JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 177000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
Cons: Catadioptric lens, meaning fixed slow aperture and 'doughnut' shaped out of focus highlights, quite soft low contrast image, mirror alignment quite easily knocked out of place, no stabilisation, manual focus, very old Tamron 'Adaptall' system, lenshood essential
Opinion: Out of all the plethora of catadioptric (mirror) lenses that came out of the 1980's, this, apart from the much heavier and more exclusive (now) Nikkor variant, this Tamron is about the only one even worth considering, now. With the likes of excellent quality (in comparison) long zooms such as Sigma 150-500mm almost commonplace and affordable, the need for a cheap very much compromising mirror lens is almost not there now. I bought mine back in the film days for my F100 and it's always been difficult to get a sharp image. The subject jumps about in the viewfinder that sometimes it's difficult to frame it accurately! However, it seems surprisingly much more able on the digital crop D7000, accessible via Nikon's 'non CPU lens' data bank. I occasionally use it for very far distant views, where infinity focus usually means no out of focus areas to create those awful doughnut shapes. The resulting image quality is always quite low contrast, not surprising considering how many times the light path is bent by all those internal mirrors. The images always requires quite a lot of Photoshop sharpening and extra contrast. I can achieve better results by attaching Sigma EX 1.4x TC to my excellent Tamron SP 70-300mm VC, giving equivalent to 560mm, compared to 750mm of the mirror lens. The vibration control of the zoom actually works too. I do stop the zoom down a bit though, but even handheld in good light, results can be impressive. Therefore, I almost never use this 500mm f8 mirror lens these days but I will keep it, as its value is probably quite low now and it may become useful again. The lens, being an 'SP' Tamron is well built though, with a nice smooth but long reaching focus ring that focusses down to 1/3 life size. In conclusion: in these days of ultra fast iso's available and excellent long zooms covering this focal length, mirror lenses are really only of novelty value, now. But, if you want to try one, or are after those weird out of focus shapes, then this is probably about the only reasonable contender and the Adaptall system should fit most DSLR's, as long as you can get the relevant adaptor, of course, which will be secondhand too and cost you extra. Overall, I can't give this lens more than 7/10, when compared to what is available today.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Very robust lens construction, light weight (for a 500), good finishes, very sharp images are taken for a mirror lens.
Cons:Fixed diaphragm at F/8, so you can't play with depth of field.
Opinion:What about, I bought this lens many years ago, to do photographic hunting, I used it with both film and digital. In Both cases has always baked good pictures. Easy to handle, sturdy enough, with its metal lens hood, smooth focus ring, no impuntamenti, featherweight, for a 500. The only drawback, the diaphragm, fixed at F/8, then with a limited depth of field. For the rest only merits for this "small" goal, which continues to give me satisfactions.
Pros:Sharp enough, good yield (taking into account age ...), compact and relatively lightweight, solid construction
Cons:Poor Focus freehand, impossible to change the depth of field, not "dialogue" with the camera
Opinion:I kept since the days of film, and it is still not bad. Of course, for those who have only known digital photography, using this lens it is like climbing Mount Everest. Making freehand fire is far from easy view of the focal length of 500 mm (that of APS-C become 750), but the smooth and precise ring can be a bit 'in this sense. Being free of the diaphragm can not handle the depth of field, and in fact makes best with static subjects, on a tripod, and possibly with remote control and the mirror goes up. Under these conditions produces very good photos for a perspective of 35 years ago, provided that the light is good. Otherwise the contrast worsens lot. Keep in mind that it is completely devoid of electrical contacts and not "talk" to the modern digital camera bodies, for which the correct exposure must be done based on experience or by trials. Personally I like his bokeh typical reflex reflector, which transforms every point luminosor out of focus in a light donut. In its favor it also said that it is much lighter and more manageable than a traditional 500 mm, and its solid construction (plug, barrel and screw are made of metal lens hood) explains why, at least my copy, it is kept in excellent condition for more than 30 years. it is not surprising that it has not put among the "against" the lack of stabilizer. First of all it would be unfair and absurd to demand it on a view of the '80s, and then in my case I use on Pentax bodies, who stabilization on the sensor, so an extra help. If you can find around (online or in some flea market), it may be worth buying it.
Cons:Difficult management of MAF, non-stabilized, with the modern body loses the exposure, contrast Slippage in situations of critical light, delicate front lens
Opinion:Good Tele, the biggest obstacle to overcome is the management of the maf than in the photos on the move becomes a great problem. To be used in static photography, with a good light and a good dose of patience. On the right you are forced to exceed 1/750 sec to not generate the blur and image development requires a lot of attention to "pull" out of all the original colors. A lens is not for everyone, especially for those who are beginners.
Pros:Compact size, excellent construction, excellent relationship between spending and results
Cons:Not crystal clear, hard to use, inability to deal with the depth of field
Opinion:Bought it for business needs, having to photograph architecture with good resolution with a single point of view to over 2km.rnPer the expenditure, about 200 € complete with a 2x multiplier, the images obtained are satisfactory although abbisogna a lot of practice to be utilizzato.rnLavorando with exposure times around to 1/1000 will have the best results.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
