Are some mirror lenses better than others?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest. The most expensive is
    Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people. A couple
    of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    who sells them. Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <jtggi5$as5$>, Paul Ciszek
    <> wrote:

    > Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    > before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest. The most expensive is
    > Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    > which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people. A couple
    > of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    > who sells them. Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?


    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/solid_cat.shtml>

    <http://advancedphototech.wordpress.com/lenses/mirror-mirror-a-guide-to-
    choosing-and-using-mirror-lenses/>
     
    nospam, Jul 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <jtggi5$as5$>, Paul Ciszek
    > <> wrote:


    >> Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    >> before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest. The most expensive is
    >> Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    >> which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people. A couple
    >> of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    >> who sells them. Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?


    > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/solid_cat.shtml>


    And

    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sony500.shtml>

    "A unique product in today's market and potentially a compelling
    reason for some photographers to consider the Sony system."

    How strange that Sony decided to discontinue it. It would hardly have
    offered competition to their recently announced 500mm f4 refractor
    which is several times the price and size!

    > <http://advancedphototech.wordpress.com/lenses/mirror-mirror-a-guide-to-
    > choosing-and-using-mirror-lenses/>


    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 10, 2012
    #3
  4. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 2:02 am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    > before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest.  The most expensive is
    > Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    > which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people.  A couple
    > of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    > who sells them.  Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?
    >
    > --
    > Please reply to:         | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    > pciszek at panix dot com |  command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    > Autoreply is disabled    |  will we ever.  Church and state are, and must
    >                          |  remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


    Most of them are clones of each other, old mangin mirror designs from
    the 1970's. Only standouts I am aware of:
    Tamron's long discontinued and increasingly expensive 350mm f5.6
    mirror.
    Questar Corporation's 700mm mirror from the 1980s. Also expensive
    when they turn up.
    Some telescope mirror lenses (some, not all, mind you) from Meade and
    Orion Telescopes (Sky Watcher derived) are pretty decent, but long
    focal length and slow focal ratio.
     
    RichA, Jul 10, 2012
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Most of them are clones of each other, old mangin mirror designs from
    >the 1970's. Only standouts I am aware of:
    >Tamron's long discontinued and increasingly expensive 350mm f5.6
    >mirror.
    >Questar Corporation's 700mm mirror from the 1980s. Also expensive
    >when they turn up.



    Vivitar's 'Solid Catadioptric' 600mm is also a good performer, but it
    is heavy.
     
    Bruce, Jul 10, 2012
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 11:23 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Most of them are clones of each other, old mangin mirror designs from
    > >the 1970's.  Only standouts I am aware of:
    > >Tamron's long discontinued and increasingly expensive 350mm f5.6
    > >mirror.
    > >Questar Corporation's 700mm mirror from the 1980s.  Also expensive
    > >when they turn up.

    >
    > Vivitar's 'Solid Catadioptric' 600mm is also a good performer, but it
    > is heavy.


    I tried one. It's wasn't that good and had bad absorbtion of light
    owing to the fact it is solid. Also, Maksutovs don't perform at 100%
    until they reach the same temp as the environment they are being used
    in. Take one from a warm environment to the cold, it's mirrors start
    changing "size" and it screws up the image. They typically take 30min
    to an hour or more to reach thermal equalibrium.
    To be good, a Maksutov (the basic design) needs to have as small a
    secondary mirror as will permit a fully-illuminated a sensor. Today,
    these mirrors could be redesigned with smaller secondary mirrors
    because they might not be used on a FF sensor. In astronomy, a hybrid
    design, a "Maksutov-Newtonian" is a better overall performer
    (contrast, etc) because the design permits the secondary to be small,
    but that design is too large to be a workable camera lens, unless you
    like challenges. A large secondary mirror/aluminized spot results in
    more light being diverted from the diffraction disk to the diffraction
    rings (Airy disk) which renders contrast low. Some of the
    photographic units had secondary mirrors as large as 50% of the
    diameter of the main mirror which means a contrast loss of at least
    30%, before scattering at each reflection-transmission surface were
    taken into account. However, if they are compared to an older
    refractive telephoto lens that suffered from chromatic aberration,
    contrast loss in it due to unfocused red and blue light might have a
    worse effect. This problem was largely eliminated with ED glass.
     
    RichA, Jul 10, 2012
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >Most of them are clones of each other, old mangin mirror designs from
    >the 1970's. Only standouts I am aware of:
    >Tamron's long discontinued and increasingly expensive 350mm f5.6
    >mirror.
    >Questar Corporation's 700mm mirror from the 1980s. Also expensive
    >when they turn up.
    >Some telescope mirror lenses (some, not all, mind you) from Meade and
    >Orion Telescopes (Sky Watcher derived) are pretty decent, but long
    >focal length and slow focal ratio.


    I have found Orion telescopes for sale; are you saying that Orion also
    makes mirror lenses? I can't find those.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 10, 2012
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jul 10, 11:23 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Vivitar's 'Solid Catadioptric' 600mm is also a good performer, but it
    >> is heavy.

    >
    >I tried one. It's wasn't that good and had bad absorbtion of light
    >owing to the fact it is solid. Also, Maksutovs don't perform at 100%
    >until they reach the same temp as the environment they are being used
    >in. Take one from a warm environment to the cold, it's mirrors start


    I read somewhere that the Vivitar name was sold, and is now used to market
    crappy lenses.

    The thermal problems could be easily solved by making it out of borosilicate
    glass (aka pyrex) which I thought was SOP for large optics anyway.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 10, 2012
    #8
  9. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 12:36 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > In article <..com>,
    >
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    >
    > >Most of them are clones of each other, old mangin mirror designs from
    > >the 1970's.  Only standouts I am aware of:
    > >Tamron's long discontinued and increasingly expensive 350mm f5.6
    > >mirror.
    > >Questar Corporation's 700mm mirror from the 1980s.  Also expensive
    > >when they turn up.
    > >Some telescope mirror lenses (some, not all, mind you) from Meade and
    > >Orion Telescopes (Sky Watcher derived) are pretty decent, but long
    > >focal length and slow focal ratio.

    >
    > I have found Orion telescopes for sale; are you saying that Orion also
    > makes mirror lenses?  I can't find those.
    >


    No, they make only telescopes, but the mirror-lens units are
    (optically) very similar to camera lenses. Generally, they are much
    better optically (they have to be since people magnify the latent
    image they produce with an eyepiece) than run of the mill camera
    lenses. They can be adapter directly to cameras.
    However they are not suitable for hand-held shooting or for moving
    targets:
    -Images are inverted unless you use a special correction prism.
    -Focusing is fine but slow, using a focusing knob instead of twisting
    a barrel.
    -Focal ratios are high, like f/13 to f/15 which is very slow for a
    camera lens. There are compressor lenses which can drop that to f/7.5
    or so, with a "same percentage" reduction in effective focal length so
    a 1500mm f/13 lens becomes a 900mm f/7.5. They function like tele-
    converters only the other way round.
    -Cost versus performance is low. They are inexpensive and interesting
    to play with.

    http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/pc/1/14.uts

    There were some "camera" type Maksutov telescopes made by Meade and
    Celestron in the 1980's but I'd avoid them.

    Same with the old, heavy Russian units, avoid them.





    http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/pc/1/14.uts
     
    RichA, Jul 10, 2012
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 12:41 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 10, 11:23 am, Bruce <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Vivitar's 'Solid Catadioptric' 600mm is also a good performer, but it
    > >> is heavy.

    >
    > >I tried one.  It's wasn't that good and had bad absorbtion of light
    > >owing to the fact it is solid.  Also, Maksutovs don't perform at 100%
    > >until they reach  the same temp as the environment they are being used
    > >in.  Take one from a warm environment to the cold, it's mirrors start

    >
    > I read somewhere that the Vivitar name was sold, and is now used to market
    > crappy lenses.
    >
    > The thermal problems could be easily solved by making it out of borosilicate
    > glass (aka pyrex) which I thought was SOP for large optics anyway.


    No, with the tolerances where they are, Pyrex too changes shape enough
    when changing temp to effect the image. Zerodur is a glass that
    won't, or silica (quartz) but you won't find either in inexpensive
    scopes or camera lenses.
     
    RichA, Jul 11, 2012
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 6:46 pm, Chemiker <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:02:45 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    >
    > Ciszek) wrote:
    > >Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    > >before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest.  The most expensive is
    > >Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    > >which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people.  A couple
    > >of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    > >who sells them.  Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?

    >
    > The brands Phoenix, Opteka, and some others are made by Samyang of
    > Korea. I have one under the Opteka name, and I find little to
    > recommend. Contrast is poor, DOF is (naturally) almost non-existent,
    > bokeh is typical Cialis circles


    You'll never escape that with a mirror lens. Good thing is that you
    don't see the circular defocus patterns in every mirror lens shot.
    See below. I would like to say however, that the refractive lenses
    from Samyang (85mm, 35mm, 14mm, 8mm) are all a bargain and very good.

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original
     
    RichA, Jul 11, 2012
    #11
  12. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2012 2:02 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    > Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    > before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest. The most expensive is
    > Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    > which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people. A couple
    > of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    > who sells them. Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?
    >


    I have a good 500mm Nikkor, that I no longer use since I got my 80-400.
    It comes in a leather case and the front lens cap is missing. I have had
    it since about 1972.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #12
  13. Paul Ciszek

    Wally Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 10, 6:46 pm, Chemiker <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:02:45 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    >>
    >> Ciszek) wrote:
    >> >Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    >> >before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest.  The most expensive is
    >> >Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    >> >which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people.  A couple
    >> >of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    >> >who sells them.  Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?

    >>
    >> The brands Phoenix, Opteka, and some others are made by Samyang of
    >> Korea. I have one under the Opteka name, and I find little to
    >> recommend. Contrast is poor, DOF is (naturally) almost non-existent,
    >> bokeh is typical Cialis circles

    >
    >You'll never escape that with a mirror lens. Good thing is that you
    >don't see the circular defocus patterns in every mirror lens shot.
    >See below. I would like to say however, that the refractive lenses
    >from Samyang (85mm, 35mm, 14mm, 8mm) are all a bargain and very good.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original


    Yow, the lens causes hexagonal pupils.

    W
     
    Wally, Jul 11, 2012
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jul 10, 12:36 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    >> In article

    ><>,
    >>
    >> RichA  <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Most of them are clones of each other, old mangin mirror designs from
    >> >the 1970's.  Only standouts I am aware of:
    >> >Tamron's long discontinued and increasingly expensive 350mm f5.6
    >> >mirror.
    >> >Questar Corporation's 700mm mirror from the 1980s.  Also expensive
    >> >when they turn up.
    >> >Some telescope mirror lenses (some, not all, mind you) from Meade and
    >> >Orion Telescopes (Sky Watcher derived) are pretty decent, but long
    >> >focal length and slow focal ratio.

    >>
    >> I have found Orion telescopes for sale; are you saying that Orion also
    >> makes mirror lenses?  I can't find those.
    >>

    >
    >No, they make only telescopes, but the mirror-lens units are
    >(optically) very similar to camera lenses. Generally, they are much
    >better optically (they have to be since people magnify the latent
    >image they produce with an eyepiece) than run of the mill camera
    >lenses. They can be adapter directly to cameras.
    >However they are not suitable for hand-held shooting or for moving
    >targets:
    >-Images are inverted unless you use a special correction prism.
    >-Focusing is fine but slow, using a focusing knob instead of twisting
    >a barrel.
    >-Focal ratios are high, like f/13 to f/15 which is very slow for a
    >camera lens. There are compressor lenses which can drop that to f/7.5
    >or so, with a "same percentage" reduction in effective focal length so
    >a 1500mm f/13 lens becomes a 900mm f/7.5. They function like tele-
    >converters only the other way round.
    >
    >-Cost versus performance is low. They are inexpensive and interesting
    >to play with.
    >
    >http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/pc/1/14.uts


    I do like the price and format of the Orion Maksutov-Cassegrain scopes
    at the link above.

    1) Does dangling the entire camera off of the focuser cause any problems?
    Granted, the OM-D is lighter than most SLR's.

    2) Does the compressor go into the 1-1/4 eyepiece tube, then offer another
    1-1/4 tube for the T-mount? Where do you get these compressors?
    Orion says that their "focal reducers" are for another type of telescope,
    not the Maksutov-Cassegrain ones, so I can't get one from them.

    3) I have had bad experience with the EC-20 teleconverter. As I
    understand it, any such converter I put in the optical path has
    to be so perfect that its resolution limit is not much worse than
    the half-sized pixels of my micro-4/3 camera. Is this going to
    be a problem with the reducers?

    4) When the reducer is put on the eyepiece, does the tube of the
    telescope become the limit of the field of view? I.e., fancy
    lenses can reduce the magnification of the telescope, but they
    can't make the hole in the end any bigger.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 11, 2012
    #14
  15. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >> The brands Phoenix, Opteka, and some others are made by Samyang of
    >> Korea. I have one under the Opteka name, and I find little to
    >> recommend. Contrast is poor, DOF is (naturally) almost non-existent,
    >> bokeh is typical Cialis circles

    >
    >You'll never escape that with a mirror lens. Good thing is that you
    >don't see the circular defocus patterns in every mirror lens shot.
    >See below. I would like to say however, that the refractive lenses
    >from Samyang (85mm, 35mm, 14mm, 8mm) are all a bargain and very good.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original


    Now, that is a very nice shot. As for the "donuts", I figure if the
    focal length of the mirror lens is half a meter, and everything I am
    taking telephoto pictures of is, say, a hundred meters away, that
    should not be a problem, should it?

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 11, 2012
    #15
  16. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <4ffcc986$0$8202$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> wrote:
    >On 7/10/2012 2:02 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >> Of the 500mm lenses for sale on Amazon, the only name I have heard of
    >> before is Vivitar, and it is also the cheapest. The most expensive is
    >> Rokinon, but I have no reason to believe it is any better than Opteka,
    >> which seems to be the only one reviewed by very many people. A couple
    >> of others are mentioned in the fora on dpreview.com, but I don't know
    >> who sells them. Anyway, can anyone recommend a good 500mm mirror lens?
    >>

    >
    >I have a good 500mm Nikkor, that I no longer use since I got my 80-400.
    >It comes in a leather case and the front lens cap is missing. I have had
    >it since about 1972.


    You looking to sell it? And what sort of mounting does it use?

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 11, 2012
    #16
  17. Paul Ciszek

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 10/07/2012 17:41, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >> On Jul 10, 11:23 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Vivitar's 'Solid Catadioptric' 600mm is also a good performer, but it
    >>> is heavy.

    >>
    >> I tried one. It's wasn't that good and had bad absorbtion of light
    >> owing to the fact it is solid. Also, Maksutovs don't perform at 100%
    >> until they reach the same temp as the environment they are being used
    >> in. Take one from a warm environment to the cold, it's mirrors start

    >
    > I read somewhere that the Vivitar name was sold, and is now used to market
    > crappy lenses.
    >
    > The thermal problems could be easily solved by making it out of borosilicate
    > glass (aka pyrex) which I thought was SOP for large optics anyway.


    It isn't wise to take anything the RichA troll says about kit reviews.
    If you had been reading this group for a while you would know that.

    The Vivitar Series 1 kit was the result of a misplaced decimal point and
    the early kit was exceptionally good optically. The marketeers then
    traded on the brand name for a while but with inferior products late on.

    These days how one behaves will depend very much on how well it was
    looked after and modern lens designers have better tools. It would help
    to give you better advice if you made it clear whether you are looking
    for a long lens for wildlife, industrial or astronomical photography.

    Of the cheaper ones the Russian made MTO 1000 f10 Mak is probably the
    about the best. At least good specimens of it are.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jul 11, 2012
    #17
  18. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >I would like to say however, that the refractive lenses
    >from Samyang (85mm, 35mm, 14mm, 8mm) are all a bargain and very good.



    Don't forget the 24mm, and the fact that the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower
    85mm, 35mm and 24mm lenses all have a maximum aperture of f/1.4.

    The 85mm f/1.4 is an exceptional performer that is only just bettered
    by the new Nikon 85mm f/1.4G costing over four times more.
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2012
    #18
  19. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 11, 4:20 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >I would like to say however, that the refractive lenses
    > >from Samyang (85mm, 35mm, 14mm, 8mm) are all a bargain and very good.

    >
    > Don't forget the 24mm, and the fact that the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower
    > 85mm, 35mm and 24mm lenses all have a maximum aperture of f/1.4.
    >
    > The 85mm f/1.4 is an exceptional performer that is only just bettered
    > by the new Nikon 85mm f/1.4G costing over four times more.


    Actually, closer to six times as much, $1700 versus $300.
     
    RichA, Jul 11, 2012
    #19
  20. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 11, 2:46 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    wrote:
    > On 10/07/2012 17:41, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >> On Jul 10, 11:23 am, Bruce <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Vivitar's 'Solid Catadioptric' 600mm is also a good performer, but it
    > >>> is heavy.

    >
    > >> I tried one.  It's wasn't that good and had bad absorbtion of light
    > >> owing to the fact it is solid.  Also, Maksutovs don't perform at 100%
    > >> until they reach  the same temp as the environment they are being used
    > >> in.  Take one from a warm environment to the cold, it's mirrors start

    >
    > > I read somewhere that the Vivitar name was sold, and is now used to market
    > > crappy lenses.

    >
    > > The thermal problems could be easily solved by making it out of borosilicate
    > > glass (aka pyrex) which I thought was SOP for large optics anyway.

    >
    > It isn't wise to take anything the RichA troll says about kit reviews.
    > If you had been reading this group for a while you would know that.
    >
    > The Vivitar Series 1 kit was the result of a misplaced decimal point and
    > the early kit was exceptionally good optically. The marketeers then
    > traded on the brand name for a while but with inferior products late on.
    >
    > These days how one behaves will depend very much on how well it was
    > looked after and modern lens designers have better tools. It would help
    > to give you better advice if you made it clear whether you are looking
    > for a long lens for wildlife, industrial or astronomical photography.
    >
    > Of the cheaper ones the Russian made MTO 1000 f10 Mak is probably the
    > about the best. At least good specimens of it are.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Martin Brown


    You don't know what you are talking about. I've owned all the gear, I
    know exactly how they perform. I've also owned over 200 telescopes
    ranging from $50 cheapos to $10,000 SCT's so I'm pretty familiar with
    them. Vivitar Series 1 stuff is vastly over-rated, like many lenses
    old, misty-eyed men fondly remember from days of yore. Modern lenses
    of good quality walk all over them.
     
    RichA, Jul 11, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jim evans
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    371
    tomcas
    May 17, 2007
  2. Ofnuts
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    416
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Nov 19, 2010
  3. Wilba
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    498
    peter
    Nov 18, 2010
  4. tony cooper

    Re: Are some colour balance settings better than others?

    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    270
    Ofnuts
    Nov 17, 2010
  5. tony cooper

    Re: Are some colour balance settings better than others?

    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    265
    John McWilliams
    Nov 16, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page