Centon 500mm Mirror Lens

For anyone wondering (as i have for years) whether a £30-£40 mirror lens can be any good? I can confirm that it can!
It takes some handling, being fixed f8, totally manual and incredibly sensitive to movement, and focus, and where the light is. But in the right conditions it can produce really interesting and perfectly acceptable results. It's a real eye-opener looking at the world through 500mm. I spent a really enjoyable hour with a beer, sat on the Hoe in Plymouth one bright evening just pointing it at stuff.
I went up there specifically to shoot the crane over the roof tops (hoping for a sunset, didn't happen) and for this it really excelled.






All these images were fine at high res too. Need more work than a good lens obviously, but perfectly usable up to about 10x8 I would think.

Nice, I have a 500 Mirror, but my results were disappointing to say the least (user error I know) I guess it wants a very bright day to be ideal. I will try again after seeing your results

The sun came out this afternoon so I had a quick play with my 500mm mirror lens, as above. Using my K-m previously I used it in aperture priority mode and left the camera to select the rest. I think this was my error as the iso set itself to 100 not to auto. Setting to full manual mode I set the iso to 800 which allows for a much fast shutter speed and there by sharper images, but the colours still seem a bit washed out.

Very nice set. I've got the Tamron. Its very capable but doesn't get as much use as it should

Hi, I too have an old Centon 500mm Mirror and was wondering if I have to use the rear UV filter or not. Somewhere at the back of my mind tells me one had to be fitted at all times but looking on the Interweb I can find no refference to this and nothing is menotioned about in the user manual.

Any help would be greatfully received.

PS, great photos wish I could get mine as good!

Interesting...
No idea about that, looking forward to hearing the answer.
The lens produces quite washed out images by modern standards, but getting the light behind you makes a big difference. Maybe the filter would help with this.

The great rear filter controversy

On my Super-Paragon 300mm f5.6 mirror it makes no difference whatever. There are arguments that one should keep the filter on but I am not at all convinced. The only valid point I've seen is that removing the filter will alter the focus calibration (refractive index of the filter effect), but mirrors are normally set up to be able to focus well beyond infinity to compensate for temperature effects so this in practice does not matter all that much.

Cats are usually sensitive to veiling flare so a good and really deep lens hood helps with the low contrast.

Mirror lenses are fun !

I am looking for a cost effective long lens.
There is a lovely green wood pecker that regularly feeds on the large area of grass outside my office window. It is extremely camera shy (my colleague says it is a female!) and my current 150 to 300 Sigma is just not long enough.
I would be very interested in an un-loved 500mm lens that needed a new home!

Rob

Look for a Tamron BB 500mm - supposedly the best Mirror out there. I have one and have found it excellent value for money and, like the Op. with his mirror, it can produce some excellent sharp shots.

You'll need lots of light or a flash. Maybe a remote flash behind a sheet?

Could only find info on the Nikon 500 mirror. It`s worth putting it in a search engine to find the PDF downloades fro Mike Butkuss. The original manual states a rear filter must always be in place.

I guess all mirrors are very similar, I was told that the 500 Tamron mirror that I have must also have a rear filter. The Nikon manual elaborates.

Yes, to stop cr*p falling in.

If you examine the supplied filters you'll find that they are just flat bits of glass with no immediately observable magical properties.

If anyone does find a real explanation as to why a flat piece of glass is essential at the back of the lens, beside altering the flange distance slightly, let me know, I'm willing to learn

Thanks for all the info. Kh1234567890 got me thinking so I removed the filter from the lens. It is a KM-500 Skylight 1A and having looked at it very closely it is covered with small inperfections in the glass and no matter of cleaning will remove them. It also looks a little milky when compared to a B&W skylight filter that I have. I wonder if purchasing a better quality filter will make any difference to the lens such as the Hoya or Kood 30.5mm skylight that are available on ebay.

I don't tend to use filters for anything, but my understanding of UV and polarising filters (especially the latter) is they increase contrast by cutting out the scattered light. So it is very possible that the lens could be improved by a piece of flat glass