[Thagomizer]

A pair of Cooper's Hawks have started nesting just half a block away from my front door. I'm hoping to get check in on them as weather and foliage permit, to see how they're doing. These are with my Tamron 55BB 500mm f8. Some are cropped a bit.

[barondla]

A pair of Cooper's Hawks have started nesting just half a block away from my front door. I'm hoping to get check in on them as weather and foliage permit, to see how they're doing. These are with my Tamron 55BB 500mm f8. Some are cropped a bit.

Amazing captures! Hawks are difficult to photograph. Impressive results, especially considering a mirror lens was used. Great work!
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

[Thagomizer]

Amazing captures! Hawks are difficult to photograph. Impressive results, especially considering a mirror lens was used. Great work!
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

Thanks! It really helped that he was sitting down having breakfast!

[AggieDad]

A recent outing to Galveston Island to grab some photos of the migrating birds has told me that my 78 y.o. arthritic hands are really no longer up to the task of keeping my big old Sigma 150-500 steady enough.

So I have been thinking about a mirror lens which would be lighter and, perhaps, easier to handle. Am I correct? Is a mirror lens easier to handle? Could I still use a 1/800th or 1/1000th sec shutter speed? If so, what is a lens recommendation?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts and responses.

Don

[marcusBMG]

Don, my advice would be a good bridge (superzoom) camera. Mirror lenses are light, but they are very ticklish to use.
Check out Ken Rockwell's discussion of the Sony RX10, for example, as an illustration of how this technology has really moved on from the days of garish postcardy images spat out of a camera with a particularly horrid evf.

[Thagomizer]

A recent outing to Galveston Island to grab some photos of the migrating birds has told me that my 78 y.o. arthritic hands are really no longer up to the task of keeping my big old Sigma 150-500 steady enough.

So I have been thinking about a mirror lens which would be lighter and, perhaps, easier to handle. Am I correct? Is a mirror lens easier to handle? Could I still use a 1/800th or 1/1000th sec shutter speed? If so, what is a lens recommendation?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts and responses.

Don

I don't have experience of conventional lenses longer than 300mm, so take what I say accordingly.

A mirror lens is different to handle. In the 500mm focal length range, it is certainly likely to be lighter to carry around, which sounds like it would be a plus for your situation. But not all mirrors are equal. I have a Russian MTO 1100mm mirror that doesn't see a lot of use because it's a heavy pig, and is hard to use without a tripod. I prefer hand held shooting, so that puts it lower on my "what willI shoot with today?" list.

But a mirror lens, unless you're shooting with a Minolta AF mirror lens or its Sony derivative, is also manual focus. This may change what you're able to shoot.

The fixed f8 aperture common on many 500mm mirror lenses makes it slower and dimmer than many conventional telephoto lenses of similar focal length. Combine that with MF, and again, there's likely going to be an impact on what you're going to be able to shoot. Faster moving subjects are going to be harder to capture quickly.

Donut bokeh, comes with the territory, but its impact can be reduced by careful selection of background. This is not always possible of course. We usually have to go where our subjects are and put up with whatever they happen to be in front of at the time. We don't always have the luxury of being able to choose a backdrop less likey to provoke donuts. If the subject is interesting, and the image well focused and composed, the presence of mirror lens bokeh shouldn't make or break an image. I can live with it if the final image is still sufficiently compelling. Unless you point it out, many viewers, particularly those who are not as photo-technically inclined, might not even notice it.

I usually have to bump contrast and brightness in post, but it's not a big deal.

I try to keep some guidelines in mind when I shoot with mirror lenses. Not that I haven't broken or ignored them, but when I do, it usually shows.

As much as possible, fill the image with your subject. A tight crop of a bird that was small to start with is unlikely to result in a satisfactory final image.

Shoot in bright light. Even with the excellent high ISO performance of recent cameras, cranking up the sensitivity too much to make up for poor lighting, is going to give you less than stellar pictures, with details lost to high ISO grain. Find your own ISO limit, and shoot within it. You can use faster shutter speeds like 1/800, or 1/1000 or faster (see below), but nice bright light is recommended. There's no free lunch.

Never having had a long conventional lens like your 150-500, I can't make a direct comparison. I've never really done a "scientific" comparison to see if my 55-300 cropped to the same FOV as my 500 mirror gives similar, better, or worse results. I usually have one or the other, not both, if I'm shooting tele in that range. I don't doubt that a fixed 300, or longer/better zoom would likely give better images than my 500 mirror, but I can't use what I don't have. I try to work within the limitations of the tools at hand. As I'm not likely to be soon (or ever) able to afford a better tele lens, I'm content to live with what I've got. When things work out, I'm happy with what I get. And for memories and record-keeping, sometimes a bad picture is better than none at all. So be it.

Many posts and articles online tend to scoff at mirror lenses, and certainly a bad mirror lens is not going to do you any favours. But, contrary to what some would have you believe, not all mirror lenses are bad. Looking at the best of the shots by mirror shooters in this thread can give you a taste of what's possible. As for my own recommendations, I've used the Tokina 500mm f8 and the Tamron 55BB 500mm f8 mirrors most extensively. My Russian mirror is a hangar queen, quietly sitting in its wooden box, awaiting the signal to scramble, which does not often sound. Of the two mirrors I've used most, I would give the Tamron the edge. There have been times when I have been truly, pleasantly surprised by what it can deliver. Here are a few examples I'm particularly pleased with, which I've posted previously, just so you can see what sort of result I'm happy with:

K-S2, 1/1000 sec, 200 ISO



K-S2, 1/1000 sec, 800 ISO




All of the following were taken on a KP at 1/2000 sec, 800 ISO:






100% of above:






100% of above:





The thing to figure out is if this move is going to be right for you. If you go in aware of a mirror lens's limitations, and you're willing to work within them, accepting whatever changes to shooting technique and subject matter it imposes, you're good. If you don't feel that any of these represent too much of a sacrifice, then I would certainly invite you to take the plunge. A good mirror lens is probably going to be cheaper than a good conventional telephoto, too. If it turns out that it doesn't give you satifaction, you haven't likely spent that much, though "that much" is going to vary for each of us. (If you go for a Tamron Adaptall, the fixed aperture means you can stick with a plain PK mount and not worry about looking for the pricier PK-A one.) In the end, if you're happy with the pictures you get, and it keeps you shooting, that's all that's important.

I hope you find this helpful, keeping in mind that free advice is often worth exactly what you paid for it!

Good luck with your research and decision.

Bruce

[AggieDad]

Bruce – Many thanks for your most complete response. You brought up some interesting points.

I also did a bunch of Internet research today including a number of YouTube videos. The more I learn, the more I think I would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The single f/6.3 or f/8 aperture and the very thin depth of field would probably offset the lens being smaller and lighter. I suspect I will soon have to limit my long lens business to my 55-300mm.

[Thagomizer]

Bruce – Many thanks for your most complete response. You brought up some interesting points.

I also did a bunch of Internet research today including a number of YouTube videos. The more I learn, the more I think I would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The single f/6.3 or f/8 aperture and the very thin depth of field would probably offset the lens being smaller and lighter. I suspect I will soon have to limit my long lens business to my 55-300mm.

You're welcome: glad to be of help.

I've found that both thin DOF and donut bokeh are less of an issue when the main subject is a bit farther away, and when there's not as much separation between the subject and background (see geese, and guys on bridge above). Again, we can't always choose these things when we come across a subject we want to capture.

Good, strong light really helps a lot in focusing the dimmer f8 image in the viewfinder: if I was shooting from a tripod, I would use live view and peaking.

[cooltouch]

I'd like to add just one thing to Bruce's very informative and thorough post. He prefers the Tamron 55BB, which I also prefer. Tamron's build quality has always been very consistent, unlike some other makers, so you can pick up a used 55BB with confidence that it'll be a good lens. But that's not the one thing. The one thing is focus throw. Some mirrors have a very short focus throw, some as short as 90 degrees. The Tamron 55BB's is almost 360 degrees. Because you're often dealing with razor thin depths of field, having this additional focus throw can really help you fine tune your focus.

I own a Tamron SP 200-500mm zoom which I'll wager is at least as heavy as that Sigma. I have hoisted it on occasion, thinking I might try some off-hand shooting, but I've always chickened out, going for at least a monopod, and preferably a stout tripod. It's a great lens, but its weight does restrict its uses.

[ivanvernon]

Hey guys/folks/people, etc.:

I have two of these bad boys;

1. RMC Tokina 500 f 8.0

2. Mamiya-Sekor Reflex C 500mm f 8.0

I appreciate any comments on your comments or knowledge about either or both of these.

Kindly thanks.

[ivanvernon]

Couple shots with K-1 and Mamiya-Sekor 500mm f 8.0 reflex.

[AggieDad]

I own a Tamron SP 200-500mm zoom which I'll wager is at least as heavy as that Sigma. I have hoisted it on occasion, thinking I might try some off-hand shooting, but I've always chickened out, going for at least a monopod, and preferably a stout tripod. It's a great lens, but its weight does restrict its uses.

I think the Tamron may be even heavier than the Sigma. So you appreciate my problem.

Most of the photos of birds I took this past April seemed to have some movement that ruined the sharpness. You always expect to have winners and losers when hand-holding 500 mm, even at 1/1000th of a second. But this time there just were not many winners at all. That is what precipitated my thinking about a mirror lens. But my reading leads me to think I may be just trading one set of problems for a different set.

I am still open to learn further. I am not making a move immediately.

[Thagomizer]

But my reading leads me to think I may be just trading one set of problems for a different set.

Not all problems are created equal. If the new problems are a bit more manageable than the old ones..?

[cooltouch]

I think the Tamron may be even heavier than the Sigma. So you appreciate my problem.

Most of the photos of birds I took this past April seemed to have some movement that ruined the sharpness. You always expect to have winners and losers when hand-holding 500 mm, even at 1/1000th of a second. But this time there just were not many winners at all. That is what precipitated my thinking about a mirror lens. But my reading leads me to think I may be just trading one set of problems for a different set.

I am still open to learn further. I am not making a move immediately.

My best work with mirror lenses I've owned has been when I've used them in conjunction with a monopod or tripod. Now, I have used them occasionally off-hand -- specifically at air shows where either a monopod or a tripod is problematic. On these occasions, I was shooting in bright sun, so I was able to shoot with higher shutter speeds. On these occasions I was more concerned with focus than with camera shake anyway, since airshow photography is often fast paced, requiring smooth movements.

[Thagomizer]

Cross posted from the Yard Birds thread.

Today I took my MTO 10/1000 out for some shooting. My version is the older design, dating from the late1950s, where the end closest to the camera is bigger than the front, rather than the whole assembly being a constant diameter throughout its length. This is it here.

In my backyard, a pair of Red Breasted Nuthatches are opening a hole in a dead tree limb. As they are returning reliably to the same spot, I figured they might make good test subjects.

Using the 1000 was a bit trickier than I thought it would be, quite apart from its greater weight and larger size. I'm close enough to the tree that depth of field is quite shallow at this camera to subject distance. Focusing on the hole in the tree where they were working would mean that the birds would actually be slightly out of focus. While the birds were there regularly, they didn't stay still for very long. So, I focused as best I could, using live view with peaking, making adjustments occasionally. I shot on continuos hi, firing short bursts when the birds were around the opening.

This was also the first test of my recently acquired CS-310 cable release, which worked very nicely. I also had a go at using WiFi on my tablet, but I found using the camera's LCD panel better. I might find the tablet more useful with an AF lens, though, so more play is needed.

I attached the lens using a flanged M42-PK adapter, along with a 12mm PK extension tube (to clear the KP's flash housing overhang). My understanding is that Maksutov mirror lenses often focus beyond infinity, so a bit of extension doesn't interfere with infinity focusing. I'll have to test this with some lunar photography at some point. My subjects were much closer in any case, so not an issue.

Unfortunately, the M42-PK adapter resulted in the camera being at an angle. The tree limb in these photos is actually vertical, but the angle of the camera obscures this fact. The lens is much too heavy to use the camera's tripod mount. The lens has a single, non-rotating mount point on the bottom. I believe later MTO 1000mm lenses have two mounting points at right angle to each other. I'll have to either mess around with the tripod head, or try an M42 extension tube, backed off a bit, to see if I can get better alignment.

The sighting posts built into the upper surface of the lens body work very well for aiming. Little additional tripod adjustment was needed for proper subject alignment.

Okay, time to shut up and show some pictures already! All taken with KP, uncropped, with levels and contrast adjusted in post.













Not bad, but not great. I won't post any 100% crops yet. I'm still learning, so I may yet be able to get more out of it. I think it shows promise. More distant subjects will have more forgiving DOF, so there's that. At some point I also want to do some real world tests comparing the MTO to cropping shots from the Tamron 55BB to the same FOV.