Site Supporter Registered: November, 2012 Location: North Wales Posts: 2,869 | | Review Date: October 18, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | better, faster, more manageable/versatile focal length than the 600mm | | Cons: | not quite as good as eg tamron adaptall mirrors | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: K3-ii, KS2,
New Or Used: Used
| |
This lens deserves a recommendation. There are far fewer f5.6 mirrors around, and they tend to have a price penalty, but if you bide your time you may well spot one of these and manage to get it for a good price. Mine, a minty one, seems to be a better performer than the one reviewed below - sigma mirrors (specifically the 600mm f8) are known for sample variation. Pics from this lens with crops and comments, and some comparison with the tamron 350mm f5.6, here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-400mm-f56-mirror-t81280.html
It is noteworthy that the sigma is just perhaps slightly less sharp than the well regarded tamron. But also worth remarking that this and other mirrors struggle to match the performance of their best refractive contempories.
You can also see some images and comments on the lens in the mirror club thread, post 1134, and post 1149.
| |
Senior Member Registered: June, 2009 Location: Sydney Posts: 171 | | Review Date: June 10, 2010 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | compact, light, cheap | | Cons: | soft, low contrast, low saturation, no AF, poorly aligned elements (on this copy), slow. | |
Reviewed was the black version of this lens, which is cosmetically similar to the review photo for the 600mm mirror, with no tripod mount.
Test shots were done in the closeup range of 2-3m on a tripod using a remote release and a 3 second delay, with a DA*16-50 was used as a reference lens.
The copy reviewed has some marks on the mirror (I expect fungus and possibly a cleaning attempt by a previous owner).
It exhibits all of the usual idiosyncrasies of a mirror lens - low contrast and saturation, super thin depth of field, and a distinctive bokeh.
Although contrast and saturation can be easily corrected in post-processing, other characteristics are harder to deal with.
This lens is very soft and almost a full stop slower than the reference lens at f5.6. On a bright, overcast day, ISO of 400-800 is required to approach 1/500th, where camera shake should be sufficiently attenuated. Noise doesn't compete with softness until 1600-3200ISO.
High contrast shots show some blooming, but no chromatic aberrations.
From a user perspective it's all relative to price. At a price point of $10-80, options are probably limited to digitally zooming (cropping) and/or second-hand, low-end glass of the kit-zoom variety.
When fully zoomed, then cropped to match the view of the 400mm, the 16-50mmDA* was easily out-resolved by the mirror lens. This is not surprising, given that this involved reducing the effective resolution of the 16-50 to 12.5% of its full-size. If you need the magnification, you can't do it by cropping from a quality lens in the normal range.
In the $10-80 price range, you just might get an AF glass lens of about the same speed, that's not as soft or bloomy, but it will be soft. It will also be heavier, and have more CA.
Without a price component, I would rate this lens as a 2-3. Considering the alternatives, it's a 4-5.
| |
;)
;)
