Spotted Woodpecker filmed with a mirror 500 mm lens from Opteka

G

Gugulino

Active member
Many people say mirror lenses are no good. I think, that they are a good value for the price. Mine was 200$ and has a fix F8 aperture, a manual focus and no OIS. Surely, they have less contrast than a normal lens, but with the AF100 I was able to get a sharp picture by adjusting Master Pedestal and Detail Level. Look for yourself:

 
Last edited:
Nice, just a little soft but can't beat the reach of it. I had a Nikon 500mm f/8 mirror lens back in my photography days and it produced pretty good imagery. It had a rear filter kit which was pretty cool.
 
I thought the image was rather soft. Did you try to add post sharpening, and adjust the gamma curve, may get it to pop a bit more by doing so.
 
Just curious and wanting to fill a gap in my optical knowledge -- Is there any intrinsic reason a mirror lens should produce a lower contrast image (as stated by the OP) than a conventional refracting lens? If anything, since a mirror lens has fewer glass/air surfaces, it might be expected to perform better. Or is it just because this is a relatively compact and inexpensive lens and not manufactured with the same high precision and advanced materials, mechanics and coatings as more costly refracting lenses?

All large telescopes are reflectors, and I assume their standards for image quality are exceedingly high, but the optical properties that make for an excellent image from an astronomical telescope might not be exactly the same as for ground-based photography.

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Just curious and wanting to fill a gap in my optical knowledge -- Is there any intrinsic reason a mirror lens should produce a lower contrast image (as stated by the OP) than a conventional refracting lens? If anything, since a mirror lens has fewer glass/air surfaces, it might be expected to perform better. Or is it just because this is a relatively compact and inexpensive lens and not manufactured with the same high precision and advanced materials, mechanics and coatings as more costly refracting lenses?

All large telescopes are reflectors, and I assume their standards for image quality are exceedingly high, but the optical properties that make for an excellent image from an astronomical telescope might not be exactly the same as for ground-based photography.

- Greg
Click to expand...

I imagine it would be from light bouncing around causing internal flaring, and etc. A mirror lens is completely different than a typical lens. I've only seen them used for star photography. I've never seen it used for videography, so thanks for sharing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top