[xjjohnno]

3M-5CA
Low on the contrast but that might be due as much to the fact it was overcast and my subjects were'talways positioned that well.
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/may2010/slides/PICT4425.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/may2010/slides/PICT4449.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

3M-5CA
Low on the contrast but that might be due as much to the fact it was overcast and my subjects were'talways positioned that well.

Looks good to me. How heavy is this lens? I'd like to see more samples from it.

[xjjohnno]

Can't give you an exact weight on the 3M-5CAbut I'd consider it light enough to no need a strap and happily hang off the camera around your neck. A ripper walk around 500 from that perspective. More samples will be forthcoming when I use it a bit more. The fixed f8 aperture also means the viewfinder is a bit on the gloomy side.

[eccs19]

Been a while for any posts in this thread, so lets see if we can get some more nice mirror shots.

[Marc Sabatella]

I haven't been taking the mirror lens out much lately, but I went to a baseball game the other night and thought it might be fun to bring the Vivitar. It was a night game, so not a lot of light, plus it was raining most of the time, so it was basically not a fun experience overall. But we got to see arguably the best pitcher in baseball right now (even though he seemed to struggling with the wet ball big time that night). Here's Ubaldo Jimenez in his windup, with the Vivitar 500/8 Mirror:

[imgtall]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4700265336_ca93b92e0e_b.jpg[/imgtall]

[IowaBoy]

Opteka 500 F6.3

Something for flag day.



And one from the 1st set I took.


And for something different A mirror lens Landscape.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Opteka 500 F6.3

Nice shots. I've had a bad experience with a 500/8, but the 500/6.3 shots that I've seen are showing it's a more competent lens. And those extra 2/3 of a stop can be handy.

[Cuchulainn]

I shot last month's Atlantis launch with a Sigma 600mm f8:




Pictures were taken on the causeway in Titusville, about 12 miles from the launchpad, with a k20d.

[EddieAmzel]

Hi, I'm new to the forums. I went to the zoo with the family yesterday, and one of the images that came out was taken with the Rokinon 500mm f/6.3 on a K-x.

[photolady95]

Great shots you guys have here. I'm thinking of buying a mirror lens also and since I don't see anything untowards wrong with using one, (I've heard they're bad and you shouldn't buy one) I have a few questions. I can get one for less than $100.

What's the worse case scenario for these lens besides the f8 part?

Okay, I only had one question. LOL

[Marc Sabatella]

They tend to be lower in contrast and sharpness than other lenses, and the bokeh is weird (doughnuts-shaped). And while the physical aperture might be f/8, the amount of light they let through is even less, so shutter speeds are slower than f/8 might normally suggest - plus the viewfinder will be quite dim.

But there no other way to get a 500mm lens that fits in a typical camera bag for $100, so what are you gonna do?

[CGottfried]

They tend to be lower in contrast and sharpness than other lenses, and the bokeh is weird (doughnuts-shaped). And while the physical aperture might be f/8, the amount of light they let through is even less, so shutter speeds are slower than f/8 might normally suggest - plus the viewfinder will be quite dim.

But there no other way to get a 500mm lens that fits in a typical camera bag for $100, so what are you gonna do?

All too true - although the Pentax reflex lenses can be sharp, they're not at all forgiving if out of focus. But one way to test the quality of a reflex lens is how it handles infinity. About 20 years ago I had a cheap reflex, and infinity was a donut disaster. Both the SMC 400-600 and the 1000 are much better in that regard. If one is fortunate in the multiple of the background to the subject distance, bokeh is pleasing; otherwise it can be very unfortunate.

The first photo is from the 400-600 (and I forget which zoomI had it on).

What I like about the reflex lens is the relatively light weight versus the equivalent typical lens, which makes it possible to track birds in flight, especially if the subject is distant (as is typical during a hawk watch).

Following is a sequence with the Pentax 1000mm reflex. The first is an adult snow goose from Middle Creek, PA; the second is one of the local great blue herons; and the third is an adult bald eagle. The latter is soft, but there's something about a bald eagle in flight that has its own type of power.

I blow a lot of shots with the 1000mm, but I've become a better birder.

Cheers,
--Chet

[Ben_Edict]

What I like about the reflex lens is the relatively light weight versus the equivalent typical lens, which makes it possible to track birds in flight, especially if the subject is distant (as is typical during a hawk watch).

Following is a sequence with the Pentax 1000mm reflex. The first is an adult snow goose from Middle Creek, PA; the second is one of the local great blue herons; and the third is an adult bald eagle. The latter is soft, but there's something about a bald eagle in flight that has its own type of power.

I blow a lot of shots with the 1000mm, but I've become a better birder. :rolleyes

I have no experience with the Pentax reflex lenses, but used the Tokina 500(8 and the MTO 1000/10 in the past (apart from my 3000/12.5 scope)
. The Tokina is one of the better catadioptrics, especially given its very tiny size.

But your example images are not only soft, but simply not sharp to my eyes. Is this a compression artefact (from the upload here) or is it real?

Ben

[CGottfried]

I have no experience with the Pentax reflex lenses, but used the Tokina 500(8 and the MTO 1000/10 in the past (apart from my 3000/12.5 scope)
. The Tokina is one of the better catadioptrics, especially given its very tiny size.

But your example images are not only soft, but simply not sharp to my eyes. Is this a compression artefact (from the upload here) or is it real?

Ben

Given the average size of the jpegs I uploaded are 20-30K, to be sure, compression reduces sharpness.

But perhaps you could give an example of a bird flight photo from 300-600 feet that you consider sufficiently sharp.

Cheers,
--Chet

[Ben_Edict]

Given the average size of the jpegs I uploaded are 20-30K, to be sure, compression reduces sharpness.

But perhaps you could give an example of a bird flight photo from 300-600 feet that you consider sufficiently sharp.

Cheers,
--Chet

I think, you got it down the wrong throat

Birds in flight are not exactly my favourite passion, but if I do chase them, I use refractive lenses, as I find mirrors too slow and too cumbersome to focus. I use mirror lenses for more or less static (or slowly moving) objects, like this:


This was taken with my 3000mm fl f/12.5 mirror scope.

Ben