I've had 300, 500, 600, 800 and 1000mm mirror lenses over the years.
In general, they suffer from central hotspots, flare, and lack of
depth of field. Some do perform very nicely, within the limitations
of the shallow DoF (I recall a Minolta and a Vivitar Series 1 were
the best I had to work with). The primary benefit is light weight and
modest size for the focal length.
Most of the shorter, inexpensive lenses in this class aren't worth
the money. Some of the Russian 500 and 1000mm lenses are good deals,
but I haven't kept up with them enough to know which.
I'd say that even the much-maligned Pentax F100-300/4.5-5.6 that I
bought for less than $85 used would be a better performer. Stop it
down two-three stops and it returns a surprisingly nice image, even
with a 2x teleconverter, eg:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/21O4-half.jpg
I only rarely obtained an image with any of the mirror lenses that
could compete with that...
Godfrey
On Feb 6, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here had experience with faster mirror
lenses. I saw a lens that tickled my fancy and budget, a 300mm
f4.5, and I've been thinking about picking it up.
www.rugift.com/photocameras/rubinar_300_lens.htm
I'd be primarily using it for baseball, for which I've been
stealing Dave Brooks' Sigma 300mm f4. Speed-wise I've been
shooting f5.6-ish anyways, so the fixed aperture is not an issue.
Part of my interest is the size/weight factor; another part is the
desire to differentiate my work. Aside from the donuts, what are
the usual characteristics of a mirror lens?
I probably shouldn't buy it. If I buy it and hate it, are there
any Toronto PDMLers who'd want to buy a slightly used 300mm f4.5
for 90% of the price listed at that link?
Alternately, is anyone out there looking to sell some longer,
faster glass?
-Aaron
