Mirror lenses!

Oh, nothing new Mike. Year and a half now, on-line dating, looking for love.

I have long considered my 5.6/Rubinar to be my best mirror. It is roughly equal in sharpness to the MTO 3M-6A but easier to handle and focus. However, it is large and heavier than the f/8 mirrors. Only recently when acquiring the Nikon (new, orange ring) 8/500 has the big Rubinar met its match. Sharpness is very close with the Nikon maybe having the edge but the Nikon has much better contrast.

I have many Rubinar images to share over time; here are the first five.

Again an excellent wildlife set Mike!

woodrim wrote: Snegren wrote: And then there were 5 More proof that a good mirror in good hands can be plenty sharp. Double your five and I'd still be lying if I told the wife that's how many I have. I was fortunate to smuggle that last one in without being discovered.

Apparently I cannot count. There are 6 in the image and I mentioned 5.

Thanks, Howard. I sometimes wish I had people to pose for me but the creatures don't complain.

Paul: I do think the Rubinar is a great lens but more delicate than others. When I first received it, I was terribly disappointed. It had astigmatism which made focusing impossible and images showed double lines. I remembered something I had read, so loosened everything that had been tightened; the tripod collar, the lens hood, and the screw-on adapter. That did the trick. I never went back to test each individually but believe it was more the adapter than the others. Apparently, screwing the adapter to just the usual tightness distorts the mirror inside. In contrast, the MTO 3M-6A was built like a tank. At this point in time, I would most recommend the Nikon (new) with the orange ring. Of course, they are all subject to copy variation.

Snegren wrote: I think before I get into more cats I should get more mileage out of the ones I now own. I am a bit curious about the Nikon with orange ring though. What is that?

That's the wise and practical thing to do. But of course, I ...

Nikon has had at least three versions of mirror lens if I remember correctly. As with other lenses, including Minolta, there are multiple versions and not all equal. The last version of the Nikon mirror was a new design with closer focusing. It is referred to as Nikon (new), not meaning that it is a recent production but the latest (old by now). The easiest way to distinguish it from other Nikons is an orange thin-line accent ring around part of the barrel. Another way to distinguish it from the Nikkor C is the price. However, if patient, eventually one can be found for under $300. I was fortunate that the one I found was both under $300 and in like-new condition. One thing I have realized when using a mirror is that when it is a good one, it is immediately obvious when focusing. Those that seem to pop into focus rather than require careful focus tuning. I think the Minolta 250mm is an example of that too.

I found an interesting read which requires a translation:   Nikon (new)

XKAES wrote: Strangely enough, the Honeywell Lumetar 1250mm f10.5 has an orange ring round the front as well-- but in the case of the Lumetar it is because it is a stripped-down Celestron C5, which has an orange body, which Honeywell covered up with black leatherette -- almost!

That lens, along with a shorter focal length and the Questar was given high scores in sharpness in that magazine article that most everyone has seen. Looking back, it seems very inaccurate when compared to my own experience with some of the mirrors. How do you find the performance of the 1250mm? Light on contrast?