500mm vivitar mirror lens How bad will it be?

[Imperitus]

What I want is a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, but that is going to take a while to save for. In the mean time I spent about $100 for a 500mm Vivitar mirror lens with a 2x adaptor. I know the image quality will be lacking, but I needed something for reach, my current longest is 55mm.

Anyone have any experience with these mirror lenses? Are they capable of getting a decent image? or am U just frustrating myself?

[defordphoto]

Vivitar is to quality as Apples are to fish.

Save your money. Get some real glass.

[cmM]

what was CDS' highly advanced "technical" term for describing these lenses?....

They're "poop" ! :D

[DaveG]

What I want is a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, but that is going to take a while to save for. In the mean time I spent about $100 for a 500mm Vivitar mirror lens with a 2x adaptor. I know the image quality will be lacking, but I needed something for reach, my current longest is 55mm.

Anyone have any experience with these mirror lenses? Are they capable of getting a decent image? or am U just frustrating myself?
I had a Nikkor 500 mm f8 mirror lens, whose quality would greatly exceed that of the Vivitar's. And still I got an obvious centre hot spot, and the out of focus specular highlight donuts got old very quickly. Not being able to open up is a curse of every lens, but not being able to close DOWN to pick up some additional depth of field was equally painful although unexpected.

But the mirror lens was small for the focal length and it was realtively cheap. For the money you mentioned you could look at it as a toy. Just remember for anything approaching sharp images a tripod is pretty much mandatory!

[Johnny V]

I too had the Nikon 500mm Mirror...it was less than steller. Say away from mirror lenses you will be disappointed.

[CyberDyneSystems]

what was CDS' highly advanced term for describing these lenses?....

They're "poop" ! :D

cmM,.. I was not aware that you had been studying the advanced particle physics, optics and thermodynamic priciples that would give you the resources required to make such an in depth and informed assesment of the Vivitar....

... I mean between your quantum mechanics course and Kirkegard study group and all...

Jolly good show! :mrgreen:

[cmM]

cmM,.. I was not aware that you had been studying the advanced particle physics, optics and thermodynamic priciples that would give you the resources required to make such an in depth and informed assesment of the Vivitar....

... I mean between your quantum mechanics course and Kirkegard study group and all...

Jolly good show! :mrgreen:You underestimate me, CDS :-P

[mdude85]

in the 1970s vivitar was able to compete with the higher end consumer lenses from what now is Sigma and Tokina. I have one vivitar lens and I am very happy with it.

[WestFalcon]

In their earlier days, Vivitar made some really nice glass. I have an FD 90 mm macro that is as sharp as any macro and they made a highly touted 90-180 mm lens which I think was made for medical closeups. Both of these were/are stellar FD lenses but now, I think their lenses are pretty much "fecal material"!!!!

[Imperitus]

Welp after getting it and playing a little I can answer my own question. How bad? BAD.
I expected horrible bokeh, I wouldn't mind that, I expected it to be hard to use without a tripod since it's so friken long and needs to be at a realativly low shutter speed since it's so slow... I could deal, I have a tripod and a shutter release cord...

But what is unavoidable is that the images it produces are blury and low contrast.
Since it was $100, it's not a big deal it gives me somethign to play with, but I doubt I will ever get any images out of it that are print worthy.

Back to deaming of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS :)

[Imperitus]

Welp here's the end result of the 'mirror' lens experiment.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3868069485

[Ikinaa]

Welp here's the end result of the 'mirror' lens experiment.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3868069485Shouldn't a seller praise what he's selling? ;)
... What a disappointment. This lens is really bad ... Why bother selling it through ebay if you don't want any money. Just throw it away...?

[Cadwell]

:lol: You're not a natural salesman, are you?

[Imperitus]

I can't in good concious lie about this lens. But maybe someone out ther wants it for some reason beyond my comprehension. If no one bids it'll just gather dust in my closset anyway, why not take an off chance on selling it?

[Ikinaa]

I can't in good concious lie about this lens. But maybe someone out ther wants it for some reason beyond my comprehension. If no one bids it'll just gather dust in my closset anyway, why not take an off chance on selling it?
Hmmm... be more positive.
Write something like 'The best Vivitar lens I ever had' or something like that.
Wouldn't be lying. You never had another Vivitar lens, did you? ;)

[ron chappel]

You know you don't have to make the auction sound THAT bad;) .
Remember alot of people don't mind such lenses and the compromises they have.

I must agree generally about that particular model.It is a very common one sold under various brand names and is really quite cheap .It's exactly as you say-they are very low in sharpness and contrast.

I have used a whole bunch of cheapo lenses trying to find a bargain and these things come the closest!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3866828819&rd=1

They're cheap AND reasonably good.
Nowhere near L class but definitely a whole step up from the vivitar mirror!

They do have several limitations though- close focus ability is very ordinary and they're pretty long

These have been available for decades in a multitude of brand names judging by the secondhand ones i see .They are allways either 500/f8 or 400/f6.3
Both are good and even look near identical

Here is a pic taken with one-note that this is the best you'll get out of one though!
It's been carefully sharpened and only slightly compressed for the web.

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/kimunor-500mmf8%20j.html

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_5.html

[Imperitus]

Unfortunatly I don't want to carry around a bazooka. :)
I have a G2 with a hunting scope adapted to be a telephoto, I get enough odd looks when I wip that out. I'd prefer to stick to things that look like they might not attract the homeland security officials. :)

Nice pictures from that though. And definitly an option if I find myself in a situation where I NEED some reach. But for now I am just looking for a telephoto for fun.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I didn't see this important info listed in you Ebay auction....



They're "poop" ! :D


;)

[Fills]

LOL... sorry to drag this post back up but looks like you MADE money on this lens despite being as honest as you could! :D

[Canuck]

Vivitar is to quality as Apples are to fish.

ROTFLMAO!! Although I have some fish that will eat anything that wont get away from it. It looks like the one picstured in this link except it is a foot long! Link: http://www.cichlide.de/Startseite/Gallerie/Pterygoplichthys_gibbiceps_/Pterygoplichthys_gibbiceps.jpg
Just incase you are not familiar with it, they are more commonly known as Sailfin Plecostomus, Plecs, Plecos, and commonly just algae eaters. The latter is not true all the time. I have had 2 that eat anything it can get its mouth on and 2 that are herbivores. Maybe I just need to post a few pics, as I am having some trouble finding exactly what I am looking for.

Add-on:
I was so frustrated looking, I got my own pics of my fish, all 12 inches of him:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=11705453
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=11705451
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=11705450

All pics shot w/ Canon EOS 10D/16-35mm F2.8L @ F4

[DocFrankenstein]

ROTFLMAO!! Although I have some fish that will eat anything that wont get away from it. It looks like the one picstured in this link except it is a foot long! Link: http://www.cichlide.de/Startseite/Gallerie/Pterygoplichthys_gibbiceps_/Pterygoplichthys_gibbiceps.jpg
Just incase you are not familiar with it, they are more commonly known as Sailfin Plecostomus, Plecs, Plecos, and commonly just algae eaters. The latter is not true all the time. I have had 2 that eat anything it can get its mouth on and 2 that are herbivores. Maybe I just need to post a few pics, as I am having some trouble finding exactly what I am looking for.
That doesn't look like a herbivore :confused:

The bass is a herbivore... this one looks camouflaged as a predator. Eyes up... lying there flat waiting to eat unsuspecting fishes. Reminds me of the scorpion fish a bit...

[Wazza]

I hope the extra $9 made, covers the cost for headache pills!

[mbze430]

That is great. And actually someone bought it, makes it even better. Anyone have an image taken with the lens?

Should ask the buyer about his experience of the lens.....

[Canuck]

That doesn't look like a herbivore :confused:

The bass is a herbivore... this one looks camouflaged as a predator. Eyes up... lying there flat waiting to eat unsuspecting fishes. Reminds me of the scorpion fish a bit...

To a lot of people this is called an "algae eater". Weird...plec/pleco short for plecostomus is far shorter. I guess you could call them Hypostomus/Loricariidae (I think that is how you spell it) family.

[Imperitus]

Sure I have pics from it.

Remember this is on a bright sunny day, from a tripod.

http://www.heidgerken.org/gfx/500mm/IMG_3033.JPG

[mbze430]

wow that's horrible....

[Imperitus]

Yup, that's why after 5 minutes of testing I knew it was going back on ebay.

[Persian-Rice]

What the hell?? Imperitus, you must have run gaussian blur or something...................*Shivers*, I can't believe a company would put their label on something like that.

[ron chappel]

Imperitus that is just EVIL ,
No wonder you were horrified!

Actually i think there is something wrong with your example.
They give these kind of results at times but not consistantly and certainly not a new one!

[eljustino]

I have an old Canon 80-200 f4.5-5.6 zoom which cost me £46 (less than $100) on ebay. It's really pretty good. Amazing for the money.

[Mogwyth]

Just goes to show no matter how truthful you are you can sell anything on Ebay.:lol:

[ijohnson]

Are you sure you didn't dip it in mud before you took that picture?

I remember thinking about this lens several years ago to put on a 30 year-old camera. Am I ever happy that I didn't. It just seemed too good to be true.

I wonder if they have a gallery for this lens on pbase.

[Andy_T]

Now that I've seen the image from this lens, I agree that it was better to be as truthful as possible in the eBay ad :twisted:

Best regards,
Andy

[Bruce Hamilton]

Vivitar is to quality as Apples are to fish.

Back when I shot film, one of my favorite lenses was a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 telephoto. Wasn't L quality by any stretch of the imagination, but I wouldn't classify it as a paperweight.

[ron chappel]

Here are a few pics i found from various mirror lenses
http://www.pbase.com/image/32160834 (cheap spiratone)
http://www.pbase.com/enradman/zuiko500
http://www.pbase.com/noisynoodle/tamron_sp_500_mirror&page=all (one of the better ones but not THE best)
http://www.pbase.com/token/image/24343751 (our old friend the vivitar)
http://www.pbase.com/token/image/24343749 (the better vivitar 'solid cat')
-that gallery is a VERY good one incidentally! It compares various lenses at equal magnification-an ideal way to see the relative overall optical quality of various lenses

[blackviolet]

I didn't see this important info listed in you Ebay auction....

he said something far more eloquent:

It’s perfect, a perfect POS.

[DocFrankenstein]

Sure I have pics from it.

Remember this is on a bright sunny day, from a tripod.

http://www.heidgerken.org/gfx/500mm/IMG_3033.JPG
I bet you money you shot it through a mosquito net.

[Imperitus]

I bet you money you shot it through a mosquito net.

Hum... looking at that image again I think it might have been one of the first shots I made, I had thought I had slid up the window screen before shooting all the pics but it's possible that I didn't for that one.

Here is the best of the pics I got out of the lens, which was shot from the roof of the building (No window or screen, clear open sky):

http://www.heidgerken.org/gfx/500mm/IMG_3039.JPG

Again this was on a bright sunny day, from a tripod, heck I even used a remote switch, hoping to cut any possible camera shake I could.

[blackviolet]

Here is the best of the pics I got out of the lens...

it's not that bad, it just needed a bit of USM applied

[ron chappel]

Unfortunatly I don't want to carry around a bazooka. :)
I have a G2 with a hunting scope adapted to be a telephoto, I get enough odd looks when I wip that out. I'd prefer to stick to things that look like they might not attract the homeland security officials. :)

Nice pictures from that though. And definitly an option if I find myself in a situation where I NEED some reach. But for now I am just looking for a telephoto for fun.

I probably should have responded weeks ago-sorry:o ;)

Those lenses aren't really very big-that picture is from a close up perspective.They're just on 12 inches long and 650 grams

[griff2]

A slight digression, but I find Ron C's comparison of the 70-200L with the 100-400L both wide open and ~ at the long end quite interesting. I was toying with the idea of buying the 100-400, but the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC is clearly superior to the 100-400, and with 1.6 crop factor (for the 300D) I'd have an effective 157-448 @ f/5.6 (with TC) and 112-320 @ f/4 (without TC) tempting..

[Imperitus]

Yeah I'm saving for the 70-200 now.

[ron chappel]

Hey i wish it WAS my comparison.Wouldn't be nice to own all those lenses?:D :D :D ;) ;)

[griff2]

It would indeed:D Still, the article has pointed me in the direction of my next lens;)

[eljustino]

OK I just want to show off 2 shots from my sub-$100 (£46 UK pounds) old and very light (which is nice) and not especially fast Canon 80-200 compact zoom. Complete with plastic mount etc.

This lens gets universally rubbish reviews but I think these pictures are pretty good.

The "wet look" picture of my son is reduced 50% but the second picture is a 1:1 crop ie actual resolution of original photo. The first one was taken in very brightl light, ie fast shutter. Second pic is handheld in non-ideal light conditions, so I think most of the blur (and there is not much) is camera shake.

[MadTony]

For what it's worth, those pics look pretty good for a "rubbish" lens. Of course, I am very happy with many shots from my 75-300 USM, which generally is not well reviewed either. Sometimes, despite "poor" equipment, good shots can be made. Just like expensive equipment can produce bad shots. The latter is just easier to accomplish! ;-)

[Ikinaa]

For what it's worth, those pics look pretty good for a "rubbish" lens. Of course, I am very happy with many shots from my 75-300 USM, which generally is not well reviewed either. Sometimes, despite "poor" equipment, good shots can be made. Just like expensive equipment can produce bad shots. The latter is just easier to accomplish! ;-)

I guess it's all about how the lens is used. It depends on the light conditions, the contrast of the subject, etc. Even with a bad lens you can take good pictures...

As for the 75-300 USM, I have that one also. The first time I tried it on the 20D, I found it a bit soft, then I shot a series of every aperture available for the lens of a static target (a ruler in fact) and comparing the pictures, I found that the lens was sharpest at f/11. Ok that's a bit of a limitation to have to shoot at f/11 if you want sharp pictures (wildlife, birds), but setting ISO to 800 on the 20D, I get now (winter) often pictures at 1/250 - 1/500 at f/11 at ISO 800 at 300mm
Sometimes (when shooting my daughter doing her taekwondo), I have to go at ISO1600 or even ISO3200 and f/5.6 to get about 1/125 or 1/250, but running neatimage on the pic and some USM (most often 225/1.3/0) the pic turns out fine.

[michael.luczkow]

Sure I have pics from it.

Remember this is on a bright sunny day, from a tripod.

http://www.heidgerken.org/gfx/500mm/IMG_3033.JPG

is that thru multiple screen doors or something? :-)