Dear Zuiks:
Here are a few comments on the mirror lenses.
Warren Kato wrote:
>Also of interest is the Vivitar pair of solid cadiotropic lens at 450mm
>and 600mm. They are short squat lenses.
A little correction here: Vivitar Series 1 Solid CAT's were a 600/f8
and a 800/f11. Externally they look identical, however the latter has
an extra element. Both were made by Perkin-Elmer, had built-in tripod
mounts, and could be easily mistaken for mil-spec equipment.
The 450/f4.5 is an entirely different animal: it's made of little metal
and lots of polycarbonate of some sort, but is reputedly very good
optically. Dunno who made it. This lens is very scarce. A few months ago,
I had a chance to buy one of these for a paltry $130. While I hesitated,
someone else snatched it from under my nose. I still kick myself daily
for such an inexcusable mistake.
Gary Reese wrote:
>I wouldn't be suprised if the Zuiko 500/f8 was contracted out.
>Gary S, you know about that?
Nope, never heard of this. But I wouldn't be surprised either.
Hans <VELUWEH@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>mirror lenses have unique properties that put them in their own niche.
>Given their huge focal length they are relatively light and short.
Hmm, not the Solid CATs, or ant mirrors that originated in the former
Eastern Block. N*k*n's late-model CAT is very good, but also quite heavy.
>Their shortest focusing distance is in many cases much shorter than
>conventional super teles (e.g. my Tokina 500mm focuses to 1.5m!).
I think Tokina was among the first to build a virtual "macro mode" into
their mirror lens. Too bad their 500/f8 was rather mediocre. The macro
feature has since been widely immitated. Don't look for it though in the
Solid CATs: my 600/f8 has a min. focus of 23 ft!
A very good survey of currently available 500-600mm mirror alternatives
appeared recently in the UK "Practical Photography" magazine, Oct. 1996
issue (no formal test results though!). N*k*n and M*n*lta came out on
top, with Tamron SP ranked as a best buy. Btw, in the same issue one
can find a nice long-term review of the OM-2S, as well as an essay on
Patrick Litchfield -- a famed OM pro (and that's my lame excuse for
the obligatory OM content :-)).
>All this means that in many cases you might consider taking a reflex
>lens along, where you would leave the heavy 300 mm or 400 at home
>because of its weight
Actually, this is the appropriate opportunity to mention the 300/f5.6
mirrors category. Most were VERY compact -- about the size of a Zuiko
55mm F1.2, and some were much better than average. Two of them in
particular created some positive buzz: M*n*lta's 250/f5.6 Rokkor-X
and Tamron's SP 350/f5.6. The former was only available in M/MD mount,
whereas the latter was almost as big in size as its 500/f8 sibling,
and almost as costly. And so both these specimen are now history.
>teleconverters degrade picture quality more than reflex lenses do.
>I think the 200 mm/F4 + 2xA combi is heavier than the reflex, and
>should be stopped 1 or 2 stops to give optimal result
Actually, in my experience this particular combo works exceedingly
well, even handheld.
>I've taken some pictures of people with a reflex lens at relatively
>short distances [...]
Due to the CATs' extremely limited DOF, I'd say that they are only
suitable for portraiture of subjects who are, uhm... shallow and
two-dimensional ?
;-) ;-) (Oops, sorry! I couldn't resist)
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|