MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens

honky · 25th October 2007

Hi fellow photographers..

Am thinking of getting the above mentioned lens for bird shooting and other 'far out' situations. Just tempted by its cheap price, but will not buy if its a waste of money. Anyone has any reviews on it? Thanks!

smtan24 · 29th October 2007

Originally Posted by honky

Hi fellow photographers..

Am thinking of getting the above mentioned lens for bird shooting and other 'far out' situations. Just tempted by its cheap price, but will not buy if its a waste of money. Anyone has any reviews on it? Thanks!

You do know this is a mirror lens and it uses a M42 mount. This means you need an adaptor for this lens.

honky · 30th October 2007

yup. i have other lenses from russia too, using a 3rd converter, so far no problem with them. thanks.

honky · 30th October 2007

i meant 3rd party converter... left the word "party" out

BigRooster · 30th October 2007

Hi, have not used this lens.

Nevertheless, you would need to consider the constraints of mirror lens in general. E.g. Sharpness and IQ may not be comparable to the more ex prime, or even some of the mid-range zooms. Then, fixed aperture. And also, the peculiar 'bokeh' unique to it.

There were previous discussions on some other mirror lenses, e.g. the Tamron and the Kenko. You may want to do a search and use it as part of your decision making.

Cheers.

darr · 30th October 2007

I have the Rubinar 500/8 instead.

You have to take note of several issues:
1. fixed aperture, means cannot control area of focus easily due fixed DOF. 5.6 is even worse, but also means can pinpoint focus area easier.
2. manual focus, not suitable for fast shooting.
3. doughnut bokeh, very distracting if shooting backlit objects.
4. being a mirror (not reflective) lens, sharpness is rather poor, but also means chromatic abberations is well-controlled.

The pro is that it's very light, that's all. You can holdhold easily (think holding a 100mm prime lens) and squeeze off a relatively sharp shot. Quality-wise you will get similar results with a consumer 100-300mm + 2x TC.

But just pt 4 alone means you can forget about bird shooting.

Being so cumbersome to use, the only use I can find is astrophotography.

I try take some days shots to let you see the difference between a 75-300/5.6+2TC, 70-200/2.8+2TC against the 500/8.

PS: be careful when doing manual focus on non-native lens, you might unknowingly unscrew it from the mount converter ....

honky · 31st October 2007

thanks to all who helped. really informative. thanks, guess i'll have to cough up the extra $$ for a better lens. really appreciate it guys!

will look forward to your pics

Originally Posted by darr

I have the Rubinar 500/8 instead.

You have to take note of several issues:
1. fixed aperture, means cannot control area of focus easily due fixed DOF. 5.6 is even worse, but also means can pinpoint focus area easier.
2. manual focus, not suitable for fast shooting.
3. doughnut bokeh, very distracting if shooting backlit objects.
4. being a mirror (not reflective) lens, sharpness is rather poor, but also means chromatic abberations is well-controlled.

The pro is that it's very light, that's all. You can holdhold easily (think holding a 100mm prime lens) and squeeze off a relatively sharp shot. Quality-wise you will get similar results with a consumer 100-300mm + 2x TC.

But just pt 4 alone means you can forget about bird shooting.

Being so cumbersome to use, the only use I can find is astrophotography.

I try take some days shots to let you see the difference between a 75-300/5.6+2TC, 70-200/2.8+2TC against the 500/8.

PS: be careful when doing manual focus on non-native lens, you might unknowingly unscrew it from the mount converter ....

darr · 4th November 2007

I think using a teleconverter adds another factor, so instead I will show you the Rubinar 500mm against cropped shots of Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM and Canon 70-200 f2.8L USM.

All shot at between 1/1500 to reduce camera shake factor (no tripod cos loaned to friend)

Look at the overall sharpness instead of comparing each screw, edge.....scrutinizing DOF is not the purpose of these quick shots.

First up - Canon 75-300 shot at 300mm f5.6 (so at 1.5x crop roughly equals the Rubinar Mirror f8 DOF):

NExt - Rubinar 500mm f8. Remember I told you chromatic aberrations is well-controlled (compare to the consumer zoom above), but even the consumer zoom when cropped is noticeably sharper.

Lastly - the white long lens ~~~ Shot at 200mm f4 (so at 2x crop roughly equals the Rubinar Mirror f8 DOF). Sharp? This is a 12 year old lens.

Ultimately I don't recommend you get the mirror lens....why:
1. difficult to manually focus....I tried my best to focus at the middle of the lamphead but from the shot seen on PC, I really can't tell whether it's really in focus...
2. other than static shots, you can tear your hair out trying to get your shots....cos so difficult to get the correct focus point, maybe a f5.6 mirror will do better....but...no point...
3. Image quality is very very soft......

honky · 10th December 2007

Cool.. Thanks alot! Greatly appreciate it.

cheers!

Originally Posted by darr

I think using a teleconverter adds another factor, so instead I will show you the Rubinar 500mm against cropped shots of Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM and Canon 70-200 f2.8L USM.

All shot at between 1/1500 to reduce camera shake factor (no tripod cos loaned to friend)

Look at the overall sharpness instead of comparing each screw, edge.....scrutinizing DOF is not the purpose of these quick shots.

First up - Canon 75-300 shot at 300mm f5.6 (so at 1.5x crop roughly equals the Rubinar Mirror f8 DOF):

NExt - Rubinar 500mm f8. Remember I told you chromatic aberrations is well-controlled (compare to the consumer zoom above), but even the consumer zoom when cropped is noticeably sharper.

Lastly - the white long lens ~~~ Shot at 200mm f4 (so at 2x crop roughly equals the Rubinar Mirror f8 DOF). Sharp? This is a 12 year old lens.

Ultimately I don't recommend you get the mirror lens....why:
1. difficult to manually focus....I tried my best to focus at the middle of the lamphead but from the shot seen on PC, I really can't tell whether it's really in focus...
2. other than static shots, you can tear your hair out trying to get your shots....cos so difficult to get the correct focus point, maybe a f5.6 mirror will do better....but...no point...
3. Image quality is very very soft......

25th October 2007	#1
honky New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37	MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens Hi fellow photographers.. Am thinking of getting the above mentioned lens for bird shooting and other 'far out' situations. Just tempted by its cheap price, but will not buy if its a waste of money. Anyone has any reviews on it? Thanks!

30th October 2007	#3
honky New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37	Re: MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens yup. i have other lenses from russia too, using a 3rd converter, so far no problem with them. thanks.

30th October 2007	#4
honky New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37	Re: MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens i meant 3rd party converter... left the word "party" out

30th October 2007	#5
BigRooster Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 132	Re: MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens Hi, have not used this lens. Nevertheless, you would need to consider the constraints of mirror lens in general. E.g. Sharpness and IQ may not be comparable to the more ex prime, or even some of the mid-range zooms. Then, fixed aperture. And also, the peculiar 'bokeh' unique to it. There were previous discussions on some other mirror lenses, e.g. the Tamron and the Kenko. You may want to do a search and use it as part of your decision making. Cheers.

30th October 2007	#6
darr Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Hill View Posts: 295	Re: MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens I have the Rubinar 500/8 instead. You have to take note of several issues: 1. fixed aperture, means cannot control area of focus easily due fixed DOF. 5.6 is even worse, but also means can pinpoint focus area easier. 2. manual focus, not suitable for fast shooting. 3. doughnut bokeh, very distracting if shooting backlit objects. 4. being a mirror (not reflective) lens, sharpness is rather poor, but also means chromatic abberations is well-controlled. The pro is that it's very light, that's all. You can holdhold easily (think holding a 100mm prime lens) and squeeze off a relatively sharp shot. Quality-wise you will get similar results with a consumer 100-300mm + 2x TC. But just pt 4 alone means you can forget about bird shooting. Being so cumbersome to use, the only use I can find is astrophotography. I try take some days shots to let you see the difference between a 75-300/5.6+2TC, 70-200/2.8+2TC against the 500/8. PS: be careful when doing manual focus on non-native lens, you might unknowingly unscrew it from the mount converter ....

4th November 2007	#8
darr Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Hill View Posts: 295	Re: MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro Telephoto Lens I think using a teleconverter adds another factor, so instead I will show you the Rubinar 500mm against cropped shots of Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM and Canon 70-200 f2.8L USM. All shot at between 1/1500 to reduce camera shake factor (no tripod cos loaned to friend) Look at the overall sharpness instead of comparing each screw, edge.....scrutinizing DOF is not the purpose of these quick shots. First up - Canon 75-300 shot at 300mm f5.6 (so at 1.5x crop roughly equals the Rubinar Mirror f8 DOF): NExt - Rubinar 500mm f8. Remember I told you chromatic aberrations is well-controlled (compare to the consumer zoom above), but even the consumer zoom when cropped is noticeably sharper. Lastly - the white long lens ~~~ Shot at 200mm f4 (so at 2x crop roughly equals the Rubinar Mirror f8 DOF). Sharp? This is a 12 year old lens. Ultimately I don't recommend you get the mirror lens....why: 1. difficult to manually focus....I tried my best to focus at the middle of the lamphead but from the shot seen on PC, I really can't tell whether it's really in focus... 2. other than static shots, you can tear your hair out trying to get your shots....cos so difficult to get the correct focus point, maybe a f5.6 mirror will do better....but...no point... 3. Image quality is very very soft......