a6500 with 500mm Mirror Lens? Stabilized beast or junk?

[@ourcarlife]

That's a really crazy combo! Loved the stable shots that you managed to get, especially the shot of the small bird.

[@majestic-skies]

Thanks man, its a cheapo lens but I was pleasantly surprised! Someday I'll shell out for the 150-600mm sigma or something crazy like that, but for now I'm too poor lol.

[@ExpeditionTech]

Mirrorless camera with a mirrored lens. Ironic. :)

[@stevengute2849]

hahaha

[@karn3094]

I thought you did a great job on this video! I just picked up an old nikkor 500mm for $100. I took it out to a wildlife refuge this morning and am still checking my shots, but in general I was pleasantly surprised with the handheld performance on my d7200. It is forcing me to work on my skills from film days. With auto ISO, decent performance with high ISO, faster shutter speeds, also advantages of mirrorless (I have yet to try it out on one), old lenses are getting new life. Thanks for the video, keep up the good work.

[@ostensiblyyours6311]

True, it forces you to get creative with your shots and I think that's splendid.

[@alecbruyns4490]

The Nikkor will be far better than the Opteka.

[@brentjamesonparker]

People hate donut bokeh?... I'll truly never understand the quirks in the photography community.

[@dragonball3166]

I’m guessing it’s preference as people always say shoot in raw is better jpeg is bad I won awards for shooting jpeg my choice no rule says you cant

[@Francois_Dupont]

@@dragonball3166 with raw you can edit an image to be better, with JPG you are relying on the camera not to fuck-up the pictures.

[@jacob_90s]

Every community has to have a cult

[@gellert.ficzere]

The crazy bad rolling shutter ruins it

[@majestic-skies]

Gellért Ficzere Yes it is true unfortunately the rolling shutter is one of the a6300 and 6500s weakest points however i would say its been improved a lot on the 6500 due to the in body is. Although this lens doesnt showcase it super well

[@GarnettLeary]

You can stop it down with filters. That's how they were used in the film days. Try a simple uv filter and recheck the sharpness.

[@sheldonmurphy6031]

Thank you sir ! I have been wanting one of these, but OPTEKA does not have the wide spread reviews as it should. Thanks for the awesome review. Want to use this for moon shots with my Canon SL1

[@WarpedHorizon]

Man, this lens paired with global shutter body would be amazing. Pity there aren't any below $5k.

[@iforgotmyusername0]

6:28 sharper on FF oh really? not necessarily. the FF is going to be wider which means to get the same framing as you got with apsc u will have to crop same image.. only if the FF has same or better pixel density would it be sharper for the same framing even after a crop.

[@robertgotschall1246]

Yeah, I didn’t get that either. I think what’s happening is that the perceived image is greater by about 1.5 X, leading to more apparent camera movement. The same way you get more motion from a telephoto when compared to a wide angle lens.

[@arielelijah1282]

I don’t have a camera but this lens has a hard time reputation to get a very sharp image compared to refractive lenses. Because refractive lenses don’t need acclimation time whereas the catadioptric lens needs acclimation time to become optically stable. Most Large telescopes used for astronomy especially on catadioptric designs has a longer acclimation time while on medium size catadioptric telescopes has lesser acclimation time and does not suffer chromatic aberration. The James Webb Space Telescope has thermal insulation just to protect the onboard electronics and the Telescope to provide high quality images. Refractive lens is ideal for point and shoot quickly while catadioptric lenses needs for acclimation time before using.

[@isbestlizard]

it's cool how it fucks up the colours makes them look really drab like outside broadcast video cameras from the 1970's... in fact if you wanted to replicate that aesthetic, like if you were going for a Look Around You sorta vibe or scarfolk hauntology would work great too

[@JohnS916]

Very fair and objective review. I think for that low price it would be a good lens to have fun with. Maybe put the camera on burst speed and maybe get one or two images worth saving?

[@lis6502]

no, it wouldn't. It's a challenge to get these in focus in the first place ;). Even a near fart disturbs image, imagine rotating focus ring.

[@edineko4095]

Got it and did not regret, primarily because of astrography. It is hard to maintain proper focus, but when you nailed it, and learn how to live with it, you can enjoy every second using it. I bacame a manual focusing lover.

[@chrisdwyer1477]

Sugarloaf! I'm from Nanaimo as well! I actually owned this lens with a Canon mount but ended up selling it. Now I own a Nikon p900 for extreme telephoto. It has a.tiny image sensor, but amazing image stabilization so full zoom telephoto shots come out suprisingly sharp. I'd love to compare the two!

[@tiny_paul]

A 24-105mm full frame lens on APS-C (1.5x crop factor) camera, like the A6500, is ~36-158mm, not ~18-70mm. You multiply the crop factor of the sensor by the focal length, not divide. Tony Northrup has a good video on the subject.

[@lonnieclemens8028]

The information in this video was presented very well. Thank you for sharing your experience about the 500 mm mirror lens.

[@arasec]

How is your experience at the night? Moon, stars, nebula for example ?

[@bodzsar1]

i have a lens like this tho mine is 800mm f8 and i have made a tripod mount for the lens and basically no shake anymore and that is without inbody IS (a6000)

[@I_ammm_mojojojo]

hey bodzsar1, I've been thinking of buying the "800 f8" for stills and trying to get feedback on it . could you shed some light? What is the sharpest (furthest) focusing distance in your opinion and is it really usable for photography?

[@bruhitsme2601]

Mirror lens don't have chromatic abberation/color fringing/image softness while refractor (normal lenses do). It's pure physics. People who say this lens is soft are referring to out of focus pictures, or when this cheap lens has a defect where the mirrors/lens don't align. Maybe pair it with a high ISO camera, high MP camera, or just shoot in bright light. Manual focus is slightly problematic, but you can get away with using the MF digital zoom button on Sony camera. The best shots are the ones you take the silhouette pictures, or pictures with the sky/sea as the background. Tips: you can make it even smaller if you use the thin donut adapter. They might block your lens release button, but we're not shooting weddings here so I don't need to switch out lenses fast. Put just a little mineral oil on the threads so it screw on and off easily. I don't think it'll rust but just in case. Overall, cheap, sharp, light for the price. Except the donut bokeh, but birds mostly stay high above ground, so no bokeh, ha ha ha.

[@Davino.F.Nascimento]

Thx for the video man. Nicely done on the salmon shot. Being a newbie I wonder if you could tell me what type of adaptor I would need to use this lense on a Samsung NX camera. Thx.

[@Synper311]

Am I crazy to actually really like the way the lens seems to render, especially when these go for $100 or less new? I rather like the catadioptric bokeh...

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Have you tested the Minolta 500mm f/8 mirror lens which supports auto-focus with Sony LA-EA4?

[@btvmark]

Good review!! can you share where you got the lens? and what was its native mount?

[@majestic-skies]

Mark Rohmann I bought the lens from Amazon.ca although I expect its available through amazon.com and other retailers. Its native mount is t mount but mine came with the e-mount adapter in the box.

[@btvmark]

Perfect! Thank you!!

[@samsen201]

Excellent review and priceless image samples especially good mix of video / still to show what you mean exactly. Great job. I still can't believe the great sharpness and detail as shown on 6:01 . I have the Meade 1000mm F11 and the focusing turn of lens is so short, thus difficult to focus adequately otherwise I love mirror lenses (CAT) and do lOVE their hallo bokeh, so much, that is the distinct ID of lens. With the fast F6.3 here, I see potentials for astrophotography. Can you add another view with that concept in mind and may be even adding a review on one of the tracking mounts such as iOptron or others? Again thanks for your great effort here and sharing this valuable footage. TUed and subscribed thought I thought I have already done than.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

At 1:40, the Crop vs FF mm description is backwards - FF is always Wider then crop. "24-105 FF" does not equal "18 to 70 crop" - easy to get 'em backwards ;)

[@saloalvStuff]

PiDsMedia - The Pentax Cinematographer he's saying that 24-105 on ff would be equally as wide as 18-70 on crop due to the crop factor. Now 18 times 1.6 is actually closer to 29 than 24, but the point still stands

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

Quoting the dialog. "This is shot with a 24 to 105 on full frame, which would be about an 18 to 70 on a crop sensor" Plainly, that's backwards. 18 x 1.5 = 27 70 x 1.5 = 105 A 24 on a crop sensor is around 35mm, not 18mm 18 to 70 on Full Frame, is about the same as 24 to 105 on crop sensor. But the reviewer is shooting on a 24 to 105, which is about the same as 35 to 160mm on Crop Sensor.

[@bigstick5278]

I was told to calculate for a 4/3rds sensor > lens size times 1.5. Like 50x1.5= roughly 75..

[@bigstick5278]

PiDsMedia:::::: Sony 1.5X the lens mm=the crop factor. 18-70 = 27-105. 500mmX1.5=750 crop factor.

[@I_ammm_mojojojo]

saloalv You are totally correct.. but I don't think the other readers are understanding what you are trying to explain to them (based on their continued comments). he is speaking of relative focal lengths.. not actual placement of that lens on an APSC body. As in the focal length of a 17-55mm DX lens on an APSC, will produce a very similar size image of a 24-70 on a FX (quality is an entirely different conversation)

[@97charbel]

Is compatible with full lens por Is necesary make a crop?

[@alejandroa1863]

Hello…. What e mount adapter do you use? Thanks

[@williamwinslowhansen]

I became obsessed after watching this ordered the same lens . Then 2 dsys later found a vintage mirror lens in the thrift store . Then a 800mm lens at value village. Teleconverter that came with it was not so much fun but i think for the price paid 200 dollars for sll three lenses im pretty chuffed

[@BoyarsMedia]

Great video but I'm surprised nobody brought this up. IBIS needs distance encoding information to work properly, in fact, I'm surprised it worked as well as it did. Minolta, now Sony made an old mirror lens that is probably more expensive, but picture how much better it would look according to science!

[@ladislavsvencik]

David B you can set the the required mm value for IBIS in the camera body on Sony. Not sure the reviewer knows it.

[@szaki]

The center obstruction kills the image contrast even on telescopes too. That's why amateur astronomers prefer refractors over compound OTA, specially for astro photography.

[@SLevinCinema]

Did this tripod have a fluid head? Still seems really shaky for a tripod.

[@dpurdie5256]

Great video! What adaptor are you using?

[@dreamdiction]

3:25 It's very surprising to see those two guys on the roof working without scaffolding. What country is this?

[@majestic-skies]

Yeah they didnt seem too concerned with safety lol I live in Canada

[@vikrantvsoni]

How you have attached with sony a6500? I have a6600...

[@anothercrappypianist]

At 1:44 you say it's shot with a 24-105mm full frame lens which would translate to 18-70 on a crop sensor. Isn't that backwards? Aren't you supposed to *multiply* the crop factor?

[@majestic-skies]

anothercrappypianist Yes i did. I meant it was shot on a full frame camera so in crop sensor terms it would be the same focal length as a 18-70. Had i used that lens on a crop sensor camera youd be correct and it would be multiplied. I apologize for the confusion lol.

[@bigstick5278]

Focal length x 1.5 so 500 x1.5= 750 this is what I was told for the Four thirds sensors calculations. Reason the 50 and 55mm lenses make good portrait lenses comes out to 75 to 82.5mm.. I have way to many already!

[@Jan_Philip]

anothercrappypianist i think he meant from aps-c to crop sensor... idk lol i got confused to

[@HandleIsNewAndBad]

What differences are there between mirrored lens and those long telescopic lens when they have the same focal length?

[@mckyra]

cons of mirrored lenses: central obstruction reduces the contrast. There will be spherical aberration where edges will be out of focus when you focus the center. No autofocus. Worse bokeh. Pros of mirrored lenses: Lighter & smaller. No chromatic aberration. No purple fringing. Cheaper.

[@VamsidharMuggulla]

where did you get that Poster behind you (the colourful one) why you are using it?.

[@joeoconnell5706]

Can you tell me what the size of the front of the lens is? I'm wondering which size solar filter to put on (a slip-over, not a screw-on).

[@sahilbrar7330]

i really liked u buddy.. keep it up and thanks iam also gonna give this lens a try

[@MsIrrealis]

Is the rolling shutter thing a problem of the lens? Or is the camera at fault. I am just curious, because it is in every video with this lens

[@majestic-skies]

Ad Addv its a camera related issue. Most cameras have rolling shutters but some are worst on certain cameras. High end cameras with global shutters wont have that issue.

[@johncitizen5377]

High shutter speed and iso?

[@collinmclaren6608]

I was wondering what that floater was. I actually wiped at my computer screen thinking it was a finger print, lol

[@evilpl-u9m]

body stabilization is in a6000?

[@scb2scb2]

Nice video, i also got the lens for fun but in reality the 300mm version kinda makes sense but this one just with or without a tc (yeah also tried that) simply doesn't do a good job compared to real lenses. for photos' the 55-210 would already beat it in a cropped in vs this there is so much loss in the sharpness. The sel70200g ofcourse costs way more but again a small crop of that was already sharper.

[@bprater]

You did or did not use a tripod for these shots?

[@majestic-skies]

BenJamin Prater I did use one, this lens is basically unusable for video without one tbh lol

[@bigstick5278]

Hats off to you with keeping up with the trashing Salmon bro!!

[@norbertrivera]

What about moon shots?

[@majestic-skies]

Hi! Thanks for watching. I ended up selling this lens but I still miss it sometimes! I have a Tamron 150-600mm now. This mirror lens would take nice moon shots. It is essentially a reflector telescope after all!

[@oldcreepyhouseexplorersclu3657]

Awesome axis bold as love poster 😜

[@chriscontact5857]

Could you get a speed boost to up it close to 1500mm for astrophotography?

[@robertgotschall1246]

You can use telextenders, but this slows the lens, boosting ISO noise and adds distortion. I'd like to try a 900 mm F8 with my 1.4 X extender for 1260 mm plus 1.4 crop factor for an equivalent of 1760 mm F20(?). ISO hopefully won't be too bad shooting the moon, RAW.

[@justicegoodwine29]

I'm guessing this can't fit on a fe mount like an A7Rll? :/

[@nickaglyc]

Love your OK Computer poster :)

[@dragonball3166]

I attached to my canon pictures always blurry not sharp next time I try this lens I’ll take it outside maybe it will make difference

[@carlosencarnacion9667]

Finally, someone does justice to these lenses by mentioning the other factors ·outside· the lens that affect its IQ. I own the 500mm refractor and reflector versions of these lenses, that have been around since the 70s, my first copy was a Spiratone 400mm on a Pentax KX back in the 70s. No blasé, no leke-leke chaff, just facts.

[@majestic-skies]

They're fun lenses! I ended up selling mine but still miss it sometimes. (Upgraded to a Tamron 150-600) Like I said in the video your best bet with these is to mount them on full frame cameras.

[@hayteren]

So this is a full frame lens?

[@majestic-skies]

Yes it is indeed!

[@wildlaborg]

Any chance to use this lens for astrophotography?

[@Raffix394]

There is a 800 mm version of it.. shooting something like the moon I guess is fine but for "real" astro fotography you might want to get a telescope

[@Smedleydog1]

What you said at about 5:50 was a bunch of hogwash. Especially when you said "with crop sensor cameras your'e not using the entire lens and getting the best possible quality". What part of the lens are you not using? Putting that lens, or any lens, on a Crop sensor camera will not degrade the image. While you might not be using as much of the total area projected to the sensor, what hits the sensor (clarity/quality wise) is the same as what hits the sensor on a full frame sensor. Think about it, the center of an image tends to be more in focus/less distorted than the outer edges for many cheap lenses, so in theory, the crop frame image should be clearer through the whole image. If what you said is true, then the center area on a full frame sensor camera photo would not be the "best possible quality". Also crop frame sensors when compared pixel to pixel to full frame sensors have a higher pixel density (more pixels per square millimeter) which will yield a tighter grain picture when both crop and full frame pictures are blown up to the same size.

[@rockrl98]

NOT TRUE AT ALL, it really depends on the lens, and I can confirm what he said, on my 16mp aps-c bodies it's borderline unusable, meanwhile on FF it's quite decent albeit with some vignetting, it's always tradeoffs. As for corners and sweetspot memes, I would say that is mostly valid for vintage wide angle and zoom lenses and for other lenses that are known to have soft corners and great center sharpness or w/e...

[@NilfNilf1972]

Not true. Cropping degrades the image, here is why: In most cameras, the optics are not as sharp as the sensor could be. Only lenses well in the 4-digit or even 5-digit price range have sufficient optical resolution to fully satisfy a 20 Mpix sensor. And if you take the relative middle of a (slightly) blurry image, the blurriness becomes relatively more apparent. Want proof? Take a picture, zoom into it in Photoshop to full zoom, then add in some tiny text. The text will show you how sharp the sensor COULD be, and in most cases the surrounding image detail won’t be as sharp.

[@mckyra]

I was also confused when he said that and listened 3 times to make sure I heard it right. You're right. A larger sensor will only introduce further aberrations towards to edges. Funny how many people cannot comprehend this simple fact, including some commenters here.

[@jerimahjohnson8698]

will this fit on my Sony alpha 65??

[@heetthaker15]

Hey bro can we use such lense on a full frame sensor???

[@qbitsday3438]

I have this , i am wondering how to zoom, the only thing i can do is focus.

[@majestic-skies]

It doesnt zoom at all 😄 fixed focal length lens.

[@qbitsday3438]

@@majestic-skies Go It , I am beginner , I don't know many things -Thank you

[@archygrey9093]

@@qbitsday3438 if they only say one focal range like "500mm" then it is fixed zoom, if a lens for example shows a range like "200-500mm" or something like that then that means you can change between those two zoom ranges

[@qbitsday3438]

@@archygrey9093 Noted ,Thank you Archy for the response.

[@jongwoopark5721]

Is it for aps-c or can I use it for full-frame like a7 series?

[@majestic-skies]

You can use it for full frame and you'll actually get much better results! Albeit with less magnification. Just upgraded to a a7 iii recently and was planning on making a follow up video about using this lens on a full frame body.

[@jongwoopark5721]

@@majestic-skies Thanks I am thinking of getting one as m-42 that comes with 2x tele-converter.

[@renerompre681]

Thank you for this interesting review :)

[@mdrobiulhasan1877]

How to set with canon m50

[@in2gadgets]

Great thanks for the info!

[@isbestlizard]

its so wobbly like eating jelly on a waterbed during an earthquake while being jiggled

[@significances]

Thanks!

[@EricDillon1229]

Does this lens work with canon t6 rebel

[@thealterlion7163]

Now I’ll just hope they sell it again

[@juanantonio674]

my friend, thank you for sharing the video. I need your help. Best regards from Patagonia Chile

[@Gershy13]

So a slighly less cropped lens would be better on these cameras. say a 400mm or something.

[@isbestlizard]

what are birds?

[@MrDandantrials]

The birds are Cormerants (if I’ve spelt it right) 👍

[@asiastreets4032]

For the price is not bad

[@cineffect]

What I learned from this video...if you want to shoot in a flat LOG color profile, all you need to do is travel to BC and shoot "natural" 😉

[@paulgray1699]

you're being over critical of crop sensor - good framing is all it takes. You're calling cropping for a full frame "zooming" and it just isn't so.

[@JodyBruchon]

With a long telephoto lens like this, amateurs won't be able to lean on their skill crutches like IBIS or tripods to get good shots. It is a real challenge. I have a non-stabilized Canon EF 75-300mm which I use on a crop body yielding 480mm equivalence and it is definitely no easy task to get a good shot. It cost me around $80 used; people buy it for $200 new, realize that they don't have the ability to shoot anything decent with it zoomed in, and sell them out of frustration because they didn't want to drop the extra $50-$100 for the EF-S 55-250mm stabilized lens and didn't realize how important stabilization is for inexperienced photographers shooting with a long telephoto lens in automatic modes. Non-stabilized long zooms work just fine for handheld photos with a high shutter speed during the day, even at f/8 or up. For video or in the early morning or evening it's a different story. Don't be afraid to crank the ISO up.

[@GodzillaGoesGaga]

Yep. The dirty secret ...

[@IchinShek]

My brain hurts from watching the jittering.

[@jisezer]

"24-105 on a full frame which would be about an 18-70 on a crop sensor." What?!?!? Are you crazy?

[@I_ammm_mojojojo]

he's just giving the equivalent lens/focal range needed on a APSC if you want the same visual reflection of what he was showing (eg. 17-55 f2.8 Dx lens on an APSC to basically equate to the focal range of the 24-70 f2.8 lenses on the FX body). I'm quite sure he knows if you put the 24-105mm on an APSC the visible focal will be around 35-150mm

[@КолдовскойЗаяц]

You can get much better image quality and zoom rate with a cheap bridge camera like Canon SX60. Less weight, less price and... HANDHELD! :-)

[@jamesm9560]

Wow nice bird and fish!!! All skill no gear.

[@dprasoon14]

cool.

[@avocadomangos]

Hey, cool content, I added 1 to the 700 :D

[@igehring]

I am very disappointed with this same lens. It is very hard to focus, extreme short focal depth, lack of sharpness and contrast. The adaptor ring doesn’t fix it firmly on camera, wich may contribute a little to the focus problem, nice toy though…

[@Vitopa13]

i did a review of this lens here kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnSYn6aVpKisfac

[@Tubularjake]

...I didn't see any majestic skies...

[@isbestlizard]

NO I AM OFFENDED BY THE DUST why didn't you clean your sensor you BLEW IT big time buddy

[@jamesm9560]

Oh yea that stabilization makes it....

[@slr7075]

Jello!

[@darknaonak]

500mm Mirror Lens clown

[@valentinocavrag6653]

Junk. I allready used to many words.

[@trimotionmedia5487]

LOLOL you turn on steadyshot and say "You can see how much more stabile it is! It really makes it better. Smooth pans. So it's not completely unuseable footage." Man, that's absolutely beyond even unuseable. POintless and stupid lens I'd rather go handheld with a stabilized 105mm lens and crop it 4-5x lol

[@paulwildish1216]

Hire someone who knows how to handle a video camera. One and a half minutes and I am dizzy so I gave up looking.

[@Jan_Philip]

Have u tried using a camera handheld with a telephoto lens? Probably not... its impossible for it not to shake especially with 500mm, with no stabilization on the lens.

[@THATHATSALLFOLKS]

shitty tripod

[@majestic-skies]

joe bama Still better than your comment! 🔥

[@Tuhueleamierda1991]

I was thinking a Minolta af reflex 500mm with a la-ea4 adapter would be better but the cost.. but autofocus… but the cost… UGDJDIDIO

[@SuperHyee]

Thanks !