Camera advice please

[nigel_b]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

Ebay can be a source of bargains, but I have yet to read any good reviews about mirror lenses - which is why they get re-sold so often I suspect. I frequent Minsmere a lot (my back doorstep) and mirror lenses are rarish.

Mirror lens:







All mirror lens shots.

When I read stuff like that it just seems to be saying "I've yet to read a good review of any lens costing less than £500."

My 500mm Sony f8 reflex is easily portable, can be hand held with Sony's SteadyShot (one of the above was handheld) and was £300. I get shots I would not otherwise get and its taught me a lot about how to extract better images out of a lens.

To be honest if I had £2000 to spare I'd probably buy a Canon 400 prime and a body to put it on but I don't and I suspect a lot of people don't. Given that I still like to get out and take pictures of wildlife and I've done it quite cheaply. Its that or not at all. Don't forget the OP put a budget of £300 to £400.

I think they fit into the market at exactly the right place, price vs performance.

Yesterday, handheld, overcast (they are better in bright light) and a long way away....


I think its wrong to write them (mirror lenses) off when they might fit nicely into someone's budget.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by nigel_b

Mirror lens:







All mirror lens shots.

Sorry to have to say it, but I wouldn't be very pleased with the softness of these images.

I've got a Tamron 350mm SP mirror lens. It's amazingly compact and it's performance is highly regarded, but I don't use it because my 50-200mm Zuiko with 1.4 converter is in a different league for optical performance.

Jim

[nigel_b]

That's fine, you're welcome to think what you like about the shots, the fact is a 1200x800 image looks just fine when printed at 6"x4" but is blown back up for display on here so on screen certainly loses the sharpness you get in a print.

You all seem to be saying "dont bother with mirror lenses". OK if you have £1000 to spend on a lens. I think we'd all expect better results from a £1000 lens to be honest. Personally I havent £1000 to spend on a lens, so I didnt discount mirror lenses, tried one out, was happy with the result and have enjoyed using it since and learning from the experience. Out of the lens I can extract images I'm happy with and it's not breaking the bank or my neck carrying it around on a walk.

It's a bit like rating the Ford Fiesta as "not very good" because its not as good as a BMW 3 series.

Yes, there are limitations with a mirror lens. I've found it needs pretty good light to perform well. It wont open up to get a faster shutter speed and it wont stop down to increase the depth of field (which I believe is the cause of most of the softness issues you mention).

I probably wouldnt choose it for anything other than wildlife photography but then birds are very exacting to photograph being small, dont stay still long and are usually a long way away. However I've learnt how to control shutter speed with the ISO, what ISO is worth using and what not, and how to reduce noise with post-processing.

To be honest, I think I've learnt a lot from this lens such that when I finally get my Nikon or Canon or whatever everyone else is using at the time, I should be up and running quite quickly. Also the OP did state a £300 to £400 budget in his first post.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by nigel_b

You all seem to be saying "dont bother with mirror lenses". OK if you have £1000 to spend on a lens.

I think I've seen it stated that every photographer tries a mirror lens at some time.

As I mentioned earlier, I've got a Tamron 350mm f5.6 SP mirror lens. I ought to sell it on ebay - they fetch silly prices, but I keep putting it off. It's a nice bit of engineering and about the size of a large orange and light, so it takes up very little room, but even my 70-300mm Zuiko which is an entry level lens, produces a brighter and sharper image with better contrast.

Jim