From: David Kilpatrick on
Richard wrote:
> "Mulperi" <juha.heinonen(a)pp2.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:zC1ok.275$T16.103(a)read4.inet.fi...
>> Which one is better. Yes I know that Tamron AF 200-500 F5-6,3 Di LD IF is
>> a zoom lens and SONY 500/8 REFLEX is not but which one gives better
>> photos.
>
> I've rarely seen a zoom in that range that is any good, outside of Nikon's
> 200-400 $5000+ monster. If the Sony is a good mirror lens, it can produce
> excellent images, often completely free of colour aberration that effects
> all but the most apochromatic of the refractive lenses.
> I shot this with a Tamron 350mm mirror lens, it's a 50% reduction from
> actual size.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245
>
>

I've owned three examples of the 50mm AF mirror over the years -
Minolta, but these are exactly what Sony is now rebranding - and while
they are a convenient lens, I've never found the sharpness all that
stunning compared to the earlier non-AF mirror lens from Minolta. I
guess the compromise of putting in some more glass elements, to enable
the AF and closer focusing, takes the edge off a pure mirror design.

I still have one but it is lens for special purposes, while the Tamron
200-500mm is a fairly versatile all round sports and wildlife lens and
will (at f9, which closer to the true T-stop of the mirror lens) produce
better results most of the time.

David
From: R. Mark Clayton on

<me(a)mine.net> wrote in message
news:cs91a4tt3e2iblm2b94kiam8qavd99i10f(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:50:39 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "Mulperi" <juha.heinonen(a)pp2.inet.fi> wrote:
>
>>Which one is better. Yes I know that Tamron AF 200-500 F5-6,3 Di LD IF is
>>a
>>zoom lens and SONY 500/8 REFLEX is not but which one gives better photos.
>
> First question. Will your body even AF an f/8 max aperture lens, if that
> is
> at all important to you?

Yes they do - unique selling point of the lens.


From: R. Mark Clayton on

"Mulperi" <juha.heinonen(a)pp2.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:zC1ok.275$T16.103(a)read4.inet.fi...
> Which one is better. Yes I know that Tamron AF 200-500 F5-6,3 Di LD IF is
> a zoom lens

This does not appear to be a full frome lens - this means it won't work on a
35mm film back or Sony's up and coming full frame digital. OTOH this will
make the lens lighter - under normal circumstances this would be a very
heavy lens.

The AF may be poor at 300+ on the zoom.

> and SONY 500/8 REFLEX is not but which one gives better photos.

This is Minolta's 500mm reflex with a Sony badge. It is designed to work
with the Minolta / Sony cameras and will AF properly - useful because things
out of focus in a reflex lens appear torroidal. Image quality should be
good, since as a mirror lens there are only reflections, so chromatic
abberation will not occur.

Should work well with a doubler (giving f16 at 1000mm)

The lens is light weight.

So I would recommend a Tamron 28 - 200 or 28 - 300 plus a new or second hand
500mm reflex.



PS back in the manual days Minolta did a 250mm reflex. Scarcely any bigger
than standard prime lens and very light. Lovely if one didn't want to take
a full kit.

>
> --
> Juha Heinonen
> Seilimaki 17 B 8
> 02180 ESPOO
> FINLAND
> E-mail: juha.heinonen(a)pp2REMOVE.inet.fi
> URL: http://personal.inet.fi/koti/juha.heinonen
>


From: nospam on
In article <A4mdnVvpzdR2_TzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com>, David Kilpatrick
<iconmags3(a)btconnect.com> wrote:

> I've owned three examples of the 50mm AF mirror over the years -

that's a tiny mirror lens :)
From: nospam on
In article <XMmdnYgHDrpo-TzVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
<nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Mulperi" <juha.heinonen(a)pp2.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:zC1ok.275$T16.103(a)read4.inet.fi...
> > Which one is better. Yes I know that Tamron AF 200-500 F5-6,3 Di LD IF is
> > a zoom lens
>
> This does not appear to be a full frome lens - this means it won't work on a
> 35mm film back or Sony's up and coming full frame digital. OTOH this will
> make the lens lighter - under normal circumstances this would be a very
> heavy lens.

i don't know where you got the idea that it's not a full frame lens.
it most definitely is. also, full frame lenses that long won't be any
lighter than a dx version. it's at the shorter focal lengths where
cropped image circles make a difference.

> The AF may be poor at 300+ on the zoom.
>
> > and SONY 500/8 REFLEX is not but which one gives better photos.
>
> This is Minolta's 500mm reflex with a Sony badge. It is designed to work
> with the Minolta / Sony cameras and will AF properly - useful because things
> out of focus in a reflex lens appear torroidal. Image quality should be
> good, since as a mirror lens there are only reflections, so chromatic
> abberation will not occur.
>
> Should work well with a doubler (giving f16 at 1000mm)

ugh.

> PS back in the manual days Minolta did a 250mm reflex. Scarcely any bigger
> than standard prime lens and very light. Lovely if one didn't want to take
> a full kit.

actually a number of companies made 300mm f/5.6 mirror lenses. they're
*really* small considering they're 300mm, and f/5.6 isn't that slow
(most consumer zooms are f/5.6 at the long end).
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Pricey little Nikon lens...
Next: 12mp vs 24mp - so what?