A mirror lens is usually cheaper, easier to focus,
always a lot lighter (allowing it to be handheld) and
easier to construct so it might be sharper (big might
there though).
Cons are that it almost always has a fixed apeture
(usually at f8 or so). Might not have a tripod mount
so its tougher on the camera when mounted on a tripod.
The biggest drawback though is that it'll always have
doughnut out of focus highlights which can look simply
horrible so it has bad bokeh.
A glass lens at that length is usually very
substantial meaning its a tripod or bust, however
there are advantages. Variable apeture which is almost
always faster. Much better out of focus highlights.
This comes with a big weight/expense penalty though.
If you buy a long faster telephoto the price
skyrockets.
Basically if you are just rarely going to use a long
tele like that a cheaper mirror lens will probably
suffice. If you are going to be using long lenses a
lot though a glass lens would be a better match.
Mark Lloyd
--- Charles Monroe <chasmnro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What are the pros and cons of a long focus versus
> a mirror lens of
> the same effective mm length?
>
> Charles Monroe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|