d300 amd mirror lenses

"David Ruether" wrote in
:


"Rich" wrote in message
...
John wrote in
:

I have a Nikon D300 with 18/200 mm and a 70/300 mm lenses. I
occasionally need more telephoto capability. I am considering
either a Nikkor 500 mm or perhaps the 1000 mm mirror reflex lenses
since they are light, compact and relatively inexpensive.

The Nikkor and Tamron 500mm mirrors are truly awful. Rotten
optically.

Nonsense, with the larger, earlier version of the 500mm f8 Nikkor
(but with barrel focusing rather than ring focusing - but the latest
version is almost as good). It equals good non-mirrors, and is so good
that it is still fine on the TC14 or TC14B (for 700mm). This image is
small, but the original is SHARP! See --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/500mm-Nikkor.htm.

I've tried two Nikon 500mm mirrors recently. They both sucked. If you
like, I can do another test and post shots. The only old mirror lens I've
used (outside of something from Questar Corp) that is decent is Tamron's
350mm f5.6. I've also tested the Sigma 600mm f8 which is pretty common on
Ebay. It's another dog. None of them come close to modern ED refractive
optics.

"Rich" wrote in message ...
"David Ruether" wrote in
:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
John wrote in
:

I have a Nikon D300 with 18/200 mm and a 70/300 mm lenses. I
occasionally need more telephoto capability. I am considering
either a Nikkor 500 mm or perhaps the 1000 mm mirror reflex lenses
since they are light, compact and relatively inexpensive.

The Nikkor and Tamron 500mm mirrors are truly awful. Rotten
optically.

Nonsense, with the larger, earlier version of the 500mm f8 Nikkor
(but with barrel focusing rather than ring focusing - but the latest
version is almost as good). It equals good non-mirrors, and is so good
that it is still fine on the TC14 or TC14B (for 700mm). This image is
small, but the original is SHARP! See --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/500mm-Nikkor.htm.

I've tried two Nikon 500mm mirrors recently. They both sucked. If you
like, I can do another test and post shots. The only old mirror lens I've
used (outside of something from Questar Corp) that is decent is Tamron's
350mm f5.6. I've also tested the Sigma 600mm f8 which is pretty common on
Ebay. It's another dog. None of them come close to modern ED refractive
optics.

Keep in mind that focus MUST be exact with mirrors (there is
no diaphragm to stop down to cover error) and that air quality is
CRITICAL, as is what is under the light path you are shooting
through. Heat waves, air crud, etc. WILL soften the result (as
can even focus distance) - as will an inadequate tripod, and not
using a pre-released mirror (unless you are hand-holding, which
can produce superior results in very bright light due to the better
damping of hand-holding). It is not as simple as "this lens is not
sharp" with mirrors - successful long-lens shooting of terrestrial
subjects depends on the relatively rare convergence of *several*
conditions (and refractors do generally have the advantages of
greater mass and physical length, which help). I've owned a couple
of 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f3.5 Nikkors, and the older 500mm
Nikkor mirror's performance was about equal to those at f2.8/3.5,
which is to say, excellent. Or, to put it another way, it is VERY
easy to get soft photos using that mirror, without it being the fault
of the mirror... (although the touted Vivitar Series I 600mm,
Tamron 500mm f8, Nikkor 500mm f5, Nikkor 1000 f11, and
MTO 1000mm f10 I tried were no match for the older Nikkor
500mm f8 (or Tamron 350mm f5.6) mirrors (but the newer
Nikkor 500mm f8 was close). Also worth considering is if the
mirrors were damaged or not, and if they have clean mirrors
and other optical surfaces, including the tiny (internal) rear
element and the rear screw-in filter, which must be in place...
--DR

David Ruether wrote:
...

Thanks for your thoughts about using these lenses.