Honestly, I expected that the image quality would be worse. But 700$ is quite a lot and you are right, great for a mirror lens but, as whole, the negative aspects definitely outweigh the positive ones for practical use
Honestly, the quality is extremely poor, taking into account the price. Many small mirror telescopes, such as the Celestron c5, SkyWatcher 90mm, etc, cost a fraction of the Tokina, and are diffraction limited. Look for any photos of the planets or the moon, taken with Maksutov telescopes
Not sure where Tokina is trying to go with this lens, price seems excessive for what you are getting. The Canon 800mm f11 is similiarly priced, has AF and IS, much sharper, similiar size (when stowed), and serves up full frame. If the Tokina was maybe half the cost at $350 it may make more sense for a first timer who wants super long reach but not spend much money.
Wild to see mirror lenses being produced more and more. They are definitely fun, and have their usage. But the soft center image always ruins the experience for me
because of the bokeh? :D Its interesting, but this donut shaped background blur is not everyones favorite. I was hoping for years for some usable sharp and good mirror lenses, thankfully canon made the decision much easier with an autofocus, stabilized lightweight 800 F11 for the RF mount
I have the Sony 500mm f8 autofocus lens, which is a rebadged Minolta. Its sharp, and works perfectly with my A7RV and LAEA5. LOVE it!!! Sharp too! One of the best "secrets" in the Sony system. It would be amazing if Sony re-released it for native e-mount.
Mirror lenses are definitely interesting with their long focal lengths, but as is the same for some other mirror lenses, the softer image quality and low quality lets this one down.
They just have no competition so the few companies into mirror „lenses“ produce only garbage. I have seen 8 and 11“ astrographs, basic newton as well SC (schmitt cassegrain type) etc, i use personally a 6“ 750mm newton telescope for astrophotography and i can tell you: Mirror lenses could be TACK SHARP and have no CA, its easily possible
I recently played with few mirror lenses on my A7R IV (61mpx). Turns out my old Zeiss Jena 135mm f3.5 wide open when cropped offers better quality than all of them being at 500-1000mm.. Go figure!
@@Liquidclouds one of best lenses, simple design and awesome rendering. Sharp too! Useful as macro with extension tubes. Can't get enough of how good value for money it is!
I do not have a You Tube channel on photography. If I did and were to review this lens, I would have mentioned that this lens is one of three from this manufacturer down to a 300mm f/7.1 which is a good deal less extreme but shares some of the 'faults' you mentioned. I also might have mentioned that it seems odd that it comes in Canon M but not in RF or RF-S which would make it useful for the current crop of Canon lenses. Canon is not locking out manual focus RF lenses. However Canon users have the option of the non-mirror 800 f/11 which is image stabilized, autofocus and sharp for a couple hundred more. What it lacks is compactness and close focus (unless you add a stack of extension tubes). I have an antique Sigma 600mm mirror which shares the ring bokeh and close focus not to mention difficulty in focusing but is not unsharp if and only if you get the focus spot on using a tripod and magnification with a current mirrorless. The question is just how badly you want to get a headshot of that woodpecker that lands ten feet from you and whether you are willing to use an AI sharpener like Topaz. I wish I could show you mine from 15 years ago and I regret I can not get that bird to do a repeat visit at that distance. I doubt many people who buy this lens will be happy simply because those with the experience to use it properly often comes after the desire for something cheap and extreme has passed.
I got a great deal on a like new Tamron 150-600 G2; $1100 CAD. I had considered this Tokina briefly, glad I didn't go that route. As others have commented, the price is wild. I do have a 400mm Tokina SZX(used, $130) and yeah it's nice to have such a compact tele, but it has its limits for sure. Also random note; the hood on this 900mm is waaayyy too short. The 400mm has a longer hood, like longer than the lens itself. Mirror lenses absolutely NEED a serious hood or the contrast will be rubbish.
Damn good point. I love shots of both especially with the sun, I would ~ guess that those soft images would be a much lesser factor than on just about any other subject A perfect match of a quirky lens and a universally liked subject
Oh the 80's mirror lens nostalgia, out of focus blurred images, mould and fungus growing on mirror surfaces, if they werent knocked out of line with the slightest tap...
Mirror lenses have no chromatic abberation in general. That is because unlike refraction, reflection is not dependant on wavelength. Light always reflects at the same angle that it hits the surface, whereas the refraction index for a material is always dependant on the wavelength of the refracted light.
RF 800 F11 wins, hands down. Any EOS R system user doesnt even have to bother with such bad mirror lenses, especially not one for 700$ where the RF 800 F11 is a no brainer
@@harrison00xXx And has image stabilization, and full frame circle, and can work with the new Canon crop sensor bodies. It also can collapse to a smaller size for transportation, and likely better in handling while shooting because of the longer barrel, and comes at a similar price point as this lens. Why then Tokina is pricing this reflex lense so high!?
I have a reflex lens. There is one tric to change the aperture. I bought some spare lens caps for it and drilled large holes in them. Different number in each. It changes both aperture and bokeh, although I didn't notice any increase in resolution maybe due to high aperture numbers.
Interesting, and there might be some use cases to some specialists out there, however, DSLRs I am using for max 200mm with AF (weather resist tele lens) and all the convenience attached to such a combination (300mm in 35 terms). If I want to go mega zoom then a Nikon bridge gets into the package, my oldest (2012) is a P510 w GPS (1000mm, later I got a P600 1440mm, but larger, heavier). From all comparisons I did, this was always very close or equal to APS-C, even in the close range (18-55), not mentioning the tele capabilities with such quality. Users back then shot (filmed) Saturn and it's moons, later the P1000 (very heavy) arrived, oh my. The old P510 is still sufficient today since small and light. I'd think it outperforms such tele lenses at the most use cases, though not all of them, pretty sure :) Just I can't imaging why - but to get the image on a sensor and system of choice since sensors of bridge cams are small ... Anyway the final result counts, so, if a mirror lens is somewhat soft, what is the point, or what are the advantages over using a good bridge cam for mega tele ...? Best :)
One advantage of a mirror is that you should get practically no chromatic aberrations because you have no refraction, only reflection. Shame they didn’t polish the mirror with more precision, it would be sharper.
yep ALL (!!!) of these „mirror“ lenses are just terrible. And i thought once with a super old 6“ newton telescope my mirror is bad. Then i have seen this „mirror lenses“….
An interesting comparison might be the Nikon P1000. This camera demonstrates the atmospheric limitations to long lens resolution at extreme focal lengths. It exhibits none of the sharpness limitations of this and many other mirror lens.
The thing with the average mirror telephoto lens - their quality sucks mostly, its anywhere between bad and unusable. I have a 6“ 750mm and a 8“ 1200mm newton (so a mirror telescope) and a lower end 80mm APO refractor, my 6“ newton is basically sharp enough (on 26MP full frame), the 8“ is not as good but a awesome visual observation telescope, also a heavy and big thing. The 80mm doublet is not too bad regarding to sharpness but the chromatic abberation pretty much destroys every astro image, here a mirror telescope of any kind is much ahead since the different wavelengths dont split at all. If there would be any manufacturer caring about mirror lenses and produce a good one, trust me…. they can be SUPERIOR to other lenses (CA, sharpness) with only the basic mirror lens/telescope downsides (donut shaped highlights in the bohek, disturbing bokeh more often than not)
Any plans to review the samyang 35-150 and compare to the Tamron? I'm wondering if you like it as much as the 135. Thanks again for all your great work!
One of the first videos I ever watched of your's was the Samyang mirror lens from back in the day. Banger vid. Id really love you to review the Tamron 500mm f8 tho. I have a copy of it and I think it's really quite good as mirror lenses go.
Unless done properly with really high resolution (ie, at least really tight sampling, high framerate, stacking and atmosheric correction), moon shots are the most boring thing ever
That just looks like a Schmidt-Cassegrain/Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope modified to be used as a lens... I guess all the mirror lenses you speak of are just that too (I'm new to photograpy).
Hey Chris, I've been following you since ever, and now I have my first question for you. What is the sharpest mirror lens for DSLR you've ever tested? (Maybe consider a video about this topic) Anytime a new mirror lens comes out I feel very interested, but then you release a video about that lens and all my insterest vanishes...😅
Might aswell get yourself a MTO 3M-5CA 500mm f/8 *AND* a MTO 11-CA 1000mm f/10 off of eBay for that kind of money (~150€ to 250€ each). Frankly you'll get the same if not better IQ. They're *super* sharp with a properly relaxed mirror (which you can do on your own under 2 minutes, provided you have a tiny screwdriver), the contrast is excellent, they often come with ND filters/accessories/cases, are easily serviceable and built like tanks.
That seems quite expensive for an APSC only lens considering the price of the Maksutov Tele Objective - f/10 - 1000 mm which @ €331+vat works on full frame.
It's better to spend those 700$ on a 600mm lens that's sharper, and crop the images. That's why i haven't bought a cheap ultra telephoto lens to take photos of the moon, my canon 55-250 stm is very sharp at 250mm (400 FF) and i get decent detail on the moon.
really? 400mm is…. short. I tried it once with a 75-300 on APS-C and i was dissapointed pretty much (same for wildlife) When i use 1280mm (RF 800 F11 + R7) i dont even come close to a frame filling moon, 4k60 crop video is pretty perfect to get it nearly frame filling (about 2000mm), and with enhanced stabilizer i can zoom in a bit But as much i like the RF 800 F11 for its awesome stabilizer, weight/size and overall image quality, i also prefer a lot the Sigma 150-600C which is just more versatile and especially usable with its F6.3. (and effective 240-960mm)
I bought the 600mm version n immediately regretted it. Of every 10 shots, only ONE would be considered good, 1 would be JUST OK, and 8 would be totally useless! I live in Hong Kong where unfortunately shops never offer a refund. I paid about GBP380 for it! Now I’ve switched to Canon n got the 600mm f11 - it’s just so brilliant! Btw anyone interested in buying my 600 I would gladly offer it for just GBP200 - u pay shipping n taxes . Still boxed - have it for 1 week!😢
get a real telescope (2nd hand very affordable) and enjoy proper mirror „lenses“. visual observation is affordable (8“+ newton and a dobson mount), astrophotography is tricky and depending also on your wishes (300mm for wider fields, 500-700mm for the most interesting targets and 1000mm+ for very small galaxies and nebulae) The astrophotography way is a rabbit hole, partially at least. I began with 6“ 750mm, got basically everything which fits this 750mm FoV very good but then i needed to choose: should i get a 250-400mm APO telescope for the bigger stuff or go for 1200mm+ for small galaxies/nebula? In both ways, i cant do the other focal length and i would end up with like 4 or 5 telescopes.
i paid 300€ for a 6“ 750mm newton. effective F4 (150mm full mirror) but i stopped it down to around F5 (about 130-135mm aperture left) for slightly more sharpness (it was already sharp but i wanted more, especially corner sharpness was needed) Mirror type „lenses“ can be sharp, the base of their technology is basically the same with my 6“ newton and its very sharp (except corners…), has NO chromatic abberation and its contrast is good enough as long the main mirror is clean (enough) Here and there these 500, 600 and 800mm mirror lenses are 2nd hand cheap because the users realized how bad this waste of „lens“ is and nobody buys it for a higher price. Some day if i find a very cheap one for like less than 50€ i will go for it. Just for another „lens“ in my very funny looking vitrine full of radioactive, vintage and once used lenses. For 700€ i got a Canon RF 800 F11. Its also super compact and especially LIGHT and well STABILIZED. Superior to any 800-1000mm „mirror“ lens!
Interesting lens. Had a similar lens from Nikon. Not sure why Tokina puts "pro" on the lens when the quality is not very good that a professional would use.
Can you tell us any more about it? Did you own one/what was the image quality like? I’m * guessing it would probably work on “most” newer cameras with an adapter
I wonder what focal length conventional lens you'd need for the effective resolution on an image cropped to a 900mm focal length to be the same as this lens, considering the low lens sharpness/resolution
That's not far off the price of a sigma 150-600 lens, which for a bit more you could also buy a 1.4x and your almost there reach wise, plus you get a far sharper lens, Auto focus and more importantly I.s.. 700 buckaroos is expensive
Christopher- or anyone- Have you used a mirror lens which had a better image quality? And a less ambitious focal length, so it was more manageable to focus?
The lens is In the price range of a Coolpix camera that gives access to a cheaper 900 mm lens. Also you get a a second camera . This may be a sensible alternative for such a exstream length plus the other advances of it being a zoom camera . Just a thought
I think that the third parties like putting things out for EOS M because it's easy to create a variant of other small lenses designed for other systems and make them work with the EF-M lens mount. A lens that fits EF or RF would be a whole new lens with a different size barrel.
Who would seriously pay $700 for this? It seems fairly good for a mirror lens but that doesn't really say much because mirror lenses are niche. I'd be surprised if this sold even moderately well.
@@richardgrant418 Yes that kind of compression where you combine the sun with foreground elements like city skylines or individual people or buildings could work but I've seen tests or sample images from vintage mirror lenses (specifically the Nikon and Minolta) and they perform better than this one.
Nope, im looking also for one since years. The thing is…. IT IS POSSIBLE to make a good mirror lens (i have 6“ 750mm and 8“ 1200mm mirror type experience), these manufacturers just dont care enough and the only way to get a sharp 700-1500mm with mirrors is actually a real (much bigger and hard to focus fast and precise enough in time!) newton mirror telescope. But its worth it mostly, i paid 300€ for my 6“ 750mm with motorized EQ mount and 180€ for the big 8“ newton on a basic dobson mount for visual observation) The best way is actually to go for a Canon RF 800 F11 and the EOS R camera you wish if you want anything similar (weight/size) but just BETTER in any way (especially stabilizer and sharpness)
Practically I cannot fathom who would actually use this lens in most any real life scenario. Its a novelty item sure, but where would one really use it. On top of everything, the Image Quality just doesn't seem worth the compromises.
nope I mean sure its quality sucks and its with a high chance very comparable to a 70-350mm lens cropped to 900mm, but in general these mirror „lenses“ are all bad. Doesnt mean it could be done better because it can! I have enough experience with telescopes (as well modifying, optimizing/adjusting), multiple newton/mirror and one APO doublet with 80mm aperture. Mirror designs can be easily sharper and superior (IQ wise) to other lens designs/regular lenses with only small downsides (mainly a super disturbing and donut shaped bokeh and its probably impossible to build a stabilizer into a mirror lens type, autofocus could be possible but expensive and hard to make precise enough)
@@llIlllllIll Yeah its expensive and bad. I would also wish these mirror lenses would finally get better, instead it seems they are getting worse (and more expensive, lol)
Yeah, i would love a BIG comparison with for example all 700-900mm mirror lenses he can get hands on to. I avoided these lenses yet because it seems EVERY mirror lens is terrible (not only because of image quality!)
Why do mirror lenses have such coarse focusing? I have a mirror lens too, and it turns only a quarter revolution, if I recall correctly, for the full extent, and it is crazy hard to get accurate focus. "Back just a little . . . come on and move . . . Argh! Too much! Back in a little . . . Aik! Now too far the other way!" That's how it goes several times when trying to focus. I'd think being annoyed at having to turn two or three revolutions to go from near to infinity would be much preferable to OFTEN not being able to get focus. Moving targets are nearly impossible to stay focused on. Even for astrophotography it can be challenging.,
@@Dabossna No, I never chased it up. But after looking at the review again, due to the lens' low image sharpness, all that a teleconverter will do is amplify blur up rather than increase resolving power. Cropping will give the same result of a TC without the stop or two loss of light from a 1.4× or 2× teleconverter -- unless you want a tighter frame for a live feed or video without a cropping step. Buying Topaz software or similar would be more worthwhile than investing in a teleconverter with this lens!
Honestly, the quality is extremely poor, taking into account the price. Many small mirror telescopes, such as the Celestron c5, SkyWatcher 90mm, etc, cost a fraction of the Tokina, and are diffraction limited. Look for any photos of the planets or the moon, taken with Maksutov telescopes
I am ALWAYS disappointed by mirror lenses. Love the idea, but the image quality always stinks. Comically I love the donut bokeh, and wish I could get that with a conventional sharp telephoto lens.
700$ ... hahaha (: trully ridiculous price Sigma 150-600C can be bought for this price with extrapolation on the computer will be a better picture:> With autofocus and a brighter aperture.
