Reflex-Nikkor.C 500mm

[@Narsuitus]

I do not have the 500mm f/8 Nikkor mirror lens but I do have a Nikkor 500mm f/4 IF-ED P and a Nikkor 1000mm f/11 mirror lens. Earlier this year, the 1000mm was very useful for capturing solar eclipse images.

[@PhotoWays]

I'd love to try the 1000mm - with a sturdy tripod.

[@iainmc9859]

A 500 mirror (Centron) is my 'street photography' lens. I find if I'm using it on a bright day I can use it at 400th/sec at ISO 200, combine that with focus peaking and shooting in burst mode then I'm pretty sure I'll hit the mark within ten frames. I'm confident enough to take it to fast moving events, like jousting or skateboarding. What I particularly like about it is the massive drop off of light which produces highly contrasting colour saturated images. The only thing we are going to disagree on is compression ... it doesn't exist. Kodak started using the meaningless phrase when advertising longer zoom lenses in the early 70's, but even then they were careful to use it in sentences such as 'it seems like you are bringing the background closer', when of course you are just narrowing the angle of view and getting the shallower depth of field from 'long' lenses.

[@PhotoWays]

I'd say it was do do with ratios. If I focus at 1m an object 2m away is double the distance. With a long lens the difference of a metre is a very small ratio of the overall distance.

[@iainmc9859]

@@PhotoWays Only if you move your relative position to the objects. Its just the law of perspective. You walk forwards the closer object gets proportionally bigger at a faster rate. You walk away the closer object gets smaller faster. The lens is honestly irrelevant. Its the same size ratio exactly from the same spot no matter what lens you use, foreground, middle distance or background. Try it out; 30mm lens at f11 on tripod pointed at a building with a church steeple in the distance behind it (or anything with a reasonable distance between two objects, postbox & chimney, car and lamppost etc). Don't move the tripod, swop lenses to a 130mm, same shot. Crop and enlarge the 30mm shot so it only has the same elements in frame as the 130mm shot. Everything has exactly the same proportions (size ratio), the only difference will be the 130mm will only have the building or steeple in focus, not both. Its your feet that by moving closer or further away that changes the relative ratio size of objects. Whether its a ultra wide or ultra long makes no difference to perspective - from the same spot. There's nothing in a long lens that recognises that some light comes from further away and somehow makes it 'bigger'. To bend light (ignoring fibre optic cable, which technically bounces the light particle or wave - quantum physics isn't my strong point) you would need an object of very large mass and gravity, like a sun (star), often called 'gravitational lensing'. I realise that you don't think the lens is making more distant light bigger somehow, at least it sounds that that is clear to you (some photographers genuinely believe it does) but the ratio size difference is just ... where you are standing with the camera. Please don't take this as a rant or soapboxing, I think I've commented enough that you realise I'm not a total nut job ... well maybe; its just the C word leaves a lot of photographers with an idea that long lenses do something different, when its just good old renaissance perspective recorded on a 2D medium ... and your feet.

[@roybixby6135]

There is a reason big telescopes use mirrors instead of glass lenses - love the 500 f8 so much I got the 1000mm and 500mm f5 ...🦘

[@PhotoWays]

:)