazy, because you're already doing pretty good!

[turbo_bird]

I haven't tried others, but a program that seems to help the shots I've taken with my mirror lens is by ON1, called No Noise AI. It can be used standalone or as a plugin for Photoshop. It's become nearly my default sharpening and noise reduction step.
Kristian

[clackers]

- Doughnut shaped bokeh shows up, but isn't as distracting as I thought it would be. But it does show up in about half the shots I took....

If the scene doesn't have 'specular highlights' in the background (like the light shining through gaps in leaves, or street lights), it won't be distracting/noticeable.

[robgski]

What feature of the software did you apply - perhaps I can find another program that does the same.

For this particular shot, I used Topaz Sharpen with the motion blur reduction setting. Sharpen also allows for Noise Reduction in the same process if selected.

I am not sure, but I might have had a ProMaster 2x teleconverter for this shot as well. The eagles are nesting again, so I'll be trying many more times to get a few more keepers.

[romay]

One of the issus with DOF in catadioptric lenses is the PSF. Since it is way more spread out than a gaussian, defocus kicks in sooner. This is often perceived as "shallower DOF" compared to a refractor.
I recommend using the Tamron for close ups / macros. It does very well at short distances.
For far away shots the Vivitar 800mm solid cat is slightly better.
One of the most underrated mirror tele lenses is the Makowsky-Katoptaron 500mm f/8. It needs getting used to, but it's quite sharp, can be stopped down and has regular (actually quite pleasing) Bokeh. If you find one for a price comparable to your Tamron, buy it.