- Joined
- Mar 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,198
- Location
- Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada
- Real Name
- Jan Steinman
Big Glass!
Well, I'm glad I wasn't drawn to the E-M1X very much, because I just blew my budget for the year, with two 125mm (front element size) monsters. Besides the wallet pain, this is gonna cost me a lot of "honeydew" days, too.
I didn't plan it this way. But I have some email filters set up for certain wonderful and unusual stuff. The Sigma-XQ 500mm ƒ/4 mirror shows up on evilBay for ~$700+ now and then, which is way too much for a mirror, but one listed "for parts" showed up for $200 with a 30-day listing. I put it on my watch list, and the day before it expired, I made an offer that I was sure would be refused.
To my dismay, the offer was accepted. The evilBay photographs looked horrible (obvious camera-mounted flash), which probably meant there hadn't been much interest, and I was willing to write it off if it was too bad, but it arrived in much better shape than the photos indicated. It has some numbers engraved on it, and some scrapes and scuffs, and a considerable amount of internal dust, but hey, it's a 500/4! Canikony gets what, $10,000 for a 500/4?
Then out of the blue, KEH sends me a sale notice: 15% off all film lenses! So I cruise their Olympus OM selection for some tasty little tidbit, and find the legendary 350mm ƒ/2.8, which has just been marked down from $2200 to $1800, plus another 15% off. It's condition was listed as "BGN," which is KEH's second-to-lowest rating, but they have an excellent return policy, and their ratings tend to be very conservative. After quickly checking my credit card limit, I foolishly pressed "Add To Cart," just to verify that shipping on this 4kg monster was indeed free, and of course, I couldn't stop then!
KEH doesn't have actual item photos, and "BGN" is supposed to be 75% to 80% of new quality, with possible minor glass scuffs and scratches. But KEH's "BGN" is apparently the same as eBay's "NEAR MINT" quality, as the glass looks pristine under +3 reading glasses, and there is one scuff (shown above) and some minor brassing on the aperture knurls.
So, how does a 5" mirror and a 5" refractor compare? I was prepared to say, "no way!" but the Sigma surprises. The Olympus is, of course, extremely sharp, corner-to-corner, at any aperture, but it does have considerable tangentital chromatic aberration, which the Sigma, being a mirror, is completely free of.
Here's the Sigma, checking out our goats:
Not shabby for a mirror, if you can ignore the low contrast and distracting bokeh! It seems to be plenty sharp in the centre, but seems to get soft in the edges. (EXIF data is wrong; I forgot to change it after setting it up for a focal reducer. It should be 500/4.)
Here's the Olympus, with the Olympus OM 1.4X-A teleconverter, to yield the same field-of-view:
It seems crisper and "punchier," sure, but you can see that green band of CA where the snow meets the trees. But notice the grass sticking up out of the snow is sharp edge-to-edge. (Both shots were from a sturdy tripod.)
Next thing to do is to build a lens profile for it, so ON1 RAW will automagically correct the CA.
That is, after I cancel all my wanted-gear email notices, and do some "honeydew" time in the greenhouse…
Well, I'm glad I wasn't drawn to the E-M1X very much, because I just blew my budget for the year, with two 125mm (front element size) monsters. Besides the wallet pain, this is gonna cost me a lot of "honeydew" days, too.
I didn't plan it this way. But I have some email filters set up for certain wonderful and unusual stuff. The Sigma-XQ 500mm ƒ/4 mirror shows up on evilBay for ~$700+ now and then, which is way too much for a mirror, but one listed "for parts" showed up for $200 with a 30-day listing. I put it on my watch list, and the day before it expired, I made an offer that I was sure would be refused.
To my dismay, the offer was accepted. The evilBay photographs looked horrible (obvious camera-mounted flash), which probably meant there hadn't been much interest, and I was willing to write it off if it was too bad, but it arrived in much better shape than the photos indicated. It has some numbers engraved on it, and some scrapes and scuffs, and a considerable amount of internal dust, but hey, it's a 500/4! Canikony gets what, $10,000 for a 500/4?
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Then out of the blue, KEH sends me a sale notice: 15% off all film lenses! So I cruise their Olympus OM selection for some tasty little tidbit, and find the legendary 350mm ƒ/2.8, which has just been marked down from $2200 to $1800, plus another 15% off. It's condition was listed as "BGN," which is KEH's second-to-lowest rating, but they have an excellent return policy, and their ratings tend to be very conservative. After quickly checking my credit card limit, I foolishly pressed "Add To Cart," just to verify that shipping on this 4kg monster was indeed free, and of course, I couldn't stop then!
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
KEH doesn't have actual item photos, and "BGN" is supposed to be 75% to 80% of new quality, with possible minor glass scuffs and scratches. But KEH's "BGN" is apparently the same as eBay's "NEAR MINT" quality, as the glass looks pristine under +3 reading glasses, and there is one scuff (shown above) and some minor brassing on the aperture knurls.
So, how does a 5" mirror and a 5" refractor compare? I was prepared to say, "no way!" but the Sigma surprises. The Olympus is, of course, extremely sharp, corner-to-corner, at any aperture, but it does have considerable tangentital chromatic aberration, which the Sigma, being a mirror, is completely free of.
Here's the Sigma, checking out our goats:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Not shabby for a mirror, if you can ignore the low contrast and distracting bokeh! It seems to be plenty sharp in the centre, but seems to get soft in the edges. (EXIF data is wrong; I forgot to change it after setting it up for a focal reducer. It should be 500/4.)
Here's the Olympus, with the Olympus OM 1.4X-A teleconverter, to yield the same field-of-view:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
It seems crisper and "punchier," sure, but you can see that green band of CA where the snow meets the trees. But notice the grass sticking up out of the snow is sharp edge-to-edge. (Both shots were from a sturdy tripod.)
Next thing to do is to build a lens profile for it, so ON1 RAW will automagically correct the CA.
That is, after I cancel all my wanted-gear email notices, and do some "honeydew" time in the greenhouse…
Last edited:
