Pro Optic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens Review
Pro Optic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens Review
March 2009, Carl Garrard
| Curiosity finally killed the cat, I just had to review this lens. The Pro Optic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens was just too low of a price for me to pass up. Adorama sells these lenses exclusively for about $165.00. Certainly a tantalizing price to many of us whether you want to admit that or not. I am sure there are many of you who want to know what this lens is like, but don't really want to part with the money. I know how you think. Well, I took one for the team and shelled out my own money to answer that question for you. We all know you don't get something for nothing most of the time regarding glass for our DSLR's so I wanted to see if this lens was worth its very affordable price tag when compared to the Sony 500mm f/8 AF Mirror lens variant. I have fired enough shots through this lens to give you my thoughts on it. So off we go to the (rather short) review of this lens. |  |
Introduction
Pro-Optic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens for Sony Alpha / Minolta Maxxum SLR Cameras
The Pro Optic 500mm f/6.3 Lens is a manual focus only, catadioptric (reflex) mirror lens. It is just but one of the few manufactured mirror lenses available for the Alpha Mount (others being of course the Minolta/Sony AF model, and the Samyang/Phoenix models). It is a bit different because of its size and weight, and of course slightly brighter f/6.3 fixed aperture, which is about 2/3rds of a stop faster than its f/8 competition (with reduced depth of field). It works on your Alpha DSLRS in P, A, and M modes, and since it is a fixed aperture you really can't use it in S mode and expect to control your exposure.
The lens comes nicely packaged with a soft case, front and rear lens caps, and a t-mount adapter (more on that in just a bit). It has a "pro" white speckled/durable finish with a broad rubber focus ring and distance/focus data scale on the lens itself. The Pro-Optic brass badge is held on by 4 micro screws and is a nice but very noticeable touch visually. It weighs in at about 25 ounces (24.9 to be exact) and is built like a stout coffee can. The build quality is actually rather nice which is mostly metal and highly dense plastics that can fool you into believing they are metal. It has a HUGE 95mm front threading for filters (better than no threading I suppose) and Pro Optic sells accessory filters for this lens. To my knowledge they are the only manufactures of filters for this lens, but at least you have an option.
| The lens is compatible in nearly all DSLR mounts via a T-mount adapter plate that is included with the lens. Each T-mount is manufactured for the type of DSLR mount you are using. The lens screws into this T-mount and then the lens is attached to the camera normally.I found the T-mount to have some play when locked onto my A700 laterally, which is a bit disappointing. The A700 experienced no technical problems with it attached nor for adjusting exposure so I went right into shooting when I attached it. You can see the T-mount if you click on the image in the side bar for a larger view. |  |
The focus ring is tight, and so are the seals. As you focus, the outer lens barrel moves forward (which also holds the front element) and you can literally hear air escaping between the two lens sections on the bottom of the lens. There is a lot of pressure and this adds resistance to the focus throw, it feels rather odd to be honest (kind of like pushing air out of an air mattress). However, overall it is smooth and functional. If it weren't for the play in the T-mount, there wouldn't be any play in the focus at all which is a pity. Yet, despite the tight focus ring there is about 1-2mm of play which is more of a rattle then lens play.
The Pro Optic 500mm f6.3 Mirror Lens balances fairly nicely on the A700. It is light enough to carry all day without creating much fatigue at all. The only reason I would recommend a monopod/tripod is because hand holding a 500mm lens (750mm equivalent on APS-C sensors) can get a little shaky. With good light however I find I can shoot at shutter speeds as low as 1/125th of a second and still get a reasonably sharp image.
Pro Optic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens- Image Quality
 |
Well now, this is the part we are all waiting for right? Ok, me too. To be really fair, the question I had to ask myself was "just how good does this lens perform for a $165.00 price point?". And during my use of it, I had to keep repeating to myself in my head just how low the price is "Carl, it is only 165.00... only 165.00". I wish I could say I found a diamond in the rough, rather I found a rough faux diamond. For those expecting to nearly match the Sony 500mm f/8 Reflex in image quality, you better think again. To date, I have read one professional review on the net of this lens, and to be honest, I cannot believe how nice they were about it. My favorite quote "and, like all mirror lenses, it's immune to chromatic aberration." You will find my comments on this lens to be of a much different nature, trust me. See image sample number two if you want to see "immune". |
Let me just put things in perspective here. One of the normal advantages of Mirror lenses is the rather low chromatic abberations due to the simple design and lack of additional lens elements, right? Well not so in this case. This lens has more CA than any lens I have reviewed to date, beating out the 70-300mm Tamron LD Macro by a wide margin. CA often extended 9-14 pixels in width on some of the extremes, which in my eyes it totally unacceptable for a reflex mirror lens.
If that isn't enough to put a frown on your face, the next two image quality measurements might be.
Sharpness is pretty dismal in comparison to the Sony/Minolta f/8 mirror lens. Not only is this lens soft, it is very difficult to find your optimal focus point (and I thought the Sony 500mm was hard!). The play in the T-mount, stiff focus ring, and shallower depth of field make this lens a very challenging subject indeed. When I finally did get my focus just right, the lens is still below average in the sharpness category. Darn, I really wanted it to perform better here.
Contrast is another area this lens performs below average. Mirror lenses typically have lower contrast due to an inherent design disadvantage, but this lens takes low contrast to another level. In some circumstances, internal reflections blow out contrast to the point where the entire image simply looks over exposed and completely blown out. In all fairness however, this doesn't always happen. Typically I found it to happen more frequently when the lens was aimed near a bright object (the sun for example). It just depends on the incidence angle to the light source (and no, the bright light sources were not in the field of view).
The saving grace of distortions was light falloff. Vignetting wasn't too bad (about a stop darker in the extreme corners), in fact this lens really didn't show much of that at all. Vignetting can sometimes be a difficult distortion to correct in Photoshop in my experience so this was a welcome trait. So I guess, not all is lost.
Lastly, lets discuss Bokeh. Because this lens is a reflex design, out of focus bright points will exhibit a donut shaped look to them. This is a typical characteristic of a reflex design. However, normally the "donuts" are perfectly round, but not in the case of this lens where the "donuts" are almost oval in shape. This characteristic throws another stone at the image quality for me. I rather liked the out of focus areas of the Sony 500mm f/8 reflex, they are uniform and add a very different look to the bokeh that I rather enjoy for specific subjects. Yet the oval and nonuniform look to the donuts really distract me here. Throw in lots of Bokeh CA's to boot, and there is very little left to like about the look of the Bokeh. The shallow depth of field does a good job at smoothing things out fore and aft of the subject yet I am still not impressed because subjects really never get that sharp.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Thanks for saving me the trouble...
I have always wondered about these types of lenses. I appreciate you taking one for the team. This only goes to show that with glass (generally) you get what you pay for...
Nice quick review. I saw a
Nice quick review. I saw a Samyang the other day and wondered about it. It would have been good if you could make a comparison between the Sony reflex lens and this one in terms of light gain. I`m very happy with my Minolta version, so much so that I wonder if it would make much of a difference getting a 500mm zoom (f 6.3 max) instead.
Ouch........ guess the old...
Ouch, I guess the old adage is still true, you get what you pay for. With glass it seems that the more you pay the better a lens you get.
Also
I tried to give a realistice and honest viewpoint here, and hopefully the full sized samples help for the review. One of my motivations of reviewing this was because of another review I read that well, wasn't as realisitic as I believed it should be. Glad to give you the skinny here.
Carl
It's refreshing to read a negative review
It's refreshing to read a negative review. This makes you sound very creditable because it mirrors my experiences when I tried to use an inexpensive mirror lens year ago on film camera. The one exception is my Sony 500mm f8, a fairly decent lens. Beside being the only auto focus mirror lens in the world, the Sony 500mm is also surprisingly heavy when compared to the T mount types. I guess good glass is heavy and sadly, expensive. There are some notable exceptions to that rule that can found when looking at Minolta lenses on eBay.
Dave
Shame really the externals
Shame really the externals look not bad at all, pity the optics are dodgy..cough, well it looks like it has the resolving power of a half empty jam jar!
I didn't expect Zeiss sharp being honest, looking at the price. But what's the point if it's this horribly soft? I guess a 6"x4" might pass off..maybe?
So much for 'bargains'
I've seen this lens in several places with several different names (all the vendor needs to do is replace that screw-on name plate) and have really wondered about it. It sounded too good to be true so I've avoided it. Thanks for a frank and worth-while review. Gonna have to win the lottery I guess and get something worthwhile! You do get what you pay for.
Brad
would you...
suggest this for a beginner? low buget is my motto at this point. already had some disappointments but apparently got a dud (returned that lens).
Plus already blown my buget for the year. Was looking at this for later this year. Read the same review you did (popphoto?) Does it work better for the Canon? I live in the country so looking for something inexpensive but wanting to reach out as far as possible. Does it really equal a 775mm on DSLR?
Thanks Carl, I was looking
Thanks Carl, I was looking at several versions of this lens and was just about ready to order one. I will save my pennies and get the Sony.
Hi sthomasatv, Didn't see
Hi sthomasatv,
Didn't see any response to you so thought I'd give it a shot.
I'd not suggest this for a beginner. Worst thing you can do for someone starting out is to guarantee bad results. Could ruin the hobby for him/her forever, destroying confidence and giving the impression you can't get good results with the camera at hand.
As for the focal length, it's the equivalent of a 750mm when used with an APS-C sized sensor such as is in all Alphas except the A900. But all that really means is the image on the sensors shows the same view as what it would take the longer lens to give on a 35mm negative sized sensor. It's pretty much just semantics. What's probably more important is overall resolution and pixel sensor pitch and size. The APS sized sensors for the Alphas do pretty well in that regard.
Hope this helps some,
Brad
OMG I was 2 steps away from
I read the review you mentioned in your review. I shoot many light house photos and they are often off shore. I use a Tamron 18-250 as my everyday lens on a Cannon 50D. I love the unit and the camera. I was just about to order the 500mm lens, I actually changed my mind halfway into putting in my credit card # and then had a 2nd thought.
I searched a bit longer and found your review....THANK YOU...i'd love to use a 1.4x converter but I know not to use it on less then 50mm....but not sure if it will still fit my lens....ANYWAY....thanks for the review.
so you realy don't want it
so you realy don't want it for christmas ? :P
pro-optic f/6.3 lens
The review states that "Pro Optic sells accessory filters for this lens. To my knowledge they are the only manufactures of filters for this lens, but at least you have an option."
Hoya also makes (at least...) UV/protection filters in the 95mm diameter. The lens also takes (in the back...) 34mm filters. I'd suggest a 95mm UV up front for lens protection, and 34mm for anything else - I carry 1, 2, and 3 stop ND filters, just in case. (the lens is used on my Nikon F4s, which goes to 1/8000 sec...)
bought it, says "no lens attached" when equipped?
I just received this from Adorama today, for the price I thought it might be something fun to play with. I attached the t-mount included that says for Sony Alphas, attached to my Sony a700 and when I press the shutter the display reads "no lens attached, shutter locked". Put any of my other lenses on and they work as expected. The instructions that came with it are very terse, anyone know what I'm doing wrong?
Set your a700 to "Release w/o Lens"
The camera does not recognize your lens. Go into Custom menu 2 and enable the "Release w/o Lens" option. Page 109 in your instruction manual. You should be able to use the lens in both A and M mode.
Andy
I'm a moron
Thanks, I figured that out earlier tonight. Now to get some shots with it in the daytime.
Thanks for an impartial and
Thanks for an impartial and well considered review. I've had three inexpensive mirror lenses; my your bottle photo really looks very good compared to anything I ever got out of any of them. The worst was a 500/8.0 Samyang, I think you could crop an image from any cheap 135mm and beat it. I had an old 250/5.6 Lentar that was almost acceptable, it was the best of the lot. I have kept a 300/5.6 Quantaray just because it's so tiny and cute I keep hoping that someday it will produce an acceptable image and redeem itself. No luck so far though...
Congratulations!
You have a good taste for beer...
I'd like to thank my taste buds for this honor
;)
Chimay, one of the best.
Just ONE of the best...
Being Belgian, I can name a few hundred other ones.... LOL
Mmm, the review mentions
Mmm, the review mentions that the T-mount was loose... If the film plane isn't perpendicular to the axis of the lens, that would account of the oval-donut Bokeh... Most T-mounts are a ring with the t-mount screw, and a second piece with the camera mount, fastened by screws. Did the reviewer try to tighten the mount screws? They're easy to access with the lens off the camera. All you need is a flat jeweler's screwdriver in the 1mm range.
It wasn't loose enough
to change the focal plane. It was loose laterally like I mentioned.
Carl
Thanks for the review
I am currently playing with a Phoenix 500mm f/8, which I chose over the 6.3 version because it's half as heavy. I was wondering if I've made the wrong decision and the 6.3 might have been sharper. The sample images of this review show that this is not the case - these lenses appear to be of the same optical quality, of at least, there's very little difference. FWIW, I believe they are all made by Samyang, who has also started a new line of promising primes (8mm f/3.5 fisheye, 85mm f/1.4). I have the 8mm and it's a great lens, so I picked Phoenix knowing it's really a Samyang (the Made in Korea is confirming that too). The build of the 500mm is surprisingly good - metal, with a pretty well-damped focus ring. The lens fits tightly and I just had to adjust the adapter, so that the distance marker matches the red mount point.
I don't find it difficult to focus, but the problem is that when I look at the end result at 100%, nothing seems to be really in focus - the 2nd and 3rd sample images are very telling if you examine them at 100%. And frankly, these are some of the better shots you can get with such lens - I was not able to get anything like this handheld - only with a tripod I could get images this "sharp". Post processing holds some promise of improvement - fixing the contrast and applying an unsharp mask can improve the results dramatically for certain subjects. The lens can capture detail, but it will look fuzzy due to lack of contrast at edge transitions - unsharp mask is absolutely necessary to make finer detail stand out. I'll try it a bit more this weekend before I'll decide whether to return it or not. At least, my copy was only $110, but I still feel bad knowing I could have put this toward the Tamron 70-300.
Thanks for reviewing this lens and thanks also for recommending the Tamron 70-300 which I had in mind as an alternative cheap tele lens.
Conclusion
I'll return the Phoenix.
Great Pics
For under $200 you're going to complain about those pics? Are you trying to be funny? All three pics show great results for a lens at this price. If you're going to slam a product at least lie and show some bad pix. I gotta try this this lens ! ! ! You've very quickly talked me out of higher priced mirrors. Thanks for exposing the truth in the pics !
Vivitar 500mm f/8 mirror lens: the same disaster
"Pro Optic" as well as Vivitar are brand names for Samyang. I have unfortunately bought the Vivitar 500 mm f/8 mirror lens, the image quality is very similar to what has been shown with the f/6.3-version. Therefore, the whole product line seems to suffer from an extra-ordinary low resolution, not only some individuals. Googling around shows us frustrated users complaining about "the worst lens ever seen" or being "unusable" etc.
The smaller lens claims an aperture of f/8.0 but I found out f/9.0 in reality. That means one third f-stop darker. In my opinion such a declaration error is not fair.
I would like to see more mirror lenses to come in the future optimized for cropped sensors of modern DSLRs featuring an acceptable resolution. However, these Samyang mirror lenses are -- and I regret to say it in plain text -- joke articles.
It is ridiculous when a cropped part of a 200mm shot of a regular zoom lens delivers more details than a full-size image of a 500mm mirror lens taken at the same distance. My own tests confirm the conclusions of this review to my deepest regret.
Reflex Lenses
Thanks for the review of this lens. I looked at it for my wife and her A100 and decided to go with Sony 500/f8 instead. So far, the pictures with that lens is great for open area shooting. Get too close to the subject and the bokeh is terrible. I read a few reviews on the lens you tested and most of them are pretty harsh, one or two gave it a favorable review. Overall I totally agree with your findings and I would highly recommend the Sony 500/F8 for those who do a lot of birding and who don't want to carry around a heavier lens all day.
Again thank you for your candid review and honest reporting - you will save people looking at this lens a lot of aggravation.
Good Choice Mike
I have used the Sony 500mm f8 on both the A100 and the A900. If you like it on the A100 you will love it on the A900/A850 bodies. This is a full frame lens and the A900 seems to work better with Auto-focus than the A100 did at the relative dim light that f8 provides. I find the cropped A900 provides just as much, or more detail than you get with the A100 and the supposed magnification factor. I don't know about the A700; maybe there would be some magnification advantage with that lens on newer, small format camera.
Thanks Dave. I use the A700
Thanks Dave. I use the A700 and my wife uses the A100. I thought about getting the A900 but I don't need that level of camera for my photography hobby--not yet anyway. I think I'll wait and see what Sony does this year with the A900, perhaps they will come out with an A950 or A1000 that will have live view. I'm not a fan of the still cameras have motion built in so I'm hoping Sony will stay clear of adding movie modes to their top of the line cameras. Anyway. I really like the A700 and when I don't pack my wife along with my gear I'll take the A100 and A700 on my field trips. I do like the 500/f8 for my birding adventures, it really produces some very crisp photos and the detail is remarkable for a reflex. I also use the Tamron 200-500 which I have been impressed with. I am considering the Sony G series 70-400 and that is one lens I would like more information on before I lay out 1600.00 big ones. I have read several reviews as well as the photos taken with it but I have not seen an advantage with that lens over the Tamron 200-500 except for the SSM and the quick focus which the Tamron lacks. Of course the Tamron is lousy in the AF mode so I shoot manual with it and get very good results.
As far as the A700 and reflex 500/f8 I haven't noticed any degradation in image quality and both the A100 and A700 appear to produce the same clarity and sharpness. I don't usually shoot with the reflex, I use the Tamron 200-500 while my wife uses the reflex and she seems to like the results. It does make a great spotting scope since it is a small telescope anyways.
still tempted though
I'm still tempted to get this ... you seem to have it under a dozen of brands apparently - I guess it is just the label or do they (bowen, falcon, encinor, ...) really differ ??. There are some flickr groups for these mirror lenses and some results are not that bad in fact. They may not fall in the 'tack sharp' category but sometimes it is nice to have a shot better than none, even if it is a bit toy like (almost all are 'better' than some in the lofi or lomo groups - it's just a matter of what you like (or tolerate) I guess ;-)).
The long distance will probably give enough motion blur handheld to get unpredictable results sometimes but how much does a tripod and/or the in-body stabilizing systems from our Sony's help in that area (always thought that, being an amateur on a budget, I would rather have 3 stops compensated on all lenses than 4 stops on some expensive Canons ;-) )
It's hard to decide over f8 or 6.3, don't mind the bokeh (you love or hate the donuts, nothing in between apparently), and don't mind the smaller DOF on the 6,3 - I have just visited a gallery of a famous portret photograher who hardly got the tip of the nose in focus on most of its portrets, so "in focus" is art and philosophy mixed together ;-)