I've got both a 400/5.6 normal lens and a 500/8 mirror. Ultimately for
quality, the 400/5.6 (which I refer to as The Beast) is much better, in
terms of contrast, sharpness and colour. But the 500/8 gets a lot more
use, just because it weighs a tiny fraction of what the Beast weighs.
It's hardly heavier than a 50/1.8, and as it's a slinky little
catadioptric number I call it the Cat.
I say it gets a lot more use than the 400/5.6, but really I hardly use
either of them anyway. The only time I've really used the Cat was in a
game park in Zambia. It was difficult, even with 1000 speed film, to
keep the exposures short enough when handholding, but I got some
respectable efforts. They're not yet up on my webpages but I'll put
them up shortly.
Moving away from the point, I must say Fuji MS100/1000 is a hell of a
film when rated at 1000. Colour is very good, and the grain is way less
than you might expect.
Roger
>
> It sounds as if mirror lenses have a whole lot of things against them in
> terms of usability -- is the cheapness+lesser weight enough of a benefit, or
> are they only really something you carry 'just in case'?
>
> -- dan
< 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 >
|