Sony published a new patent for a Mirror lens having a focal length of 250mm and f/4.5 aperture. It’s designed for APS-C E-mount cameras. A perfect lens to spy the neighbourhood take pictures of birds 🙂
By the way, if you are looking for an E-mount mirror lens you can also buy that Albinar 300mm on Amazon US (Click here) or [shoplink 26152 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
via Egami.
0 Responses
Tha way they make E mounts these days must be a sign that the A mount is doomed for the grave
Aps- c e lenses have seen a similar number of released as a-mount as of late.
it’s just a matter of priorities.. Sony apparently does not have endless resources.. otherwhise they would make both A and E lenses.. someone has decided that there should be a system avalible for E wich is also a good thing. Im sure there will be more A news fairly soon.. now that all the E stuff has been done.
To be fair, there’s been a drought of apsc a-mount and e-mount lenses over the last year. Obviously both of the lens designers have been working flat out on FE lenses…
Why not f8 or f11 ?
Minolta use to have a 250mm f5.6 mirror lens which now sells for stupid prices on eBay +GBP600, but of course this cover FF and I am a little surprises this rumoured lens doesn’t,
The Minolta lens is really quite a lens, very sharp and not much bigger than a 50mm. It is also not that common. When I ordered mine (in the 1980’s), it was on backorder for almost a year. I would expect there were not that many made.
It is also quite a performer on digital full frame. Ebay’s prices on this may be high, but the lens is worth it.
A high quality mirror lens would be good for E mount…if this is high quality…but the advantages are greater for longer focal lengths and this is short for a mirror lens.
This lens will have optical stabilzation and high speed autofocus which as far as I know is unique to this lens.
Hopefully this first one will also lead to some longer ones.
Agreed, it is short. Sony could simply put the old 500mm again on the market.
1000mm would be nice.
There is an old Minolta 1600 mirror for people with your needs Barry.
Might be worth considering an E-mount FF with that lens.
That lens is big looks a lot like a c8 celestron.
I have preordered the tamron 150-600 to use instead of my sigma 50-500
Im going to play with that a bit…but I am very curios about the nikon p700 that will be anounced in may
1″ sensor with 24-2000mm equivelent lens..thats about 750mm on a superzoom.
I wonder if they will bend the lightpath to make it more compact?
Keep saying the same thing over and over again. Yeah, cause we all want to hear you repeat yourself.
Jesus man. You may wonder if ‘they will bend the lightpath’ but no one else cares. How many times are you going to say this?!
Do you have mental problems or do you have nothing else to do but troll us?
For every post on this site theres 5 like you telling us not to say that..you dont like it dont read it…but your not capable of of that..so you have no choice but to read me complaining over and over about people trying to tell us what not to say.
Heres an idea…if you didnt tell me what not to say..I wouldn’t have to tell you Im going to say it anyway…think of all the reading you guys would not have to do..but then what on earth would you do with all that extra time.
But Im odviously the one in control here because you have no choice..you have to read this comment.
Clearly you have no self control either cause you always feed the trolls.
It takes one to know one.
BAM! I’m starting to agree that Barry has some sort of autism.
Awesome! Exploit that contrast-detect AF system!
Wow, pretty interesting! Presumably AF but OSS and f4.5 make this quite interesting. Pity about donut bokeh, but not always an issue. Also these types of lens tend to be quite cheap and very small.
At least cheaper to build.
Smaller and lighter too.
Sony will still charge a premium for it no doubt.
It’ll cost around 600 at least. The SAL500AF was 900 something just for screw-driven AF.
I’m not sure the focal length warrants the shortcomings of a mirror lens. Pretty bright for one though so that is encouraging.
Good, but why not start by introducing a 135/150mm equivalent? Typical.
Why would anyone choose a mirror lens for 135mm rather than a glass one?
I simply meant covering the FL, not making a mirror one.
Many people speak fondly about an old minolta 250mm reflex with autofocus.
This lens will appeal to that nostalgia therefore may be a good chioce for the first of hopefull more and bigger reflex lenses..as E mount is definitely lacking in long and macro lenses.
I would also hope these lenses have good close focus/ macro capability.
I can tell from the drawing it is internal focus but I am not familiar enough with the desighn to tell how well it close focuses.
Are you sure the 250 reflex had AF?
There was a minolta reflex with af but I am not sure what focal length.
Yes the Minolta AF 500/8 a.k.a. SAL500AF… few years back I almost bought an A mount body just to use that lens. Remarkable for a mirror lens. A lot of times you couldn’t tell it was a mirror… the contrast was unusually high.
Yeah, but it has an ugly donut bokeh. You really have to pay attention to what will be in your OOF area.
The donut bokeh thing is overblown by lazy/ignorant naysayers on online forums… even on a regular lens you need to shoot at night or against bright point sources to get solid/regular bokeh. With lenses around 500mm which have very narrow field of views, the chances of such things falling in the background are even less.
For example see these shots done with a 600 mirror lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/600mf/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/loreal600mf/
Don’t listen to whiners… listen to do’ers 🙂
I just checked..I was incorrect…as far as I know there was no autofocus reflex lens..
I’ve got a Tamron sp500 and I’m very happy with his reach and lightness, a modern af plasticky (so light and cheap) 300-400 would be great.
I own a Samyang 500mm mirror lens. Real fun on a NEX-7. However, instead of a 250mm mirror, I rather take the 55210. It has AF and OSS, too, and is more versatile. The difference between f/6,3 and f/4.5 doesn’t matter to me enough.
Actually, it’s pretty significant in my experience birding because you want the fastest possible shutter speed. However, as many have pointed out this is not a very good focal length for birding so maybe I don’t understand the use case Sony is purposing it for.
The typical 300mm focal length is better, IMHO, if you’re looking for smaller, lighter, and faster than something longer like a 500mm. 300mm is a length I’ve had a lot of success with photographing in a zoo setting.
I’m no expert on lens design but I’ll stick my neck out and guess the slightly odd 250mm focal length has to do with the mirror design. I’m of the thought that the more lenses the better so I’m okay with Sony building it. I just don’t really see the point of so much design compromise – even given the e-mount’s obsession with teensy tiny – and I can’t imagine it selling above break-even numbers.
Pity it isn’t FF. I would get one for the size and weight for sure.
Minolta has a 250mm FF
I also use a 300mm f5.6 which is small and a 300 4.5 which is big.
This make sense, well kind of anyway. Sony has probably seen the ridiculous prices on the old minolta 250mm f5.6 and figured out that they can renew that old design. An OSS mirror lens combined with hopefully a small a size and low weight. I am looking forward to it.
instead of this crap they could just make proper teleconverts.
What for? Considering pixel densities of current cameras, teleconverters get less and less of use.
because no one cares about this stupid lens. really? 250mm 4.5? they could just make a 300mm 2.8 or a 150-300mm f4 or something like that. this is just retarded.
Tamron has a patent for a teleconverter with built in oss
That would be good for A to E mount adaptor..mayby 1.4x
Admin
You say a perfect lens to take pictures of birds…this lens is way too short to be usefull for birds.
I really hope Sony releases an updated SAL500F80 reflex lens for those of us who like a light lens with a massive focal length.
Amen. My used copy of the Minolta, unfortunately, has developed optical problems. :^(
That would be good for rhe next mirror lens..500 or 600
But then I would like to see something long like 1000 or 1250.
This series of lenses could also come out in a mount..
The reality is telephoto lenses beyond the mid-range don’t make any sense at all in an e-mount. They’re the antithesis of the mount’s teensy tiny purpose. In an a-mount they make a great deal of sense because Sony’s glass long lenses are crazy expensive.
What makes E mount a grossly incomplete system is the lack of long lenses and macro lenses …thes are compact mirror telephotos..
Yet you argue against then.
Apperently you want E mount to remain an incomplete system and you want sony to fail.
No, I certainly don’t want e-mount to fail even though I clearly favor the a-mount. My point is the e-mount is marketed to the fans of small and light which doesn’t work well with Sony’s ILCE line-up with long (and many fast) lenses because they’re going to be too ‘big and bulky’ for their tastes. So I can’t see Sony ever doing a complete E/FE lens system.
I’ve been looking at the competition and, frankly, I think Sony was short-sighted basing compacts on ASP-C. It’s killing their a-mount business for negligible gain. They’ll end up with a laughably incomplete lens system that’ll reek amateur or limited use-case pro. And it ultimately misses the boat for the teensy tiny crowd who would be better served with even smaller sensors like M43 or 1″. Ultimately, that would allow for even tinier bodies and lenses. Sony could still bridge the mounts with an adapter.
I too am an A mount person.
Mirror lenses being smaller an lighter than glass lenses lend themselves particularly well to E mount..especially with af and oss.
A few differrent lengths would make the system more complete.
Thats why I think a 500-or 600 would be nice and then an 800 or longer..mayby 1000.
Although large they would be much smaller than thier glass counterparts.
Just my opinion for whatever its worth.
There’s nothing to lose by having mirrorless mounts even for very long/large lenses as long as functionality is not compromised. Right now there’s a case against E mount because there’s no IBIS but that’s a marketing/design decision… not an issue with having a short flange itself.
Get a T mount telescope and put it on a stabilised A mount body or a Pentax.
Why do you delibrately tell me to do impractical things.
Tanron 150-600
Nikon p700
Sorry, I know I shouldn’t have said Pentax LOL
Jokes aside, here you were saying you’d like to see a 1000mm or a 1250mm mirror lens and when I suggest a way for you to do that, suddenly I’m someone who deliberately tells you to do impractical things.
Perhaps you should do some homework, Barry… you’d see a lot of things you currently think impossible are in fact possible. Lord Zeiss himself knows you can do a little less whining about how things are not to your satisfaction and actually go and shoot.
Lord Zeiss?
Isnt that Zeuse’s younger brother?
Sorry. I did actually check out a while back a celestron c8 plu f6.3 focal reducer.
That would convert a 2035mm f8 to 1250mm f6.3
It would have been big, not easily portable, and much lower contrast than glass.
Telescopes also require some sort of special calibration procedure that I totally dont understand.
If I were to overcome all the shortcommings I would still have a very limited single function lens, of limited quality.
When the Tamron 150-600 was anounced I decided this would be a more versatile economical, portable, higher iq system…plus I cant imagine doing birds in flight with the Celestron..so I had already labeled the telescope as impractical and perhaps was too dismissive of your well intended suggestion..and should not have been.
I am still waiting for my prordered sony mount version of the Tamron.
Due to the quality limitations of the telecope I was fascinated by the 2000mm nikon p700 rumor
Even with the lesser quality of the 1″ sensor perhaps the 2000mm superzoom might equal the 2035mm telescope and always be available with me when I drive…it would definitely be easier to use.
So this is the answer I should have given you first instead of the answer I did give you.
You said you’d like to see a 1000 or a 1250 and now that you have…
1. You want it to be small.
2. You want it to be a zoom.
I’ve been on enough forums to know that some people create impossible requirements so that they don’t have to go and shoot. Whether this is subconscious or otherwise is another question.
The old minolta refex lenses were
250mm
500mm
800mm
1600mm
My thought was that 1000mm would replace both 800 and 1600.
I am talking here about what I think would be good for the system to have….but I have no intention of switching to E mount.
I will iether upgrade my A mount or abandon Sony.
I would not continue to support sony if they abandon my system..which I do not think they will.
I believe a hybrid system will eventually be available that will be fully compatable with not only A and E but also other brands and that fast focus will become more compatable.
If IBIS is discontinued oss can be put in an a to e adaptor.
Tamron currently has a patent for a teleconverter with oss…this could be done as an a to e teleconverter with oss.
E mount is currently not an option for most A mount users but that does not mean that Sony might not eventually make the systems compatable.
Too short for birds and not good enough IQ for heavy cropping. Looks like a tweener that designed to fit a certain size.
Agree 100%. Even with a 1.5 ASP-C crop factor not a great birding lens. Also, seems a bit slow for a 250mm prime. Sony making a nod to e-mount fans obsession over ‘big and bulky’? Shaving a few mm off the more standard 300mm length and bumping up slowness a bit won’t be enough. Frankly, I can’t see this lens selling and it would surprise me if Sony bothered making it.
It’s the never-ending problem with e-mounts. Since their point is making them has teensy tiny as possible too many lenses don’t make much sense for the system.
Hopefully people can let go of this “crop factor” non-sense. There is a smaller field of view benefit between APS-C and FF-cameras, but ONLY if they share same amount of pixels. 36Mpix FF equals 16Mpix APS-C sensor after cropping and between these sensors there IS NO “crop-factor” benefit. When Sony puts 56Mpix FF-sensor on to the market, then 24Mpix APS-C sensor also loses “crop factor”-benefit.
In other words: If the pixel SIZE is same between two sensors regardless of the sensor sizes, there is no crop factor-benefit.
True..the 54mp ff sensor will eliminate current C sensor advantages.
there’s no FFC, FFS
But they aren’t equivalent right now as you admit so there is a factor. Oh, the irony. ;^)
If you’re getting a lens for cropping you need a different lens or maybe even a different camera. Cropping isn’t something to be proud of.
The odds are very, very, very high that the pro bird photos that have you drooling are cropped.
You can’t blame someone for getting the 800mm and cropping instead of getting the 1200mm at $90,000. And you can’t blame a photographer for cropping to get the shot right while they risk catching malaria or dengue or getting bitten by a snake. But in all other situations, wanting to crop in post is worse than fixing exposure in post.
Skill matters aside, sensor real estate is thrown away for nothing. Might as well get a super zoom.
Not “for nothing.” In trying to improve my completely amateurish attempts at birding I’ve researched videos done by award-winning pros and they’re quite up front the vast majority of their photos are cropped out of necessity. You’re not going to get a tight frame of that eagle flying towards you carrying a fish (a real award-winning cropped photo, BTW). You’ve got to crop.
When selling equipment to amateurs like myself the need to offer tools capable of cropping is even more critical because I’m not going to have the talent or skill level approaching someone working for NatGeo.
You seem to think people who get those shots are better than you. Maybe if you also spent a good enough time in Africa or some exotic country where you get that kind of wildlife you’ll get good shots too.
Obviously, you’re right and experience is a huge factor. It’s also resources. They don’t tool around in some canned safari package in a bus packed with fellow tourists. They can camp out in blinds they build or whatever. My career is non-photo related so I don’t have the time (even including vacation) to commit to that level of field work.
Equipment size, weight, and usability is an issue even for pros.
A massive 800mm+ lens is fine if you’re mounting it on a tripod and sitting in a bird hide all day, but many impressive BIF shots have been taken handheld after a day’s hike.
Some of the best wildlife images I’ve seen have been taken with a 300mm lens + 1.4x TC, even though that generally meant heavy cropping. It’s often a matter of having to make practical compromises, not lack of skill or equipment.
That’s a fine example of not having the right lens. A 400/4 is 1.9Kg while even the lightest 300/2.8 (without the 1.4TC weight) is 2.35kg. The addition of the 1.4TC also affects the AF performance and IQ as well.
Of course if they were carrying that 400mm lens they couldn’t turn it back into an f/2.8 lens by simply removing the TC. If circumstances meant that speed mattered more than range, that 400/4 would be a worse example of not having the right lens.
They certainly felt that when carrying one long lens, the 300/2.8 was the best compromise available (it had replaced a Sigma 50-500, their previous compromise), and the quality of their images certainly supported that.
“Cropping isn’t something to be proud of” That’s completely BS. Cropping is something that is possibly because of modern digital sensors and every high pixel camera owner should be very proud of cropping capabilities that comes with it.
ROFL… for your sake I hope you’re just trolling.
Coincidentally, I visited a local park today. Extending my Tamron 200-500mm to the end of its range I got this pic of a bird that’ll give you eyestrain to identify.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14037488211_434ca1a9ec_o_d.jpg
With a little help from Flickr’s cropping tool I think I can now clearly identify it if I squint through the CA. ;^)
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5483/14060840053_5aa70b8a4b_o_d.jpg
This is why I’m always filling my diapers around here crying for higher resolution sensors in a-mounts. ;^)
Update
I should add the reason I didn’t get closer is there’s nothing but water between me and the bird.
That’s pure laziness on your part for not having an inflatable float with you 😀
Well there’s not much use in higher resolution sensors for cropping. Even if that lens is the sharpest lens on the planet at 500mm and f/6.3, it’s already starting to become diffraction limited on a 34MP FF or a 15MP APS-C sensor. Any higher pixel densities won’t mean you’re actually going to get proportional amounts of extra “reach”. It’ll just be magnification without a comparable increase in resolution.
Pretty sure A-mount is a thing of the past.
More E-mount good for E-mount users but what about A-mount.
What’s A-mount?
It’s so nice to hear about such a lens. Too bad if it’s only for APS-C.
I didn’t know about the Albinar until now but I have a Tokina 300/6.3 mirror lens for mFT which works nicely on APS-C/E mount cameras. It’s also very sharp at close distances. The lens itself looks just like the Sony 50/1.8 OSS.
Samyang also makes a 300/6.3 for APS-C Nex and Fuji X mount. This is also a proper lens for mirrorless cameras. It’s bigger than the Tokina but I don’t think its IQ is at the same level. Vignetting is less though. Doesn’t cover FF.
I also have a 300/5.6 mirror and a 300/4.5 mirror. Both are for dslrs and work with adapters on the a7r. The 300/5.6 is very small even with the adapter, it’s barely larger than the Samyang 300/6.3 (but covers FF).
Hmm then I have 4 more mirror lenses… 250, 400, 500 and 600.
250mm is not a perfect lens for neighbors spying, it’s merely an entry level. You need at least 500mm.
it,s 250 not 500 just because of size (the same is about reflex). Sony wants everything about E to be small.
Never have heard of the Albinar lens. Who makes it? Twice cheaper than Samyang…. weird.
Fisher-price? Based on the ill-fitting focus ring grip, I’d say avoid it.
It apears to be the same lense with another differrent name
They make the same products and put many differrent names on them.
Hey barry….i have a question for your expertise.
Autofocus on this or not?
Sincerly i don’t understand why make a250 mm. f4,5. What we need is a new 400 f4 or 4,5 and 600 f4 with the quality of the ancient minolta 400 and 600. But what we need more now is new teleconverters 1,4x 2x with high quality and compatibility with new lenses GII (actually the old tc doesen’t work)
A 400/4 or a 600/4 won’t really be any smaller than the slr versions. Not sure if you have looked at such lenses up close but their rear elements are deep inside the barrel rather than sitting close to the mount. If they could make the lenses smaller by reducing this back focal distance they would have already done it.
Get a Canon 200/2, 300/4, 300/2.8, 200-400/4, 400/4, 500/4, 600/4 or a 800/5.6. The quality will be better than that of any old lens any way. They retain the IS with the metabones adapter too. At least rent them and see if you’re really in the market for such a lens.