Mirror lens or Tele-Converter.... which is better? I tested to find out.

[jack58]

Mirror lens or Tele-Converter?
Which is better was a question I was asking myself recently.
To start I KNEW neither will come close to a prime lens... I just wanted to know what was the best of the two.

So, I got both. It will be fun to try them for myself and see what works best. And maybe if I ever get rich, I will get a 500 f/4 Nikkor lens.

I saw many positive reviews on the the Kenko PRO 300 1.4x TELECONV
I'm not expecting much from the mirror lens, just hoping with my experience, I can make it work. I am more curious as to how the TC works out.

Most articles I've read about Mirror lenses were pretty negative, so I wasn't expecting much there. Just have to see for myself.

The one that convinced me to try this particular TC was this quote:

I bought this converter because my older Nikkor ED AF 300mm f 2.8 lens will not autofocus with the Nikon version as the Nikon converter doesn't have the pin drive - this one does. I used it on my D3s for action photos at a championship high school football game. I was skeptical about using it because I'd read a lot of bad things about focus speed loss and loss of sharpness with converters and while I don't dispute other's experiences, I found no problems with either, though I have to admit I used it for a day game but resisted using it on the more important night game just incase it might cause me to lose shots due to slower focus grab.
There was no lowering of focus speed and no lessening of sharpness. I was very happy with the results.

OK, Now if this will help anyone else... besides me:

I went ahead and got a Vivitar 500mm f/8 Mirror lens and a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 DGX from B&H to test and see which ones I liked and see for myself. I would send the one back that I didn't like. Well, after some test photo's, it was a no brainer. The Mirror lens absolutely SUCKED and it went back to B&H yesterday. The TC did far better than I expected, so I kept that.

I practiced with the Mirror lens for a couple hours in the back yard and never quite could get a clear photo. I used a tripod and several settings and live view to focus properly. Then I went out to the nesting eagles to try it there as that is what I want it for. I set up again with the tripod and live view and different settings and actually did worse than I did in the back yard. First, it was a windy day, so that didn't help the mirror lens any, even on my Manfrotto Carbon Fiber TriPod. Notice the wind-blown Eagles head. On my 10th test attempt, the eagle flew in and this is what I got. Quite crummy. No amount of PS can help this one, so I didn't try.

Then I grabbed the Nikon D300 with the Nikkor 70-300mm VR with the TC on it, (now 100-420mm) and shot a few with NO tripod, hand held!

I moved to a different spot, a narrow opening on the nest to get this shot with the TC.
Now I was real happy with this shot. Not only did I NOT use a tri-pod, I cropped into the picture 100% and used a tad of CS5.
Notice the wind blown eagles head. Not bad for hand-holding!

Now I must say I had more "throw away" shots with the TC than I did with the straight 70-300 and it's maybe a tad more sharper, but I'm real pleased with this. 100-420mm is a great range. I shoot a lot of birds and there is no way you have time to focus on flight shots or birds that move alot like hummers with the mirror lens. The TC did great on shots like that too, such as this hummer. I could never get the mirror to focus on a hummer in time to find out how it would work on hummers.

On the mirror lens, research tells me the the older mirror lenses such as the Nikkor, Tamron, Sigma were much better than the new ones such as I got... but they were still not up to standard. Plus, if I were to get one off of ebay or whatnot, you don't know what kind of shape those lenses would be in.

 

[dxqcanada]

Thanks for the info.

I would only use a mirror lens for shooting astronomical images.
The Schmidt-Cassegrain design (which is what I would expect in a small mirror lens) is great at cutting through the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[LBPhotog]

Given the choice of the two, yes the teleconverter is a better choice, you really are only giving up f/ stops and not a lot on the quality end. I think the old 500mm lenses used to be referred to as "coke bottles" and I think you now understand why. Teleconverters are a nice option in the right situation (including lens choice and lighting situations) as you have now seen. That is an impressive image of the eagle in the third shot, might be a keeper!

 

[jack58]

Given the choice of the two, yes the teleconverter is a better choice, you really are only giving up f/ stops and not a lot on the quality end. I think the old 500mm lenses used to be referred to as "coke bottles" and I think you now understand why. Teleconverters are a nice option in the right situation (including lens choice and lighting situations) as you have now seen. That is an impressive image of the eagle in the third shot, might be a keeper!

Yes, I'm pretty happy with the TC. It will be great when I need to reach out further with the right lighting.

 

[LBPhotog]

Jack ... Who's your little friend - the picture is really small, but to me, looks like a Dusky ...

 

[jack58]

Jack ... Who's your little friend - the picture is really small, but to me, looks like a Dusky ...

I don't know what you mean? The hummer?

 

[LBPhotog]

no in your picture ... who's the little fella on your shoulder ...

 

[jack58]

no in your picture ... who's the little fella on your shoulder ...

LOL... oh that! That is Polly, my Nanday Conure Parrot. Sitting on my shoulder as I type this, supervising.
I'll find a better pic of her and post it shortly.

 

[LBPhotog]

I initally thought it was a nanday, then I second guessed myself and said Dusky ... I have a Sun and Green-Cheek myself.

 

[jack58]

Here you go...

 

[LBPhotog]

I'm at work and don't have pictures of my 'girls' that I can access, post some up later.

 

[jack58]

To show you the reach you can have with 420mm, (Nikkor 70-300mm VR with kenko PRO 300 1.4x TELECONV = 420mm
This will give you an idea just how far I have to shoot. Federal law says you have to be 300 yards away, so here is my stand. If you look real close you will see the nest at about 11 o'clock.

And here is what I get with 420mm and cropped 50%

...and they say TC's are no good? BULL!

 

[djacobox372]

That mirror lens looks like it must be hazed--it should perform much better then that. Mirror lenses actually create very sharp images, with next to zero CA. The only problem with them is their speed, lack of aperture control, and the "donut" artifacts they create.

This was taken with a mirror lens--GREAT photo except for the ring/donut artifacts:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I don't know the Vivitar mirror lens you used for your test but if it doesn't have a problem, it is just a piece of sh#t and making assumptions about all mirror lenses based on that one lens/test is not very smart. And your "experience" should have told you that the results you got were weird.

I used to have the Minolta 250 mirror (about the same size as my 50 mm) and it was a beautiful lens. Beautiful enough to get me $750 when I sold it recently.

I am not trying to sell anyone on mirror lenses, I couldn't care less if anyone likes them, but it seems to me you went into this disliking them with no real intention of conducting a fair test...

 

[jack58]

I don't know the Vivitar mirror lens you used for your test but if it doesn't have a problem, it is just a piece of sh#t and making assumptions about all mirror lenses based on that one lens/test is not very smart. And your "experience" should have told you that the results you got were weird.

I used to have the Minolta 250 mirror (about the same size as my 50 mm) and it was a beautiful lens. Beautiful enough to get me $750 when I sold it recently.

I am not trying to sell anyone on mirror lenses, I couldn't care less if anyone likes them, but it seems to me you went into this disliking them with no real intention of conducting a fair test...

No need to get snide about it. I've probably been doing photography BEFORE you were born, since 1971. So I know what I'm doing and my website in my sig will prove that.

Before trying the eagle shots that I posted here, I experimented in the backyard shooting on a Tri-pod from INSIDE the house through the open door so I wouldn't have any wind shake at all. Those pictures were better, but still not very sharp at all.
I knew I was in trouble when I went out to shoot the eagles, (and what I bought the mirror for) as it was windy. NONE of my mirror shots were any good out there, I posted the best one. I used the TC at the same time, but handheld it. It blew away the mirror.
So what is the use of a mirror lens if you can't use it in the outdoors?

That was the point of this post, comparing the mirror to the TC under the SAME CONDITIONS.

Now part of the mirror performance is due to the fact that I got the $120 one from B&H. I classic "you get what you pay for"
I am sure the more expensive mirrors and especially the older Nikkors, Tamron Sigmas were much better.
BUT, you still had to work to get decent shots with those.
For the amount of $$ to spend to get a good mirror, you might as well get a zoom & TC for the same price that will outperform the "more expensive" mirror easily. That is a fact.