bmattock
Veteran
This is a lens that is seldom seen today, it seems history has passed it by. However, it once had quite a following, as it offered a long focal length (typically 500mm, sometimes 300mm or 600mm) and it was both lighter and shorter then typical prime lenses of that focal length, not to mention often cheaper.
The lens was unusual in that it was designed using a mirror (as the name 'mirror lens' implies). Here's a Wikipedia entry on this type of lens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system#Photographic_catadioptric_lenses
There are some limitations to lenses of this type. Among them, the most serious is probably the fixed f-stop. Generally, this was set at f/8. It could not be changed. Also, filtering had to be done after the optical components, not on the end of the lens as is normally done. Some catadioptric lenses offered small filters in the common (for B&W) colors that could be inserted into a chamber in back of the lens and in front of the lens mount. Another drawback was the odd and distinctive donut-shaped bokeh produced by such lenses. Some find it very objectionable, although some like it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/monz/3773121132/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/3830469958/
Many companies made catadioptric lenses, and some of them were quite good optically, while some were quite bad. The average tended towards bad, in my opinion. They were usually intended to be low-cost lenses for those who wanted a long lens but could not afford the expensive top-end Canon L glass and so on. So quite often, corners were cut and cheap mirror lenses were not very good. They got a reputation for being generally bad because of this.
Vivitar made (actually sold under their brand name, they didn't 'make' anything) several Series 1 catadioptric lenses that were known to be quite good, and are considered 'cult classics' today. They are often known as 'solid cat' lenses because the space usually filled with air between the elements (making the mirror lenses quite light) are solid glass instead. These tend to go for quite a bit of money on eBay when they are listed.
However, there are many other mirror lenses that had good performance characteristics, and which have not 'caught on' as cult or classic lenses, so they can still be purchased cheaply, often new in the original boxes.
The mounting system most commonly used was the ubiquitous t-mount system, so a lens could be purchased and a mounting adapter added.
Tip: often such lenses are listed on eBay as being 'for' the lens mount that is currently on the lens, but if it is a true t-mount, one can purchase it cheaply, remove the lens mount, and substitute the lens mount actually desired. Sometimes t-mount lenses go cheaply on eBay because people do not realize that a t-mount lens for say, a Miranda camera can also be used on any other brand with an appropriate t-mount adapter.
A couple years ago, I purchased a Soligor C/D 500mm f/8 lens new in the box for next to nothing on eBay. It came with a Pentax P/K mount, which was actually what I needed anyway.
I haven't used it much. It is light, but I have found that using it on a dSLR (which effectively makes it act like a 750mm lens) is difficult. It has such a narrow field of view that it is hard to track moving objects - I tried it on geese and didn't have much luck. One definitely has to practice shooting with both eyes open, because once the subject slips out of the viewfinder, you can't easily find it again. Manual focus is iffy too, and it is very easy to blow the focus, since the lens is f/8 and the viewfinder can be fairly dark.
However, there are upsides. One, the 'donut' bokeh disappears when shooting against the sky. Two, the lens is quite light and short, so that's nice when doing a lot of panning and such. And three, the lens can be very sharp, if you manage to hit the focus just right.
I took mine to an air show yesterday. Got rained out, but I did manage to get a couple of halfway decent shots before leaving. Taken with the aforementioned Soligor mirror lens and my old trusty Pentax *ist DS (I should have put it on my K200D, but I just didn't get to it).
This may be one of my favorite shots ever. It's definitely in my top 100 'personal best' photos as of now:
Click on the image to see it full-size. The focus is bang-on (out of a stream of shots that were NOT in great focus) and the pilot is actually looking in my direction. I am posting it because it clearly illustrates that the catadioptric lens is quite capable of producing razor-sharp images, at times.
Is it worth adding to your SLR toolkit? Perhaps. The mirror lens has drawbacks, but it also has some distinct advantages. Consider it if you want a nice sharp long lens that is light-weight, short, and cheap. Keep in mind the disadvantages and decide if that's something you're willing to put up with.
The lens was unusual in that it was designed using a mirror (as the name 'mirror lens' implies). Here's a Wikipedia entry on this type of lens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system#Photographic_catadioptric_lenses
There are some limitations to lenses of this type. Among them, the most serious is probably the fixed f-stop. Generally, this was set at f/8. It could not be changed. Also, filtering had to be done after the optical components, not on the end of the lens as is normally done. Some catadioptric lenses offered small filters in the common (for B&W) colors that could be inserted into a chamber in back of the lens and in front of the lens mount. Another drawback was the odd and distinctive donut-shaped bokeh produced by such lenses. Some find it very objectionable, although some like it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/monz/3773121132/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/3830469958/
Many companies made catadioptric lenses, and some of them were quite good optically, while some were quite bad. The average tended towards bad, in my opinion. They were usually intended to be low-cost lenses for those who wanted a long lens but could not afford the expensive top-end Canon L glass and so on. So quite often, corners were cut and cheap mirror lenses were not very good. They got a reputation for being generally bad because of this.
Vivitar made (actually sold under their brand name, they didn't 'make' anything) several Series 1 catadioptric lenses that were known to be quite good, and are considered 'cult classics' today. They are often known as 'solid cat' lenses because the space usually filled with air between the elements (making the mirror lenses quite light) are solid glass instead. These tend to go for quite a bit of money on eBay when they are listed.
However, there are many other mirror lenses that had good performance characteristics, and which have not 'caught on' as cult or classic lenses, so they can still be purchased cheaply, often new in the original boxes.
The mounting system most commonly used was the ubiquitous t-mount system, so a lens could be purchased and a mounting adapter added.
Tip: often such lenses are listed on eBay as being 'for' the lens mount that is currently on the lens, but if it is a true t-mount, one can purchase it cheaply, remove the lens mount, and substitute the lens mount actually desired. Sometimes t-mount lenses go cheaply on eBay because people do not realize that a t-mount lens for say, a Miranda camera can also be used on any other brand with an appropriate t-mount adapter.
A couple years ago, I purchased a Soligor C/D 500mm f/8 lens new in the box for next to nothing on eBay. It came with a Pentax P/K mount, which was actually what I needed anyway.
I haven't used it much. It is light, but I have found that using it on a dSLR (which effectively makes it act like a 750mm lens) is difficult. It has such a narrow field of view that it is hard to track moving objects - I tried it on geese and didn't have much luck. One definitely has to practice shooting with both eyes open, because once the subject slips out of the viewfinder, you can't easily find it again. Manual focus is iffy too, and it is very easy to blow the focus, since the lens is f/8 and the viewfinder can be fairly dark.
However, there are upsides. One, the 'donut' bokeh disappears when shooting against the sky. Two, the lens is quite light and short, so that's nice when doing a lot of panning and such. And three, the lens can be very sharp, if you manage to hit the focus just right.
I took mine to an air show yesterday. Got rained out, but I did manage to get a couple of halfway decent shots before leaving. Taken with the aforementioned Soligor mirror lens and my old trusty Pentax *ist DS (I should have put it on my K200D, but I just didn't get to it).
This may be one of my favorite shots ever. It's definitely in my top 100 'personal best' photos as of now:
Click on the image to see it full-size. The focus is bang-on (out of a stream of shots that were NOT in great focus) and the pilot is actually looking in my direction. I am posting it because it clearly illustrates that the catadioptric lens is quite capable of producing razor-sharp images, at times.
Is it worth adding to your SLR toolkit? Perhaps. The mirror lens has drawbacks, but it also has some distinct advantages. Consider it if you want a nice sharp long lens that is light-weight, short, and cheap. Keep in mind the disadvantages and decide if that's something you're willing to put up with.
Gumby
Veteran
I got lost in the wealth of info in your story... was that an air-to-air shot, or ground-to-air? Nice pic no matter which it was. I especially like the depth mpression.
Chris101
summicronia
The design is not completely out of favor Bill. Amateur telescopes still use the design to get very long focal lengths in a portable package. My favorite picture of the moon is was taken through a 2760mm f/15 lens.
FrankS
Registered User
I wish that I still had the 250mm f5.6 cat. lens that I once had years ago. It was an off-brand, but performed well and was so compact and light.
Tin
Well-known
Many mirror lenses are made by telescope makers, not lens companies. As they are usually called CAT lenses (for catadioptric) and not mirror lenses, hence these are less known to photographers. But astronomers know these well. Celestron and Meade are two well-known U.S. telescope makers. I am not sure that they make 300 mm ones, but you can find from 500 mm upwards. Look under "Telescopes" if you are shopping through eBay.
bmattock
Veteran
With reference to catadioptric lenses used as telescopes - sorry, guys, I forgot to mention that. I know that many folks use them with camera attachments for astronomical photography to great effect.
When I said that mirror lenses had fallen out of favor, I meant as 'camera' lenses; I'm sure they are still quite popular as telescope lenses. My bad, I stand corrected.
When I said that mirror lenses had fallen out of favor, I meant as 'camera' lenses; I'm sure they are still quite popular as telescope lenses. My bad, I stand corrected.
bmattock
Veteran
I was on the ground. At air shows, the planes typically come by and tilt towards the crowd to give them the kind of views they usually could only see from the air. I got lucky and got this shot as the planes tipped in unison towards a 45 degree angle, making it appear as though we were viewing them from alongside them. Cool, huh? It's the pilots doing it though, not the photographer.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
We should probably give the original 500mm Maksutov cat lens credit for ending the "cold war" with the Soviet Union. There was a big demand for them! It took a few years before the Japanese entered the market. The Maksutov was about $300 and the first Japanese ones were $200 but quickly fell to half that.
If you needed variable aperture and didn't ming carrying a "stove pipe" as they were called, there were a number of very good 400mm f/6.3 lenses offered by Spiratone, Sterling Howard, and others for prices in the $35 to $40 range. For an aproximation of what they'd cost new today multiply by about 5.
If you needed variable aperture and didn't ming carrying a "stove pipe" as they were called, there were a number of very good 400mm f/6.3 lenses offered by Spiratone, Sterling Howard, and others for prices in the $35 to $40 range. For an aproximation of what they'd cost new today multiply by about 5.
Last edited:
Austerby
Well-known
I bought a Tokina 500mm mirror lens specifically for a safari trip and got some good shots - eg close up of the animals and was pleased with it. It worked only on manual mode on my D70. I kept hold of it for a while after returning but didn't really find a use for it so sold it and got back roughly for what I paid for it. It's the sort of lens I'd happily buy again if I had a specfic reason to use it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I had a tiny one by Minolta, 250mm/5.6 IIRC. It has the typical sharpness and high contrast I've come to expect from Minolta lenses, but it's a painful exercise to get a steady shot without a tripod, even at 1/500th or 1/1000th shutter speed.
bmattock
Veteran
I hear you. Yes, it's not an easy lens to use. I wished I had pulled out my K200D and attached the Soligor to that, as it has anti-shake built into the body and I wondered if that would have helped. However, I did manage to pull off one or two decent shots with the Soligor and no shake-reduction. It's kind of like learning to do smooth panning - an acquired skill.
EliasK
Well-known
FA Limited
missing in action
i see not one peep of sony who are the only major manufacturer to have a Mirror lens now. AF too
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sony500.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sony500.shtml
bmattock
Veteran
I have no experience with the Sonys, and none with auto-focus mirror lenses. My experience is limited to 'el cheapo' catadioptric lenses, mainly because they are, in fact, cheap. That is not to say anything negative about the Sonys, other than that I cannot afford one.
hjfischer
Texas Rangerfinder
The aircraft shots are quite good. And to get only a very few "keepers" from a session is quite common, even when using premium lenses. I once corresponded by e mail with the late Herb Keppler on what telephoto lens he would recommend for an African safari. He replied that a 500mm f8 cat lens would do nicely, particularly where cost was a major consideration.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Never heard this before, Bill. I have an FSU 500/f8 lens that I got to use with my Kiev 60 and it came with a set of huge--105mm(?)--filters for the front of the lens, one ND, one orange, and one uv. I do sometimes use the ND but mostly go filterless.
Since I gave up shootingg 120, I have sold most of my Kiev/Pentacon mount lenses but kept the 500 and got an adaptor to use it on my 35mm SLR.
Like that airshow shot quite a bit!
Rob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Don't forget Bouwers and Oude Delft when giving credit for mirrors.
I had both the 600/8 and 800/11 Solid Cats but sold the 800/11 as it was just too damn' slow and rather too long (atmospheric shimmer -- worse still with a 1200 I once owned). Both Solid Cats use behind-the-lens filters -- 35,5mm I think, without checking -- and I find occasional use for a 300/5.6 'no name' I also own.
Cheers,
R.
I had both the 600/8 and 800/11 Solid Cats but sold the 800/11 as it was just too damn' slow and rather too long (atmospheric shimmer -- worse still with a 1200 I once owned). Both Solid Cats use behind-the-lens filters -- 35,5mm I think, without checking -- and I find occasional use for a 300/5.6 'no name' I also own.
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Very nice shot.
Bob
Bob
I don't know if that's good or bad...
The test procedures were better on the Vivitar line than on the Hubble. No one spec'd an optical test on the entire optical assembly after it was finished. Nothing that a trip on the Space Shuttle with corrective optics could not fix.