I got a 500mm f8 mirror lens for 15€ on ebay. I used it at an airshow. If i wanted to go that close with a glass lens id have to pay at least 200€ + a 2x tele converter and the image quality in the end would still look better on the mirror lens. No CAs
What about contrast? By eliminating the fundamental waves (first order) you eliminate a major part of the resolution. This can be compensated for but is usually not.
@@ApoorvaIyerNot sure which particular design. Afaik Mak has the Glas bowl as front element and my Minolta 500mm mirror lens looks like it's flat like a window.
Close, but not right. It has two mirrors inside, one at the back (you can see through the front) and one at the front (behind that black disc) that reflects the image back through the centre hole in the rear mirror.
With 'telescopes' the only way to have a bigger aperture is to have a bigger mirror or a much shorter focal length. It's a size limitation more than anything else with this lens.
Try the old Minolta or Sony A-mount 500mm f8 Reflex. You'll get AF when used with the LA -EA4 (Sony A7iii or older) or LA-EA5 (A7iv and later) adapters. Great lens, great quality. And even quick to focus :)
@@redracerb18 ISO800 for 1350mm f/11 1/200? Not only will it be too dark, but there's alot of camera shake. You've got to have atleast 1/2700 if you're going handheld APSC. From there, you can estimate the ISO.
@@faaizrosli you don't seem to think about image stabilizers in bodies. secondly your shooting something within a single degree of your field of view. Third is that the physical heat emenating from the earth will cause warping in the image anyway. Forth, There is no autofocus on this lens and normally a fixed aperture. Didn't think anyone would try this as a sports lens. Finally Canon themselves released an 800 f11 lens if you need reference.
"Pretty affordable priced at just 630 $" 630$ is still a lot, I get that it is relatively well priced for its focal length but than put that into perspective.
There is absolutely nothing "weird" in this lens and its characteristics. The design and behaviour of these lenses is those of a telescope, simply said. And a telescope has nothing "weird" to refer to. It was common to find many such lenses during the 1970s and 1980s, Tamron even had a great duo (500mm and 900mm, if my memory still is aware) fitted with their universal Adaptall lens-mount. It takes a rear filter (inserted from the side or screw-on) to reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor, or a veeeery large one at the front if the lens has what it takes to screw one on... providing you can find such a filter. At those focal lengths, f/11 cause no major problems because a smaller ratio ("f" number is a ratio) would mean a depth of field so shallow you'd have more than troubles focusing on your subjects. And modern sensors/circuits are more than capable to create great images, as oppose to ancient 400 or even 1600 ISO films with their massive grainy results. Maybe nice for portraits or landscapes, but not so for astro or animal imagery. That was a provocative title, yet a tad unfair.
Most of the cameras I test on here are just loaned to me and I don't get to keep them. The ones I do actually own I use for a living and cost me a lot of money to buy. So... no. Soz.
@@kurmanbekdzhenaliev6786 Not all modern cameras are mirrorless. All the big mfgrs still make DSLRs. It’s just a different beast, granted, dslr days may be numbered. I sold off my Canon 5D4’s for R5’s because I prefer Zeiss manual focus lenses and Canon took away interchangeable focus screens. Focus peaking to the rescue there and Leica SL2, but also on my Leica M10’s with fast (Summilux 50) and longer lenses (90 Summicron). If I wanted AF lenses, I’d stick with DSLRs.
A mirror less lens just means the sensor can directly display an image to the viewfinder and simotaniously take photos. Mirrored lenses have an actual view of the outside while mirrorless is digital
@@dimitrijekrstic7567 every lense would be a refractor telescope, this one however is built like a maksutov telescope which is very unusual for a normal lens
@@ivg6 If you have no image stabilization, your best bet is to use 1/[focal length] Of course some people have more steady hands or more shaky ones so it varies but something in that ballpark is good. IIRC, image stabilization gives you 2-3 stops more leeway in average.
An entry level telescope would be a 4 inch Newtonian reflector on a rickety Dobson base for 150 bucks. Focal length is not what makes a telescope a telescope, but instead how much light it can collect. I have telescopes less than 1000mm in focal length, and there's some out there with less than 500.
@@EMPERORakshaypatil yes. it will always be 900mm. it's like saying if i crop all of my pictures in lightroom to match 1500mm fov that my 900mm is now a 1500mm.
Based on my Minolta 500mm Reflex (with AF) there are sharper knives in the drawer but it's more the contrast and that long focal length often means that there's a lot of atmosphere between object and camera.
@@jochenkraus7016 I have the tamron 500mm f8 which is supposedly one of the sharper mirror lenses, however even that one is not that great on a 25MP fullframe. Contrast is a bit low and you just notice that it lacks detail, even when shooting objects closer. CA is non existant tho and the colors are really quite beautiful. I'm still quite eager to get my hands on Tamrons 350mm F5.6 as people claim it to be one of the sharpest mirror lenses out there. Unfortunately the price is quite steep as well.
@@jochenkraus7016 that is true but this softness is really there for every distance you shoot when you use mirror lenses. I have several, from a 500 f,6.3 to 600 f/8 and all have the same issue. Depends on the mirrors used. Never had a good one. Now... I also have Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG DN S (sports) for sony (the newest model) and the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 OSS G and the 2.0x and the 1.4x teleconverters for sony... any combination of the TCs and the 200-600 at 600mm on any foggy day with ANY of these lenses are 10 times sharper at least than any photo taken with these mirror lenses on a sunny day. Atmospheric heat or not. :)
Or if you has new sony camera, you can buy Minolta AF 500mm F8, and LA-EA5 adapter. And you will have AF lens, yes it is not so long? but it is a little brighter
What weird or new about that ... I've got a 17-year-old mirror lens, and they have been used for years by pre digital shooters such as myself. The best deal is the Rokinon 300mm f8 which is absolutely tiny, and used on a Micro Four Thirds body makes it a 600mm.
Hi tom calton, let me tell about sony best camera model for professional. 😢my dream camera sony a7iv but the price is too hight - 3lahk. My 3years salary= 3lakh ..🙁.. so any savings methods ?..
You kids so funny. This is all new to you, isn't it? They made those by the ton in the early nineties but then the sales dropped because of the poor quality of the image they produced. But maybe 30 years later they can make them better and still keep them affordable. It is an extremely limited application lens. Pretty much bird photography and spying on your neighbors daughter only. Which in the UK would also be bird photography.
No lo recomiendo, yo lo compre y metí devolución porque el anillo de enfoque no es fluido, no sirve para video ni para enfocar rápido, es el peor enfoque manual de la historia.
F/11 hahaha you can only use that thing during harsh sunlight. Plus, you’re going to need some kind of stabilization with that, so the weight and size isn’t that big of a deal
Actually the 900mm will only you give the field of view of 1350mm lens, not the compression or the actual characteristic of a 1350mm. At the end of the day…a crop is just a crop
compression of background is fixed by the field of view, not by focal length, so for compression it is a 1350mm equivalent lens. What you don't have is the f11 bokeh/depth blur of a 1350mm lens, you just got this of the 900mm lens. Weirdly misunderstood thought of Full Frame shooters. if you shoot a 100 mm lens and crop it by factor 2 in x and y-axis, you have the exact same as a 200mm lens with less bokeh. So stop down the 200mm and you have the same image (yeah darker but you know what I mean)
@@jonathanhoelz515 a 900mm full frame lense with its 900mm compression does not magically become a 1350mm lense with 1350mm compression a dx sensor, that’s why photography UA-camrs that understand use the word “equivalent” and the ones that ACTUALLY also know use the term “field of view” a crop is a crop
🔽PRODUCT LINK HERE 🔽
linktr.ee/tomcalton
Which mount
"zed"
@@pro_videos_realnope, E-mount in this video. He put it on a Sony.
@@ourplane8 yeah this is key info missing from the video!
I love the onion rings bokeh
I prefer ai bokeh
@@addy405meh
Especially with garlic powder. 😋
@@addy405you are the devil
Why are you making me hungry at this hour?!!!😅
I got a 500mm f8 mirror lens for 15€ on ebay. I used it at an airshow. If i wanted to go that close with a glass lens id have to pay at least 200€ + a 2x tele converter and the image quality in the end would still look better on the mirror lens. No CAs
was your lens also manual-only?
You should try the f/6.3 ones.
@@Histogramas i found a 100mm f1.5 mirror lens on ebay for 20€. It was made for night vision
What about contrast? By eliminating the fundamental waves (first order) you eliminate a major part of the resolution. This can be compensated for but is usually not.
So it is just a mini-Sct telescope then
Close. It's a Maksutov Cassegrain. But yes - telescope design.
Also *ahem ☝️🤓, SCT is short for Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope so the telescope at the end is redundant
@emmybee5189 exactly, it's like saying atm machine. Atm stands for automated teller machine, so it would be automated teller machine machine.
@@Sentient-cassette-player RAS Syndrome: Redundant acronym syndrome
@@ApoorvaIyerNot sure which particular design. Afaik Mak has the Glas bowl as front element and my Minolta 500mm mirror lens looks like it's flat like a window.
Please don't throw the lens again. I almost died.
It was a light toss get over it.
@@mikerodgers7535 Thank you mikerodgers7535. I was able to get over it. Thanks to you.
😂
Close, but not right. It has two mirrors inside, one at the back (you can see through the front) and one at the front (behind that black disc) that reflects the image back through the centre hole in the rear mirror.
S24 Ultra: Finally! A worthy opponent!
Minolta 500 Reflex AF for Sony A forever! + LEA4 converter for sony E
Lenses of this design. Were big in the 70's through 90's. From 400 mm and longer.
It is light weight because of the aperture of F11... ;)
Canon has an 800mm f11 for $1000 USD. This is smaller and lighter as well as being a 6/10ths the price.
With 'telescopes' the only way to have a bigger aperture is to have a bigger mirror or a much shorter focal length. It's a size limitation more than anything else with this lens.
So a Lumix m4/3 would give an 1800mm f11?
Cool.
I used to use a Tokina 500mm f8 Cat back in the 35mm Nikon days...
You can use it to watch the aliens colonizing the moon
If you put this on a mirrorless, does it still make it a mirrorless?
Will it fit Sony cameras? Is it ideal for far away or close up?
Newbie and don’t understand the high numbers yets
Yep, it's available in Sony E-Mount. And really only good for distant subjects. It can be a little tricky to use though, particularly for beginners.
Try the old Minolta or Sony A-mount 500mm f8 Reflex. You'll get AF when used with the LA -EA4 (Sony A7iii or older) or LA-EA5 (A7iv and later) adapters. Great lens, great quality. And even quick to focus :)
It also has AF with A-mount cameras despite being only F8. But only the center AF point.
Thanks for all the sample images
Awesome! Now, let's talk about the 16000 ISO in broad daylight.
+ a tripod that has to be as sturdy as a house.
F/11 😂
No, maybe iso 800 if your trying a shutter speed faster then 1/200
@@redracerb18 ISO800 for 1350mm f/11 1/200? Not only will it be too dark, but there's alot of camera shake. You've got to have atleast 1/2700 if you're going handheld APSC. From there, you can estimate the ISO.
@@faaizrosli you don't seem to think about image stabilizers in bodies. secondly your shooting something within a single degree of your field of view. Third is that the physical heat emenating from the earth will cause warping in the image anyway. Forth, There is no autofocus on this lens and normally a fixed aperture. Didn't think anyone would try this as a sports lens. Finally Canon themselves released an 800 f11 lens if you need reference.
The Pro Reflex Lenses have a mount for my camera, cool.
The way i panicked when he caught the lens
Bro bought a freakin telescope 💀
I have a Samyang 800mm f/8 and for static objects it's stupidly good. Which is pretty much the only use it has 🤣
Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain? ... got it ... Schmidt!
"Pretty affordable priced at just 630 $" 630$ is still a lot, I get that it is relatively well priced for its focal length but than put that into perspective.
That's absolutely wild
All he had to say was f11
"affordable" and it's 2 months rent worth for me
Otherwise known as a telescope
im just not a big fan of manual lens.. it strats at F11, pass for me.
Amazon has them for $215.
Its for nikon or sony
Affordable yeah...
Mini telescope. I like it
I remember 900mm f11 do you?
"zed"
Oh, like the new iPhone lens?
A Newtonian lens?
who is this for?
Canon 55mm lens gift me plz
From abu dhabi ❤
Not a good lens
There is absolutely nothing "weird" in this lens and its characteristics.
The design and behaviour of these lenses is those of a telescope, simply said. And a telescope has nothing "weird" to refer to.
It was common to find many such lenses during the 1970s and 1980s, Tamron even had a great duo (500mm and 900mm, if my memory still is aware) fitted with their universal Adaptall lens-mount.
It takes a rear filter (inserted from the side or screw-on) to reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor, or a veeeery large one at the front if the lens has what it takes to screw one on... providing you can find such a filter.
At those focal lengths, f/11 cause no major problems because a smaller ratio ("f" number is a ratio) would mean a depth of field so shallow you'd have more than troubles focusing on your subjects.
And modern sensors/circuits are more than capable to create great images, as oppose to ancient 400 or even 1600 ISO films with their massive grainy results. Maybe nice for portraits or landscapes, but not so for astro or animal imagery.
That was a provocative title, yet a tad unfair.
I use the term "weird" in the context that it's not a typical type of lens design by today's standard.
this lens is bullshite
Brother you have so many camera"s
Will you gift me a free cemera please
Most of the cameras I test on here are just loaned to me and I don't get to keep them. The ones I do actually own I use for a living and cost me a lot of money to buy. So... no. Soz.
So does that mean that you no longer have a mirrorless camera, but a mirror camera
Or you can use it to convert your dslr into a ddlr
Lens is where all the glass should be, modern cameras don’t require a mirror in its body
No.
@@kurmanbekdzhenaliev6786 Not all modern cameras are mirrorless. All the big mfgrs still make DSLRs. It’s just a different beast, granted, dslr days may be numbered. I sold off my Canon 5D4’s for R5’s because I prefer Zeiss manual focus lenses and Canon took away interchangeable focus screens. Focus peaking to the rescue there and Leica SL2, but also on my Leica M10’s with fast (Summilux 50) and longer lenses (90 Summicron). If I wanted AF lenses, I’d stick with DSLRs.
A mirror less lens just means the sensor can directly display an image to the viewfinder and simotaniously take photos. Mirrored lenses have an actual view of the outside while mirrorless is digital
When a professional photographer calls something "affordable" you know its not affordable.
It’s relatively affordable
Ye, a 900mm at that size usually over $1.5k I think
@draphty9258
The Sarblue Mak70 is 1000mm for $200, but you need a t-adapter to attach it to your camera. 👍
When a higher end lens with half the reach costs around $12k, yeah, this lens is pretty affordable.
Good job showing more image samples
so basically its a mini telescope
Yeah, kinda!
Yeah buddy by that logic any lens is a mini telescope
@@dimitrijekrstic7567 every lense would be a refractor telescope, this one however is built like a maksutov telescope which is very unusual for a normal lens
@@dimitrijekrstic7567He’s referring to the mirror reflecting it, “buddy.”
So smart huh?
@@dimitrijekrstic7567yeah buddy so by that logic my 7mm lens is a telescope.
And if you don't have in-body image stabilization, you better use a tripod with a lens like this
haha exactly... i used a6000 handheld with the 400mm tamron lens and cant take clear pict if shutter below 1/300
@@ivg6focal length really deminishes any steady hands 😂 1/300 is already kind fast
truthfully you need both
@@ivg6 If you have no image stabilization, your best bet is to use 1/[focal length]
Of course some people have more steady hands or more shaky ones so it varies but something in that ballpark is good. IIRC, image stabilization gives you 2-3 stops more leeway in average.
1350mm is not a lens it is a entry level telescope)))
its 900mm don't let the crop factor fool you
An entry level telescope would be a 4 inch Newtonian reflector on a rickety Dobson base for 150 bucks. Focal length is not what makes a telescope a telescope, but instead how much light it can collect. I have telescopes less than 1000mm in focal length, and there's some out there with less than 500.
@@starmanxvi Didn't Orion recently shut down? That design is basically the Orion SkyScanner
@@GRAVESGGS so crop factor not going to apply on this lens 🤔 and is it 900mm fix
@@EMPERORakshaypatil yes. it will always be 900mm. it's like saying if i crop all of my pictures in lightroom to match 1500mm fov that my 900mm is now a 1500mm.
It’s basically a mini Schmidt Cassegrain telescope
That's what I was thinking!
Exactly my thoughts
Yeah! The moment I saw it through the front of the lens it clicked for me. This thing is a miniature hubble.
@@candle_eatist hubble's design is more akin to a Ritchey-Chretien
-"Is your camera mirrorless?"
-"Yes but no"
Wait till he hears about Schmidt cassegrain telescopes
came here to say this
Just like a catadioptric telescope! Cool!
(the word "katoptron" means "mirror" in Greek)
or 800mm f8 samyang for 200/300$
And soft and soft and soft.. did I mentioned SOFT????
Good for photojournalism in areas very well lit.
Super important to mention that. I love these lenses because they are just so lightweight, but their IQ is just not good.
Based on my Minolta 500mm Reflex (with AF) there are sharper knives in the drawer but it's more the contrast and that long focal length often means that there's a lot of atmosphere between object and camera.
@@jochenkraus7016 I have the tamron 500mm f8 which is supposedly one of the sharper mirror lenses, however even that one is not that great on a 25MP fullframe. Contrast is a bit low and you just notice that it lacks detail, even when shooting objects closer. CA is non existant tho and the colors are really quite beautiful.
I'm still quite eager to get my hands on Tamrons 350mm F5.6 as people claim it to be one of the sharpest mirror lenses out there. Unfortunately the price is quite steep as well.
@@jochenkraus7016 that is true but this softness is really there for every distance you shoot when you use mirror lenses. I have several, from a 500 f,6.3 to 600 f/8 and all have the same issue. Depends on the mirrors used. Never had a good one.
Now... I also have Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG DN S (sports) for sony (the newest model) and the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 OSS G and the 2.0x and the 1.4x teleconverters for sony... any combination of the TCs and the 200-600 at 600mm on any foggy day with ANY of these lenses are 10 times sharper at least than any photo taken with these mirror lenses on a sunny day.
Atmospheric heat or not.
:)
pretty affordable n then says 630$ 😭😭
It isnrelatively affordable since canon's 1200mm f/8 costs 25k
That's pretty affordable considering that you're buying a full frame lenses instead of shitty glasses.
Bro. 630 for any lens is mostly cheap, let alone a 900 mm. That’s the cheapest on the market. Closest thing I’ve seen in canon 800 mm f/11 for 999
$630 is a bargain at 900mm. In fact anything around $500 is considered a bargain lens regardless of focal length.
Now that I'm into photography, anything less than $1500cad feels like no big deal for equipment 😂
F11 😢 you gotta shoot at 2000 ISO
How is 630$ affordable because for 630$ you can get 2 gopros 🤧😵📷
You can't do 900mm prime photography with a gopro.
F/11 😂😂
"Pretty affordable"
"Really? How much?"
"Just $630"
That’s affordable for a lens…
@@DeezBMemesnot a good one though
@@DeezBMemesSony a6700, Sony a7c ii
@@DeezBMemesbro compare with other tele lens plz
@@ivg6 okay, i'm not talking about high-end.
Mirror lens on mirrorless camera 😅
Or if you has new sony camera, you can buy Minolta AF 500mm F8, and LA-EA5 adapter. And you will have AF lens, yes it is not so long? but it is a little brighter
What weird or new about that ... I've got a 17-year-old mirror lens, and they have been used for years by pre digital shooters such as myself.
The best deal is the Rokinon 300mm f8 which is absolutely tiny, and used on a Micro Four Thirds body makes it a 600mm.
just a smaller version of maksutov telescope with lower aperture
This is not a new design you know. If you search for the Original SMC Pentax Reflex 1000mm F11, then you will find it is 50 years old.
What about the high resolution image sharpness ? coz my old Minolta 500 mirror lacks sharpness in photo; looks like taken with 5MP camera !!
I have the celestron 11inch sct 2800mm at f10. Good for astrophotography
Attach it to a mft body to get a 1800 mm equivalent
Hi tom calton, let me tell about sony best camera model for professional. 😢my dream camera sony a7iv but the price is too hight - 3lahk. My 3years salary= 3lakh ..🙁.. so any savings methods ?..
You kids so funny. This is all new to you, isn't it? They made those by the ton in the early nineties but then the sales dropped because of the poor quality of the image they produced. But maybe 30 years later they can make them better and still keep them affordable. It is an extremely limited application lens. Pretty much bird photography and spying on your neighbors daughter only. Which in the UK would also be bird photography.
No lo recomiendo, yo lo compre y metí devolución porque el anillo de enfoque no es fluido, no sirve para video ni para enfocar rápido, es el peor enfoque manual de la historia.
Affordable is either subjective for some or relative. $650, I hope one day I can see that as a very small price. 😊
I've been thinking about this for a while, but i think he looks like younger DanTDM.
F/11 hahaha you can only use that thing during harsh sunlight. Plus, you’re going to need some kind of stabilization with that, so the weight and size isn’t that big of a deal
I personally find it garbage. But that's because I'm a bad photographer 😂
Yes, we have known about these types of "lenses" for over 25 YEARS, now. So what?
Lion far away expecting I am taking a wide photo of him walking but I am just able to frame his nose !!!
Actually the 900mm will only you give the field of view of 1350mm lens, not the compression or the actual characteristic of a 1350mm. At the end of the day…a crop is just a crop
compression of background is fixed by the field of view, not by focal length, so for compression it is a 1350mm equivalent lens. What you don't have is the f11 bokeh/depth blur of a 1350mm lens, you just got this of the 900mm lens.
Weirdly misunderstood thought of Full Frame shooters. if you shoot a 100 mm lens and crop it by factor 2 in x and y-axis, you have the exact same as a 200mm lens with less bokeh. So stop down the 200mm and you have the same image (yeah darker but you know what I mean)
@@jonathanhoelz515 a 900mm full frame lense with its 900mm compression does not magically become a 1350mm lense with 1350mm compression a dx sensor, that’s why photography UA-camrs that understand use the word “equivalent” and the ones that ACTUALLY also know use the term “field of view”
a crop is a crop
so fun it's not that expensive cause it"s based on the Schmitt-Cassegrin telescope, that are the most expensive
Was that shot in Stamford?
Sure was 😁
At what point do you just attach? A telescope to your camera...
Schmidt-Cassegrain entered the chat
F11, no thanks ! :))
It's an Astro lens. When your on a tripod looking at the sky has no impact on your shutter speed.
The "perfect loop" videos are starting to get really old now. Interesting lens though.
Or just buy a Sarblue Mak70 and get 1000mm for $200 🤷
YAAAAAAWN... In Soviet Union be from a 1960-s a MTO-1000 - mirror-meniscue lens 1000мм invented in 1958 year by Professor Maksutov.
We have one of these at my university camera club. It is pretty cool.
Affordable is more than all my cameras combined
Show me the moon 😃
bro can see aliens with that
f/11 makes it useless for most of photography. It has a very specific use case.
I finally found a shiny but I was out of bokeh balls.
Please tell me how expensive it was I’m trying to shop for a dslr camera
I shall keep my Soviet 1100mm MTO lens thanks.
too soft, manual focus. I can have a 800 mm lens like this for $50
Other than photographing the moon, this is basically a useless lens
Why no one buys them is because the image quality is not great.
I cant understand your language yo speaking in bro .
You should make a video of trying film photography
Basically just a mini sct, thats pretty cool
Have a lens like that
It Works well once
Getting used to its
Character
different perspective on affordability, for onion rings