|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-08-2014, 04:44 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-20-2014, 10:30 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-19-2014, 06:07 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-10-2014, 08:12 PM
|
| |
its just crazy to be able to get an effective focal length of 1050MM f11 from a 20 ounce lens combo. looks pretty sharp to me. . 1/250 second, ISO 500. straight image with a slight crop and slight exposure adjustment. no "stacking" or over sharpening or anything like that was done to it afterwards.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-08-2014, 03:13 PM
|
| |
One note, the lighting was higher contrast in the last image, and it was more overcast in the shots with the Mirror lens.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, you can usually take mirror lenses into sports events (like MLB) where a 150 to 500 zoom or 500mm f4.0 lens would not be allowed into the stadium
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-08-2014, 12:00 PM
|
| |
I took this from about the same distance as the ones with the 500mm mirror. This was shot with a 300mm f4 APO lens with a Kenkpo pro 1.4X attached. (the 1.4 X alone cost as much as my Mirror lens did) The was best shot i got from the series i took, and I nailed the focus on this one plus stopped the lens down a bit. Still, i think the Russian mirror compares very well, weighs about 1/3 of what that lens and converter do, (and cost about 15% as much) and is way more conspicuous.
Another issue I have with regular long teles is you draw attention to yourself when out in public with that stuff. You kind of look like a paparazzi or worse. Bring a nearly 2 foot long lens to the beach to shoot sea birds, and people look at you like you're a pervert.
i don't mind as much when i am off in the remote woods or mountains, but then there is the issue of carrying all that heavy stuff.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-07-2014, 11:23 AM
|
| |
what I noticed is that you can easily see if the background is really distracting when taking the shot-I still wlll get doughnuts if there are very bright spots far behind a closer subject. sometimes just moving a few feet from one side to another changes the look and gets rid of the doughnuts /harsh double images. I have also heard that the Maksotov design does give a little better out of focus look in general than the more common Schmidt design, which is what all of the Asian made mirror lenses use.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-06-2014, 12:24 PM
|
| |
ISO 400 to 640 gave me fast enough speeds. 1/400 to 1/1000. here are a few of the better shots i got. Lower keeper % hand held, but still not bad. I am really thrilled with this lens. For some reasons, the images I have taken with this particular lens do not scream "mirror lens" that much. the sharpnes and contrast are high and on par with normal long teles I have used, and the backgrounds are not the best bokeh ever, but are not that distracting to me.
This a cropped nearly about 1/2 full size
I call this one the "Angry bird"
one last one, hand held 1/800 second ISO 400
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-04-2014, 11:19 PM
|
| |
I have a Russian made Intes Micro Alter m603 1500mm F10 Maksutov telescope that I purchased years ago. The optics on it are superb. The viewing quality of that scope is one of the reasons I decided to try and get a hold of the mirror lens I just bought.
Its not often an inexpensive lens exceeds my expectations. Last time that happened was when i found a Carl Zeiss Jena 35 mm F2.5 MC Flektogon for under $100. (still use it with an adapter on my D SLR) That lens compared favorably to a Leica Summicron I owned at the time at a tiny fraction of the price.
I did use a tripod for those shots to help me steady the camera, mostly because the lighting was overcast. I do want to try and see what i can get hand held on a sunny day. To me, one of the benefits of a light weight super tele is to not have to be tied down to a tripod all the time. Its also amazing how heavy a typical 3 or 4 pound long tele lens gets when you have been carrying around for a while compared to a one pound lens.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-04-2014, 05:01 PM
|
| |
Keeper percentage is typical for a slow long lens--less than half are in focus. i am blown away that these were taken with a $150 Mirror lens--even the bokeh is not terrible. sharpness and color compare with a 300 mm ED Nikkor i use. with a 1.4X on the 300mm, I think these are better.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-04-2014, 03:32 PM
|
| |
the one thing that surprised me is that there doesn't seem to be any hot spot / vignetting that is common with mirror lenses, which I guess could partially be because of the smaller than 35mm coverage.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-04-2014, 11:10 AM
|
| |
Just decided to get another mirror lens, and I enjoyed all the photos and info here at this 48 page thread so I decide to join the forum.. I owned a Sigma 600 and Tamron 500 years ago, but had little luck getting good images with them with the film cameras I owned at the time, and eventually sold them. Had a Celestron C90 1000mm too, and it was nearly impossible to get a good image with that lens--bad vignetting too.
I could see new possibilities with mirror lenses and the new digital SLR's where ISO speeds can be bumped up with little image loss, and it doesn't cost anything to delete non keepers. After researching the various forums and looking at a lot of pictures taken with different lenses, I decided to try out the Russian made 3m 5A MC 500MM f8 lens, and it arrived yesterday after waiting about 3 weeks for it. The lens is like new, and i am very surprised at how nice the focus feels. I owned some Kiev cameras years ago, and the lens focus was like sandpaper rubbing together. The lens is very light as well-around 1 pound. Its been cloudy and raining here, but I did mange to get a few test shots off, and I can tell the lens is a keeper already. I will try to post up some more interesting shots when it brightens up a bit.
I am so far away from this Bay image, it amazes me the detail you can still see even on a foggy overcast day. I must be over 10 miles away from these boats and the Pier section of San Francisco.
 |
