One important note is that the large air volume inside may take a while to reach equilibrium with ambient temperature, particularly in winter, causing photos to be even lower contrast than is inherent to the design. Steve Perry has a video on how just the lens hood on his 600mm was causing images to look blurry until letting it all reach ambient temp. This could partly be the cause of reviews where people say it was horribly low contrast and just returned it right away
I've always thought mirror lenses are sort of the telephoto version of a fisheye lens...that is to say, a bit of a novelty lens which makes great photos, occasionally, with the right subject, but not a 'daily' lens. I remember my newspaper had a 500mm Tamron mirror lens that we sometimes used for cricket pics. The unique bokeh was quite handy for making uninteresting backgrounds a bit more pleasing.
Who remembers the gorgeous Vivitar Series 1 "Solid Cat" lenses? There was a 600mm f/8, 800mm f/11 and, an extremely rare 450mm f/4.5. How I lusted after that 600mm even though I literally hated every mirror lens I ever owned.
Since many users try these for moon photography (myself included) and are promptly disappointed (myself definitely included) because you can get better results by cropping the center part from a 200mm or 300mm shot, it might be nice to show us a sample moon shot!
I have one of the Russian MTO 1000mm lenses a couple commenters mentioned and here is a sample moon video. It is definitely better for the moon than my 200mm but I agree and think you would get better results from a 300mm cropped vs a 500mm mirror. ua-cam.com/video/gAonF8Jore0/v-deo.html
I have used many mirror lenses. The very best so far is the Canon FD 500/8. It's significantly sharper and contrasty compared to the Sigma 600mm f/8, and any of the Russian variants. I highly recommend taking a look at that one :)
All three of the Canon, Nikon ('new' version, there is an older design which isn't quite as good), and Olympus 500mm f/8 mirror lenses are a cut above the rest of the third party offerings from my experience.
I agree. The Canon FDn 500mm f8 mirror lens is excellent and can usually be found at a reasonable price. The Sigma is a bit softer but give that bit extra reach, and modern sharpening software will help deal with much of that. Definitely worth considering for relatively static subjects and situations where you can avoid a blurred background with highlights
I would suggest the Minolta 500mm f8 or 250mm f5.6 might be a contender for best mirrorless (?) but haven't compared the 500mm to others yet (plan to get the old Nikon 500mm).
Zeiss Mirotar 500/4.5, introduced for the Contarex in 1963 and re-released for Contax in 1975 is very rare, huge and costly, but by far the best mirror lens in terms of optical quality.
I bought a centon f8 500mm recently from eBay 73 uk pounds , featured on my UA-cam channel 2 days ago , called Motorcycles And Things , interesting things , I remember them in the 80s when I started photography, I’ve managed to hand hold mine with 90 percent of the photos I’ve taken right down to 320th of a second , using my g9 with stabilisation switched on , cheers shane uk 🇬🇧
Smaller telescopes (Cassegrain types especially) make for great (and big) mirror lenses. I used a 100mm Skywatcher Maksutov (f/15) and a 150mm Intes Maksutov (f/10) -- Telescope specs quote the aperture instead of the focal length, so these both act like 1500mm lenses. And with focal reducers you can make them shorter and faster.
The lower contrast in the center is probably caused by the secondary mirror in the center of the front element. Seen much worse results with other mirror lenses than this Tokina one. I've got an old russian 1000mm catadioptric lens ... and I mount my Pentax Q7 on it, which has a 4.7X crop-factor ... great to point at the moon, although IQ is reduced by the air turbulence in the atmosphere (you need very calm skies) ... and I was able to shoot pigeons filling the whole of the frame from hundreds of meters away ... using a very heavy tripod.
Well, the review helped me to decide that with that small angle rotation of the focusing ring, was not going to be work so I decided to buy (again) a Tamron SP 55BB 800mm F8 (1/3 of the price with adapter). With the external viewfinder I use with the FD300mm F4L, the results were as good , need to say that the focusing barrel ring travels 360 degrees. One thing to to make conclusions for for photo gear and another different for video. Can supply samples if someone is interested.
Didn't know that anyone still made these lenses. Interesting for those who value portability more than image quality. Having said that, I would consider one for the right situation.
I bought a vintage one myself. Its an amazing option for some unqiue shots of the moon IMO, and the image quality isn't really noticeable with the moon from my experience
I have to say that most of the comments are not very supportive of the lens type. 😬 Years ago I had a Sigma 600mm f8 in the camo green color with a canon T70 and found it a bit large and wieldy. This version is super light and about half the size if not smaller and takes a bit of practice to get the best out of it. Tripod important and I also use a 2 second timer on the shutter to ensure no movement when pressing for the picture. Using a Canon EOS T6s APS-C so actually getting about 800mm in 35mm format conversion. Also found that the sharpness is better without a UV or similar filter on the front. Possibly a more expensive filter would not degrade the result however I keep the filter on for protection and take it off for shooting. Thanks for the great reviews and I always check yours out first for the detailed testing and easy to understand commentary. Cheers all!! 📷
Not a fan of mirror (catadioptric) lenses but love Cat/Maksutov telescopes. Be that as it may, I do have an older Yashica (Made in Japan) 500mm f/8 mirror lens in Yashica/Contax mount. I'll put it a couple of grades above the Tokina simply because it has a built in rotating tripod collar, a built in sliding sun shade/hood, and a rear slide in filter holder. Opticlly it is about on par with the Tokina you tested, which is about as good as they get unless one wants to invest US$3k or more for for a Questar. I paid US$50. for it about 15 years ago. Mirror lenses got a bad rap due to lack of fine focusing aids in SLR and DSLR cameras. They are difficult to achieve perfect focus with. With the advent of the mirrorless age, most cameras come with the ability to greatly magnify the image in the viewfinder making focusing much easier. Not saying they will make a "come back" but they are an inexpensive option to reach way out there with a modern mirrorless camera. Because of the large central obstruction mirror lenses will not likely achieve the contrast nor resolution of an equivalent refractor type camera lens but they are worth looking into if one is on a tight budget. Thank you for this review.
I started my photography with canon 450d and 1500mm f12 mirror tele. This wasn't the easiest route for beginner, but i managed to shoot venus transit year 2012.
Thanks Christopher for another great video. I have the Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens, and I love it to bits. Mine has a lens hood that is as long as the lens itself. Having the lens hood on increases the contrast a useful amount. And with digital photography, the ability to add contrast further helps to make the image more pleasing. All around, this is a fun lens to have. What I really wish I had was the Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. It has a tripod foot and collar to allow the lens to rotate. Thumbs up for the video!
Je possède un 500mm f.0 minolta, installé sur un Sony alpha 700 et j'en suis très content: jolies couleurs, autofocus central et stabilisation sur le boitier! De plus léger, maniable pour la focale, utilisable à main levée par belle lumière.
Interesting video on this mirror lens, Chris! As a landscape, product, and ocassional wildlife photographer with a critical eye for image sharpness and detail with my Z7, I'm wondering if I'd be satisfied with the "decent" sharpness of this lens and also, how its manual focus would work for birds in flight or stationary. Thanks!
Awesome review Chris. Totally a niche lens. I use a catadioptric telescope for planetary astrophotography but I would never buy a reflex lens like this for photography 😂 I was also quite surprised by the performance of this lens, I was expecting super soft, muddy images. Thank you for doing what you do!
I have a Yashica 500mm mirror lens that I shoot occasionally with an adapter on a APS-C (Nikon z-50) - it is soft, but I am unapologetic about using it because it’s so unique in the look. Pictures do require post processesing that helps make them more interesting. Certainly, not a high end product, but more of a “Super telephoto” Lensbaby.
For the price, you can get a used genuine late model Nikon 500 or 1000mm. Quality is light years ahead of most current lenses. No need to screw around with an adapter.
Own an older one. RMC Tokina 500. The reach of the focusring is massively better than the one reviewed. The damping is also incredible. Using a 2x plus 3x teleconverter from time to time. When shutterspeed is kept at 1/1000 sec a tripod is unnecessary. Focusing takes practice due to the shallow DOF but I'm able to shoot sharp handheld pictures with ease. When both teleconverters are attached, the reach is insane.. (1.800 mm) My camera: Canon EOS 5D MkIII
I had a chance to pick up an older (Canon FD mount) Tokina 500mm f/8 mirror lens for a price that made the experiment affordable. I was positively surprised by the image quality, considering it is a mirror lens, but still don’t really use it much at all. I recommend getting a used one rather than buying new, chances are it’ll spend years in a drawer after initial test shots…
I keep hoping for a breakthrough, but, alas. Image quality is always the killer. (BTW, in astronomy the same holds true: mirror telescopes invariably have a very hard time competing against refractors for image sharpness.)
Yeah but in astro when u spend more money you actually get really good image quality. None of the manufactures of camera reflective lenses seem to target that higher end
@@logitech4873 Cost and physical limitations, mainly. Large lenses are *very* hard and expensive to make, while large mirrors are easy by comparison. Refractor diameters top out at about 1 meter, while mirrors of very large effective diameter are feasible. The central obstruction and collimation difficulties are acceptable problems, in return for large aperture.
@@samk2407 True. But even if all other things were equal, diffraction from the central obstruction and support structure will degrade the image somewhat; there's no getting around that, no matter how accurate and well-corrected the mirror surfaces.
@@logitech4873 because mirror lenses can have a very long (telescopic) reach without having to have many lens elements. also it suffices to create a single parabolic mirror to eliminate spherical and chromatic abberations. the sheer number of lens elements required to correct for these aberations dynamically in a refractive telescope would also be a huge issue both in length and weight as the payload on a rocket is rather constrained in terms of size/weight.
i use a lot of modern and vintage manual lenses, the trick i find is to focus on a word/ letters that way you can get it tack sharp, trying to get tack sharp on a building or a person is a bit harder
I just don't get why anyone would buy something like this. At least for this kind of money. If they were very inexpensive? Sure. Why not. My Sigma 100-400 Contemporary was a bit more expensive (though can probably be bought for a similar price used) but it does have AF and it is MUCH sharper. Compared to a 150-600 it isn't even that heavy. Only downside? You need the FTZ adapter for a Nikon mirrorless. It did come with my camera but right now that thing is impossible to find...
I have an SLR-era Nikkor 500/8 mirror lens. It has the same issue with short focus throw as this Tokina. A tripod is all but mandatory to secure the lens & camera so you can fine-tune the focus. Dunno if the Tokina’s optics limit the focus throw, but if not extending it to 150° or so would be a good thing.
Had a Sigma 600mm many yrs ago. I liked the donuting in the background. Image was a bit soft & lack some contrast as I used it with b&w film. Plus side was lightness which made it easily hand holdable. Would I buy one now,hmmm,not sure tbh.
Dear Sir. You tested 3 of the very bad mirror lenses. As the first Sigma importer in Norway I also have some experience. Sigma made 2 good mirror lenses. First the Ultratel 500mm8 with extra front element was made to low cost but was average Sharp. Also 500mm4 was average sharp. 600mm8 did often suffer from oxydation and lost contrast. Tokina RMC 500MM8 is normally nice and sharp and very Compact. From having around 20 mirror lenses I select the best : Minolta Rokkor 500mm 8 and Olympus OM 500mm 8 as very good. Both are nice and sharp. Olympus are 600gr and 72mm front filter. Minolta are 660gr and 77mm front filter. Both are easy to convert. For Mirrorless its just to buy a normal distanse adaptor. Also Minolta 250mm5.6 is nice and sharp. Front filter 62mm. Than the old Nikkor 50cm5 / 500mm5 is sharp but heavy and 122mm front filter. From other tests I know the orange stripe Nikkor 500mm8 and the Canon FD 500mm8 shall be very sharp, but front filter is appr. 85mm. Contax/Yashica 500mm8 is not really among the best of the Mirror lenses. They was made by Tomioka and some could be very sharp. When buying used mirror lens. Look from behind at the small front mirror. This shall be cristal bright, or contrast will suffer.
It's the lens of choice for tight spaces! If you've ever looked at an Electro-optics pod on the belly of a police helicopter or military aircraft you've seen that they almost always contain a mirror lens. It wouldn't be feasible for them to mount a foot long "regular" 1500mm lens and make the pod 4x larger. That said I'd get one for astrophotography!
I don't understand why mirror lenses should be soft. They have much less glass in the light path, and if we consider the latest Cassegrain mirror lens around - the James Webb Space Telescope - they manage to get sharp, diffraction-limited results from a 6.5m aperture F22. Anyone know why they are inherently soft? I get the poor centre contrast because there is a tube pointing straight into the sensor and it isn't perfectly black.
I have a canon fd f8 you cannot use focus peaking as focus peaking only gets you close to where you are focusing especially at a distance you will have to use your cameras magnification feature to nail it. Preobably the reason people bitch about softness they really arent soft if you nail focus. you can easily shoot at 320-500 shutter handheld 250 is a bit slow unless you sit and put it on your knee. only keep bright lights away if you dont like flaring I love it so I dont
items near the center of the lens' field of view being blocked and less collimated light being blocked from items not near the center of the lens' field of view give catadioptric lenses their unique optical properties. One of the most noticeable of those unique properties is the 'donut' shape of bokeh produced when using such a lens. Losing the most collimated light from the center of the lens' field of view also affects the resolution of objects in the center of the lens' field of view. The greater the difference is between the distance to the source of the light and the distance at which the lens is focused, the more the loss of that collimated light affects the resolution and brightness of that part of the image.
Thank you for this review. Your old review of the Samyang 12mm fisheye was critical for me when I went ahead and bought that fisheye years ago and had so much fun with it and so many great photos over the years. So I rely on your reviews. I particularly appreciate the way you test sharpness and how you bring the handling to practical understanding (hard to do in video). For these mirror lenses, two things put me off: The softness and the tight apertures. I look at the images and think these would be images that I would skip on grounds of softness. I used to have the NIKKOR 80-400 type D lens, which had "acceptable" sharpness at f/7.1 and then upgraded to the NIKKOR 80-400 type G and so much appreciated the improvements in optics. So I will keep peeping on these mirror lenses but I don't think I should buy one. Thanks again :)
Ah 19 Crimes Uprising, you have very good taste Mr. F. Oh, by the way, it's good to have a "local" doing reviews, I've been watching you for years (wave from up the road, Caerphilly).
Odd timing, I ordered an Opteka 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens for T Mount the other day, just waiting for B&H to get stock and ship it just for the fun of it (plus my Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS is quite heavy, hoping there's opportunities to take out a lighter lens instead, especially with the 2x teleconverter I picked up with it).
I guess the problem with Mirror Lenses is that one built to similar sharpness specs as a regular 500mm prime (for example) would basically be.. a well built telescope :D Mirror lenses are used widly also in university level of astro observation but there is a reason those things are so expensive. Personally i would find it very interesting to see what goes into a perfectly critical sharp telescope / mirror lense... and i guess if it was more economical to create a critical sharpness capable mirror lense for consumers, someone would have done it already :D Still thanks for the review, always fun to see quirky lenses - especially since im on the very dry Canon Rf system now :D
I don't get it, why even manufacturer these. You can find many lenses for a few hundred more that zoom from 70-300, and crop it and you're barely under 500mm. I'd be shocked if people bought this.
Very predictable result, exactly as I imagined it to be when the lens was introduced, nevertheless decent optics for those who going to be able to use it properly with right amount of petion. btw that mount adapter has rather DIY appearance.
Pleas do once a video abouth the minolta 500mm f8 mirror lens, i am pretty intrested in its image quality aspecialy because of its auto focus capebility
Hello this is just a meaningless user engagement datapoint since Christopher asked for it. I needn't explain what an excellent reviewer he is, or why he merits being appreciated.
I have owned several Mirror Lens over the past 40 years. The first was an older Tokina design, which I had in Canon FD and Nikon F mounts. It was an okay Lens. I later got a Tamron 500 Mirror Adaptall with F mount. I really liked this lens, but I foolishly traded it off when I went Digital in 2003. About 3 yrs later I acquired the 3rd Version(with the orange band) of the Nikon 500mm f8 Mirror. It took over a complete turn from close to infinity. I liked this lens too, and kept it till about a year ago, by then I had got the Nikon 200-500mm 5.6, which is a better Lens optically. The low contrast is not really an issue with Digital, as it is easy to increase it either in Camera, or in Post Processing. Sometimes the Doughnuts can be used to advantage, but often they were simply annoying
I think your videos would look better if you increased the dynamic range in the very dark areas a tiny little bit. Black areas looking truly black are hard to see the details in. They look just too dark and we have to brighten our monitors if we want to see any details in the very dark, nearly blacked out areas. I'm no expert in video and I may be just speaking for myself, I'm just not a fan of a black area having to look pixel-dead dark in a monitor (with the exception of photos, maybe, I don't know). Great review, as usual. Thanks.
I like the flares and bokeh, but for novelty lens this feels a bit expensive. Then again, for a 500mm this is very cheap, even if one considers it against not as long telephoto cropped down. Ultimately I think the people actually interested in the unique bokeh and flares, and people who want a cheap telephoto lens just don’t overlap so much. If you want a focal length, you usually just want a sharp and versatile lens. That said, you can work with one weird lens to cover a focal distance you rarely need. If you look the lens in that way, it covers two relatively obscure scenarios with one lens: 500mm focal length and absolutely eye catching bokeh. So for someone who already spend a lot of money on the lenses they actually need, this might be an interesting option.
Because angle of the light entering for the center of the lens. These will be softer focus right in the center. It also depends how close you are to what's in focus. Off center about halfway should be sharper.
If you attach this to a Mirrorless camera. Does it become Mirrored again? HAHA!
Sure 😂😂😂
Good one, dad.
What if somebody made an EF to RF adapter which added a mirror and OVF?
moral quandry right there....
After I attached it to my single-lens reflex camera, it became a double-lens reflex camera.
Cool! Is it time to ask Chris to try out the only AF mirror lens available in used market Minolta 500mm f8 or the Sony version of it?
One important note is that the large air volume inside may take a while to reach equilibrium with ambient temperature, particularly in winter, causing photos to be even lower contrast than is inherent to the design. Steve Perry has a video on how just the lens hood on his 600mm was causing images to look blurry until letting it all reach ambient temp. This could partly be the cause of reviews where people say it was horribly low contrast and just returned it right away
How long does it take to equalize?
I'd say15 minutes or so. I don't recall if Steve mentioned a time
It's a well known fact for astronomers :)
I've always thought mirror lenses are sort of the telephoto version of a fisheye lens...that is to say, a bit of a novelty lens which makes great photos, occasionally, with the right subject, but not a 'daily' lens. I remember my newspaper had a 500mm Tamron mirror lens that we sometimes used for cricket pics. The unique bokeh was quite handy for making uninteresting backgrounds a bit more pleasing.
Who remembers the gorgeous Vivitar Series 1 "Solid Cat" lenses? There was a 600mm f/8, 800mm f/11 and, an extremely rare 450mm f/4.5. How I lusted after that 600mm even though I literally hated every mirror lens I ever owned.
"It's a mirror lens. What do you want?"
Haha, well said
Since many users try these for moon photography (myself included) and are promptly disappointed (myself definitely included) because you can get better results by cropping the center part from a 200mm or 300mm shot, it might be nice to show us a sample moon shot!
I have one of the Russian MTO 1000mm lenses a couple commenters mentioned and here is a sample moon video. It is definitely better for the moon than my 200mm but I agree and think you would get better results from a 300mm cropped vs a 500mm mirror.
ua-cam.com/video/gAonF8Jore0/v-deo.html
I have used many mirror lenses. The very best so far is the Canon FD 500/8. It's significantly sharper and contrasty compared to the Sigma 600mm f/8, and any of the Russian variants. I highly recommend taking a look at that one :)
All three of the Canon, Nikon ('new' version, there is an older design which isn't quite as good), and Olympus 500mm f/8 mirror lenses are a cut above the rest of the third party offerings from my experience.
I agree. The Canon FDn 500mm f8 mirror lens is excellent and can usually be found at a reasonable price. The Sigma is a bit softer but give that bit extra reach, and modern sharpening software will help deal with much of that. Definitely worth considering for relatively static subjects and situations where you can avoid a blurred background with highlights
I have the Tamron 55B and I've found it entirely usable. I believe it's one of the proportedly usable mirror lenses.
I would suggest the Minolta 500mm f8 or 250mm f5.6 might be a contender for best mirrorless (?) but haven't compared the 500mm to others yet (plan to get the old Nikon 500mm).
Zeiss Mirotar 500/4.5, introduced for the Contarex in 1963 and re-released for Contax in 1975 is very rare, huge and costly, but by far the best mirror lens in terms of optical quality.
I bought a centon f8 500mm recently from eBay 73 uk pounds , featured on my UA-cam channel 2 days ago , called Motorcycles And Things , interesting things , I remember them in the 80s when I started photography, I’ve managed to hand hold mine with 90 percent of the photos I’ve taken right down to 320th of a second , using my g9 with stabilisation switched on , cheers shane uk 🇬🇧
Thanks for the review.
Was extremely interested in this one but there were so less information as well as review videos out there.
Awesome!
Smaller telescopes (Cassegrain types especially) make for great (and big) mirror lenses. I used a 100mm Skywatcher Maksutov (f/15) and a 150mm Intes Maksutov (f/10) -- Telescope specs quote the aperture instead of the focal length, so these both act like 1500mm lenses. And with focal reducers you can make them shorter and faster.
The lower contrast in the center is probably caused by the secondary mirror in the center of the front element. Seen much worse results with other mirror lenses than this Tokina one.
I've got an old russian 1000mm catadioptric lens ... and I mount my Pentax Q7 on it, which has a 4.7X crop-factor ... great to point at the moon, although IQ is reduced by the air turbulence in the atmosphere (you need very calm skies) ... and I was able to shoot pigeons filling the whole of the frame from hundreds of meters away ... using a very heavy tripod.
Photos from this lens actually looks better than all photos from the other lenses you've reviewd in the last 6 months ;D
Well, the review helped me to decide that with that small angle rotation of the focusing ring, was not going to be work so I decided to buy (again) a Tamron SP 55BB 800mm F8 (1/3 of the price with adapter). With the external viewfinder I use with the FD300mm F4L, the results were as good , need to say that the focusing barrel ring travels 360 degrees. One thing to to make conclusions for for photo gear and another different for video. Can supply samples if someone is interested.
Didn't know that anyone still made these lenses. Interesting for those who value portability more than image quality. Having said that, I would consider one for the right situation.
I bought a vintage one myself. Its an amazing option for some unqiue shots of the moon IMO, and the image quality isn't really noticeable with the moon from my experience
Got a 30 yr old Nikon 500mm f8 version for 75 bucks, works like magic.
I have to say that most of the comments are not very supportive of the lens type. 😬 Years ago I had a Sigma 600mm f8 in the camo green color with a canon T70 and found it a bit large and wieldy. This version is super light and about half the size if not smaller and takes a bit of practice to get the best out of it. Tripod important and I also use a 2 second timer on the shutter to ensure no movement when pressing for the picture. Using a Canon EOS T6s APS-C so actually getting about 800mm in 35mm format conversion. Also found that the sharpness is better without a UV or similar filter on the front. Possibly a more expensive filter would not degrade the result however I keep the filter on for protection and take it off for shooting.
Thanks for the great reviews and I always check yours out first for the detailed testing and easy to understand commentary.
Cheers all!! 📷
Not a fan of mirror (catadioptric) lenses but love Cat/Maksutov telescopes. Be that as it may, I do have an older Yashica (Made in Japan) 500mm f/8 mirror lens in Yashica/Contax mount. I'll put it a couple of grades above the Tokina simply because it has a built in rotating tripod collar, a built in sliding sun shade/hood, and a rear slide in filter holder. Opticlly it is about on par with the Tokina you tested, which is about as good as they get unless one wants to invest US$3k or more for for a Questar. I paid US$50. for it about 15 years ago.
Mirror lenses got a bad rap due to lack of fine focusing aids in SLR and DSLR cameras. They are difficult to achieve perfect focus with. With the advent of the mirrorless age, most cameras come with the ability to greatly magnify the image in the viewfinder making focusing much easier. Not saying they will make a "come back" but they are an inexpensive option to reach way out there with a modern mirrorless camera. Because of the large central obstruction mirror lenses will not likely achieve the contrast nor resolution of an equivalent refractor type camera lens but they are worth looking into if one is on a tight budget. Thank you for this review.
With more recent Topaz AI software the softness may no longer be much of an issue. The light weight of the lens makes it worth considering.
Yeah, Topaz AI software has been great for softer images.
I have a second hand Tamron 55BBAR. I find it excellent for £65!☺️
It seems like sharpening/contrast/clarity tweaks in post could make the IQ more than usable... not nearly as bad as I thought it might be
I love my Tamron SP 500mm adaptall. cheaper than this
I have old Soviet 500mm and 1100mm mirror lenses. They can be super fun.
I started my photography with canon 450d and 1500mm f12 mirror tele. This wasn't the easiest route for beginner, but i managed to shoot venus transit year 2012.
0:00 Presentation of Tokina SZ 500mm f/8
1:31 Build quality
2:45 Focus pulling
2:57 Lens features
3:28 Image quality
4:37 Distortion and vignetting
4:50 Close up image quality
5:10 Flares
5:26 Bokeh
5:50 Conclusion
Would you please review a Tamron 500 f/8 "55BB" mirror lens? It had great following the time it was introduced.
Thank you in advance.
Thanks Christopher for another great video. I have the Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens, and I love it to bits. Mine has a lens hood that is as long as the lens itself. Having the lens hood on increases the contrast a useful amount. And with digital photography, the ability to add contrast further helps to make the image more pleasing. All around, this is a fun lens to have. What I really wish I had was the Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. It has a tripod foot and collar to allow the lens to rotate. Thumbs up for the video!
A modern mirror lens with AF would be cool to see. They're finally sharp enough to not be total disappointments.
Minolta AF 500mm f8 already made it since 1988
Je possède un 500mm f.0 minolta, installé sur un Sony alpha 700 et j'en suis très content: jolies couleurs, autofocus central et stabilisation sur le boitier! De plus léger, maniable pour la focale, utilisable à main levée par belle lumière.
I want to see a Sony G mirror lens. I know the quality won't be perfect but with AF and Sonys quality, that lens would be amazing!!
Interesting video on this mirror lens, Chris! As a landscape, product, and ocassional wildlife photographer with a critical eye for image sharpness and detail with my Z7, I'm wondering if I'd be satisfied with the "decent" sharpness of this lens and also, how its manual focus would work for birds in flight or stationary. Thanks!
You should try evaluating lenses like this for budget astrophotography. Check for star smearing and coma and such.
It would be great to see how it works out on a star tracker for astrophotography.
Awesome review Chris. Totally a niche lens. I use a catadioptric telescope for planetary astrophotography but I would never buy a reflex lens like this for photography 😂 I was also quite surprised by the performance of this lens, I was expecting super soft, muddy images. Thank you for doing what you do!
I have the MAK1000, that's a monster and difficult to handle. More for astrophotography but usable for planespotting and animal.
I have a Yashica 500mm mirror lens that I shoot occasionally with an adapter on a APS-C (Nikon z-50) - it is soft, but I am unapologetic about using it because it’s so unique in the look. Pictures do require post processesing that helps make them more interesting. Certainly, not a high end product, but more of a “Super telephoto” Lensbaby.
For the price, you can get a used genuine late model Nikon 500 or 1000mm. Quality is light years ahead of most current lenses. No need to screw around with an adapter.
Own an older one. RMC Tokina 500.
The reach of the focusring is massively better than the one reviewed. The damping is also incredible.
Using a 2x plus 3x teleconverter from time to time.
When shutterspeed is kept at 1/1000 sec a tripod is unnecessary.
Focusing takes practice due to the shallow DOF but I'm able to shoot sharp handheld pictures with ease.
When both teleconverters are attached, the reach is insane.. (1.800 mm)
My camera: Canon EOS 5D MkIII
I had a chance to pick up an older (Canon FD mount) Tokina 500mm f/8 mirror lens for a price that made the experiment affordable. I was positively surprised by the image quality, considering it is a mirror lens, but still don’t really use it much at all. I recommend getting a used one rather than buying new, chances are it’ll spend years in a drawer after initial test shots…
I keep hoping for a breakthrough, but, alas. Image quality is always the killer. (BTW, in astronomy the same holds true: mirror telescopes invariably have a very hard time competing against refractors for image sharpness.)
Yeah but in astro when u spend more money you actually get really good image quality. None of the manufactures of camera reflective lenses seem to target that higher end
Why is it that in the super high end (like space telescopes), mirror ends up being the more common approach?
@@logitech4873 Cost and physical limitations, mainly. Large lenses are *very* hard and expensive to make, while large mirrors are easy by comparison. Refractor diameters top out at about 1 meter, while mirrors of very large effective diameter are feasible. The central obstruction and collimation difficulties are acceptable problems, in return for large aperture.
@@samk2407 True. But even if all other things were equal, diffraction from the central obstruction and support structure will degrade the image somewhat; there's no getting around that, no matter how accurate and well-corrected the mirror surfaces.
@@logitech4873 because mirror lenses can have a very long (telescopic) reach without having to have many lens elements. also it suffices to create a single parabolic mirror to eliminate spherical and chromatic abberations. the sheer number of lens elements required to correct for these aberations dynamically in a refractive telescope would also be a huge issue both in length and weight as the payload on a rocket is rather constrained in terms of size/weight.
Christopher thank you for supporting Ukraine. You are a good man!
Ой сало уронили.
@@AABB-px8lc аа вв аа вв?
@@kuptsovphoto таки гибарги вата ножи гилляки ой все пильша спасай
Yeah, I can't get past the donut bokeh, haha.
i use a lot of modern and vintage manual lenses, the trick i find is to focus on a word/ letters that way you can get it tack sharp, trying to get tack sharp on a building or a person is a bit harder
I just don't get why anyone would buy something like this. At least for this kind of money.
If they were very inexpensive? Sure. Why not.
My Sigma 100-400 Contemporary was a bit more expensive (though can probably be bought for a similar price used) but it does have AF and it is MUCH sharper. Compared to a 150-600 it isn't even that heavy. Only downside? You need the FTZ adapter for a Nikon mirrorless. It did come with my camera but right now that thing is impossible to find...
I have an SLR-era Nikkor 500/8 mirror lens. It has the same issue with short focus throw as this Tokina. A tripod is all but mandatory to secure the lens & camera so you can fine-tune the focus. Dunno if the Tokina’s optics limit the focus throw, but if not extending it to 150° or so would be a good thing.
This lens is surprisingly decent considering how dumpster fire these things tend to be. I still wouldn't buy one but it's impressive none the less.
Had a Sigma 600mm many yrs ago. I liked the donuting in the background. Image was a bit soft & lack some contrast as I used it with b&w film. Plus side was lightness which made it easily hand holdable. Would I buy one now,hmmm,not sure tbh.
Mirror lens disadvantages number 3 - they often get fungus due to the massive glass to air surfaces.
Tell about your chart sometime. It's size..of course it must be placed at different distances for different lenses...
There's a bunch of stuff about it on my Patreon page :-)
Dear Sir. You tested 3 of the very bad mirror lenses.
As the first Sigma importer in Norway I also have some experience.
Sigma made 2 good mirror lenses. First the Ultratel 500mm8 with extra front element was made to low cost but was average Sharp. Also 500mm4 was average sharp. 600mm8 did often suffer from oxydation and lost contrast. Tokina RMC 500MM8 is normally nice and sharp and very Compact. From having around 20 mirror lenses I select the best :
Minolta Rokkor 500mm 8 and Olympus OM 500mm 8 as very good.
Both are nice and sharp. Olympus are 600gr and 72mm front filter.
Minolta are 660gr and 77mm front filter. Both are easy to convert. For Mirrorless its just to buy a normal distanse adaptor. Also Minolta 250mm5.6 is nice and sharp. Front filter 62mm.
Than the old Nikkor 50cm5 / 500mm5 is sharp but heavy and 122mm front filter. From other tests I know the orange stripe Nikkor 500mm8 and the Canon FD 500mm8 shall be very sharp, but front filter is appr. 85mm. Contax/Yashica 500mm8 is not really among the best of the Mirror lenses. They was made by Tomioka and some could be very sharp. When buying used mirror lens. Look from behind at the small front mirror. This shall be cristal bright, or contrast will suffer.
I know, let's take the mirror out of the camera and just put it in the lens 😁
It's the lens of choice for tight spaces! If you've ever looked at an Electro-optics pod on the belly of a police helicopter or military aircraft you've seen that they almost always contain a mirror lens. It wouldn't be feasible for them to mount a foot long "regular" 1500mm lens and make the pod 4x larger.
That said I'd get one for astrophotography!
I use a much better lens - Minolta AF 500 mm f8 with proper Sony adapter that gives me AF and better quality.
I always find it amusing when you use mirror lens in a mirrorless camera.
I don't understand why mirror lenses should be soft. They have much less glass in the light path, and if we consider the latest Cassegrain mirror lens around - the James Webb Space Telescope - they manage to get sharp, diffraction-limited results from a 6.5m aperture F22. Anyone know why they are inherently soft? I get the poor centre contrast because there is a tube pointing straight into the sensor and it isn't perfectly black.
I wouldn't touch anything Tokina with a mucky Stick! The only off brand camera manufacturor I use is Sigma.
Better buying a second hand mirror lens manufactured by a good company, avoid the cheap rubbish like Optika etc.
Pretty pointless lens, as my old Minolta AF 500mm F8 is better in every aspect. That is 30 years old product.
Never heard of these kind of lens before and im very intrigued by its Space Telescope esque design.
I have a canon fd f8 you cannot use focus peaking as focus peaking only gets you close to where you are focusing especially at a distance you will have to use your cameras magnification feature to nail it. Preobably the reason people bitch about softness they really arent soft if you nail focus. you can easily shoot at 320-500 shutter handheld 250 is a bit slow unless you sit and put it on your knee. only keep bright lights away if you dont like flaring I love it so I dont
It's great for shooting the moon and the sun on the go without the burden of taking a telescope with you
Still pretty interested in this lens, would like to give it a try myself.
items near the center of the lens' field of view being blocked and less collimated light being blocked from items not near the center of the lens' field of view give catadioptric lenses their unique optical properties. One of the most noticeable of those unique properties is the 'donut' shape of bokeh produced when using such a lens. Losing the most collimated light from the center of the lens' field of view also affects the resolution of objects in the center of the lens' field of view. The greater the difference is between the distance to the source of the light and the distance at which the lens is focused, the more the loss of that collimated light affects the resolution and brightness of that part of the image.
Mirror lens on mirrorless camera = DSLR
I know it says f/8, but could I see Jupiter with it?
Thank you for this review. Your old review of the Samyang 12mm fisheye was critical for me when I went ahead and bought that fisheye years ago and had so much fun with it and so many great photos over the years. So I rely on your reviews. I particularly appreciate the way you test sharpness and how you bring the handling to practical understanding (hard to do in video). For these mirror lenses, two things put me off: The softness and the tight apertures. I look at the images and think these would be images that I would skip on grounds of softness. I used to have the NIKKOR 80-400 type D lens, which had "acceptable" sharpness at f/7.1 and then upgraded to the NIKKOR 80-400 type G and so much appreciated the improvements in optics. So I will keep peeping on these mirror lenses but I don't think I should buy one. Thanks again :)
Ah 19 Crimes Uprising, you have very good taste Mr. F. Oh, by the way, it's good to have a "local" doing reviews, I've been watching you for years (wave from up the road, Caerphilly).
This lens makes photos look like they came from a 1980s movie 😂
Hey Christopher, are you planning to review older Nikon AF-S lenses? Like the AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G VR and the AF-S 85mm f1.8 G?
Odd timing, I ordered an Opteka 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens for T Mount the other day, just waiting for B&H to get stock and ship it just for the fun of it (plus my Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS is quite heavy, hoping there's opportunities to take out a lighter lens instead, especially with the 2x teleconverter I picked up with it).
I guess the problem with Mirror Lenses is that one built to similar sharpness specs as a regular 500mm prime (for example) would basically be.. a well built telescope :D
Mirror lenses are used widly also in university level of astro observation but there is a reason those things are so expensive.
Personally i would find it very interesting to see what goes into a perfectly critical sharp telescope / mirror lense... and i guess if it was more economical to create a critical sharpness capable mirror lense for consumers, someone would have done it already :D
Still thanks for the review, always fun to see quirky lenses - especially since im on the very dry Canon Rf system now :D
I don't get it, why even manufacturer these. You can find many lenses for a few hundred more that zoom from 70-300, and crop it and you're barely under 500mm.
I'd be shocked if people bought this.
So the advantage is it’s weight but you have to use a tripod so it doesn’t matter anyway?
you can probly put another screw on the adapter screw so it cant back out
I'm envious of the size of it. My old mirror lens is like a top hat
No thanks, the original Tokina 500 f/8 that I bought back then went to the garbage can. I think mirror lens and myself don't work well together.
Very predictable result, exactly as I imagined it to be when the lens was introduced, nevertheless decent optics for those who going to be able to use it properly with right amount of petion.
btw that mount adapter has rather DIY appearance.
I like how you say 'long metallic hood for "critical"situations'. Like what? Birds in flight?)) mission impossible with this)
Great for 4k video on a tripod.
I recently purchased a used 500/f8 mirror lens to try out some astral photography. For $90 why not?
我喜歡你的測試跟評價，非常專業跟中立，對於欲購買者有很大的幫助
Pleas do once a video abouth the minolta 500mm f8 mirror lens, i am pretty intrested in its image quality aspecialy because of its auto focus capebility
not for me
Mirrors don’t produce chromatic aberration, that is their advantage. But I wonder why it is so difficult to create a sharp mirror lens…
Hello this is just a meaningless user engagement datapoint since Christopher asked for it. I needn't explain what an excellent reviewer he is, or why he merits being appreciated.
I would suggest a tiny drop of threadlock on the screw for the adaptor. It will stop the screw from backing off over time.
I have owned several Mirror Lens over the past 40 years. The first was an older Tokina design, which I had in Canon FD and Nikon F mounts. It was an okay Lens. I later got a Tamron 500 Mirror Adaptall with F mount. I really liked this lens, but I foolishly traded it off when I went Digital in 2003. About 3 yrs later I acquired the 3rd Version(with the orange band) of the Nikon 500mm f8 Mirror. It took over a complete turn from close to infinity. I liked this lens too, and kept it till about a year ago, by then I had got the Nikon 200-500mm 5.6, which is a better Lens optically. The low contrast is not really an issue with Digital, as it is easy to increase it either in Camera, or in Post Processing. Sometimes the Doughnuts can be used to advantage, but often they were simply annoying
I think your videos would look better if you increased the dynamic range in the very dark areas a tiny little bit. Black areas looking truly black are hard to see the details in. They look just too dark and we have to brighten our monitors if we want to see any details in the very dark, nearly blacked out areas. I'm no expert in video and I may be just speaking for myself, I'm just not a fan of a black area having to look pixel-dead dark in a monitor (with the exception of photos, maybe, I don't know). Great review, as usual. Thanks.
I like the flares and bokeh, but for novelty lens this feels a bit expensive. Then again, for a 500mm this is very cheap, even if one considers it against not as long telephoto cropped down.
Ultimately I think the people actually interested in the unique bokeh and flares, and people who want a cheap telephoto lens just don’t overlap so much. If you want a focal length, you usually just want a sharp and versatile lens.
That said, you can work with one weird lens to cover a focal distance you rarely need. If you look the lens in that way, it covers two relatively obscure scenarios with one lens: 500mm focal length and absolutely eye catching bokeh. So for someone who already spend a lot of money on the lenses they actually need, this might be an interesting option.
It's not sharp, but the flowers look painertly. it might be fun for flowers or a special effect video.
Because angle of the light entering for the center of the lens. These will be softer focus right in the center. It also depends how close you are to what's in focus. Off center about halfway should be sharper.
For that price and IQ you'd be better off getting a used f/2.8 or f/4 zoom/telescopic and a tele-extender. Plus a zoom gives more options.
Wish you had tried some astrophotographers shots.
Can you please compare it to the old Nikon 500 f8 N ? I don't know which one's better performing and come in at a similar price.
Its no longer mirrorless
Lol
I’m wondering how this lens would perform for astrophotography 🤔
Hi. I find on Amazon 900 one but no name, but still thinking - is it worth it ?
It is for canon RF too?
I'm trying to figure that out myself.
Very useful video as usual, many thanks. I wonder whether the 400 mm version is sharper.
A mirror lens on a mirrorless camera. The world has gone topsy turvy.