File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
LOL

MIRROR LENS
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
LOL

AF
>> Anonymous
>>265381
and why is that funny?
>> Grev !!5D+HXONd/uX
>>265384
Their performance isn't that good.

Remember Nikon had a 800mm or 1100mm mirror lens, was huge.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>265384

Ugly catadioptric bokeh is ugly.
>> Anonymous
>>265391
how did I know someone was going to say something idiotic like that? A mirror telephoto does not take the place of a refractive telephoto. It's for use with objects/subjects that are far away and when it's focused faraway (a say a bird, the moon, a moose on the other side of the valley), you compose so that there ain't any foreground that is out of focus. The HF distance on a 500mm f/8 used with say a D300 is about a mile. Focused at 1 mile, everything from about 1/2 a mile to infinity is in focus.
Does it perform as nicely as a refractive 500? Of course not but it's
1) much cheaper
(a nikon 500mm mirror lens can be found for about $300, a 500mm f/4 is over $7000)
2) much lighter
3) much less expensive
4)a lens that is going to be used only the minority of times
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Tamron's got a 200-500mm f/5-6.3 for $800. This is $700.

The Tamron is bigger and roughly twice the weight, but you get apertures other than f/8 (including a partial stop faster) and focal lengths between 200 and 500. Third-party lens image quality isn't generally excellent, but there's a good chance it'll beat condom bokeh.

So... the 500/8 catadioptric might be fail.
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fodder/288106777/in/set-72157594320195534/

I've seen this one is less than $150...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>265404
Manual focus only, though
>> Anonymous
How much does that cost?
$300 gets you a 500mm f/5.6 Rubinar, which is manual and has typical Soviet build quality, but is a stop faster and about as good optically as mirror lenses get.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265411

wouldn't matter that much though would it? Doesn't seem like the kind of lens where AF would be pivotal.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>265433
Valid point.
>> Anonymous
what if you're tracking birds in flight

AF is crucial
>> Anonymous
>>265433
It's not pivotal, but very useful. The focus ring travel on these is usually very long, plus the focusing operates differently than on a normal lens - I don't know why, but you need to focus more precisely than your depth-of-field calculator suggests.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265449

yeah, i just thought this lens was more for stationary objects or something. I actually know nothing about mirror lenses so it's more of a lesson for me.

I just presumed the f/8 would make it difficult to AF anyway.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265401condom bokeh

you mean donut bokeh, condom bokeh is a different phenomenon altogether
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>265470
Explain please?
>> Anonymous
donut bokeh is from mirror lenses. and it looks like what you see here^

condom bokeh is when there are small concentric circular imperfections (sometimes called imperfect bokeh or bullseye bokeh) and i think it's apparent on extreme aperture lenses like 1.2
>> Anonymous
I always called that barrel distortion.
>> Anonymous
i don't think you know what barrel distortion is
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>265501
lollll

I love donut bokeh, normal bokeh gets abit cliché after a while
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>265411
>>265433
>>265443
The only reason to get the Minolta Mirrors was that they had AF (afair).

>>265470
This is nice donught bokeh, normally its much worse. Someone posted some photos of an eagle a while back with a mirror that had disgusting bokeh.