Daniel,

I think even this lens would be dwarfed by the mighty cannon they stick on top of a Challenger. By the time I've trudged around the mountains of Murcia with this beast, when California needs a new governor, I'm their man. Arnie watch out, I'll have muscles like tree trunks . . . maybe not.

Liam,

I think your dual mount Idea is sound. I'll have a look for one. I was thinking maybe a fabricated bracket with a half-round support nearer to the front of the lens. If its made out of stiff enough material it should work as long as there is an amount of lens barrel that doesn't turn when either focussing or zooming. You're right, I'll use it at the long end mostly. I have a Sigma 135-400 zoom + a SMCP 400mm, both of which are much lighter at the 400mm range.

If you let me know how much you thought you would enjoy this lens, I'll let you know if I enjoy it as much. If not, it's yours. BTW, another one like it sold in Oz in October for nearly £400.

BTW, My tripod is a Manfrotto 055ProB + 488RC2 Ball head so I think it'll be man enough. I've got a couple of old bags of cement in the basement for ballast if necessary.

Cheers guys, keep the mount ideas coming, I think I might need them.

Dan,

One of the criticism's I have read is that it's not too well balanced as the tripod mount is too far back. I can live with that, I'll just put two sets of batteries in the D and hang a brick or two from it to balance it up

The flash bracket idea to extend the tripod mount forwards is already looking attractive.

My back . . . is about to be tested I think. Maybe I'll start looking for one of those steadicam thingies that videographers use. To hell with it, I'll just buy an ex-army Challenger tank and strap it to the gun, that ought to do it.

Note to self: Schedule a trip to Iraq for spares.

Cheers,

Thanks Liam. There are no user reviews on stansphotography site either. I'm guessing it was a very expensive lens in it's day and if it's as good as the SMCP 400mm 1:5.6 lens I recently aquired it should produce some good results. That lens was covered in fungus but I've stripped it and cleaned it and it's now a beautifully clean lens, just a couple of dust specks which don't bother me too much, not enough to justify taking it apart again anyway.

Its certainly good to know that the 135-600 is clean, I don't fancy stripping that one down.

I'll keep you in mind if/when I want to sell it. I'm sorry you missed out on it, eBay hides user names now so I have no idea of who else is bidding.

Thanks for the info, regards,

Hi,

My latest eBay aquisition is an example of the above lens. Does anybody have any experience of this lens that they'd like to share?

I know that it is a heavy beast at 4Kg+ and definitely needs to be tripod mounted. With a max aperture of f6.7 its not the fastest 'tool in the box' but it should be OK in well lit surroundings.

I can find little info. on the web about it but I've found some sample images taken with it here which look pretty good to me.

My reason for buying it is to use for wildlife pics. It equates to a 200-900mm lens on a Pentax DSLR and coupled with a 2x TC it becomes a massive 400-1800mm, if a bit slow.

Cheers,

To be fair, The Centon (Jessops brand) mirror lens is rather cheap and nasty. Other than the Pentax branded reflex lenses (which I have never seen or used), I think the results from Tamron's SP 500mm are quite pleasing if you accept the slight softness and 'doughnut' effect.

For the price that these can be bought for, if you can get a good one, it's worth giving it house room (camera bag room) because of it's compactness. It certainly has a useful 'reach' for wildlife pics.

Aka,

Your english is perfectly understood, practice makes perfect.

I've recently acquired a SMC Pentax-M 400mm lens which produces superb images. If you can find a Pentax-A version it would suit your Pentax DSLR very well, if a lot heavier than a mirror lens of similar focal length. Remember that it is the equivalent of 600mm on a 35mm film camera so it's pretty long and at 1:5.6, much faster.

The Tamron SP 500 lens is a good performer, as is the Tokina. Other than the doughnut effect of out of focus highlights, another criticism that you will often hear regarding mirror, or reflex lenses, is that images tend to be a little softer than those from traditionally constructed lenses.

One big benefit is the compactness and light weight of mirror lenses, the Tokina version being about the smallest and lightest of the better ones.

I have had both of these lenses, and I chose to keep the Tamron SP 500mm BBAR and sell the Tokina.

Both normally come with hoods and hard cases. The Tokina also has a set of 2 x ND + a Skylight filter as standard which screw on to the rear element. These filters were optional on the Tamron.

If you intend buying sight unseen from auction sites, make absolutely sure that there is no fungus, or what appears to be fungus, present. If it is fungus, it'll be difficult to clean (but not impossible). If the silvering of either of the two mirrors is degrading/corroding, the lens is on its way to the great camera/lens collection in the sky . . . or the bin . . . and will definitely be a waste of money unless you buy from a rock solid seller (like me ) who offers a full refund if not satisfied.

Hope that helps,

Thank you very much for all your helpful information, it has helped tremendously.

I have settled on using 2400 input res., 300 output res., sRGB, 8 bit, no multi-scan, jpg output, and I'm happy with the results, not least of which is the now much faster scanning speed. I'll have these done in next to no time now.

Be warned, I'll probably be back when I start scanning the prints and negs (2 cases, about the size of current airline carry-on bags, full)

I'll probably do the negs on the DiMAGE scanner but the prints will be done on my Epson Perfection 2450 photo scanner. Old now I know, but I don't intend upgrading.

Thanks again for all your help,

Mongoose,

Your post above leads me to another question: What's the difference between input & output resolution? Should I use a lower input & higher output res or t'other way round?

Daniel,

I certainly don't 'need' to save all of my slides but I have found it quicker and easier to scan 100% then delete the ones I don't wish to keep.

Thanks to you both for your helpful input, I have decided now to ditch multi-scan altogether 'cause I can't see any difference either

Last question (for now), should I save in TIFF or JPG format?

NOTE: This is really weird for me, asking for advice about a technology that I have made my living at for the last 30+ years (computing), I just never got involved in graphics before the *istD came along. I spend my days building servers and desktop PC's and making them work for other people, now its my turn. Thanks again.