skip to Main Content


New Opteka 500mm f/8 with MicroFourThirds mount (?)

Share


One of our readers just sent us the link to the following Opteka 500-1000mm Lens which is listed on Amazon US (click here). It sounds like the lens is made for Micro Four Thirds Cameras. I couldn’t found any info that reveals if the lens needs an adapter or not. Do you know it?

Share
  • chris

    It looks like a SAMYANG lens, made in Korea. Other brandings of the same construction are called Vivitar or Walimex. Usually, it has a T2-mount. Maybe this one is delivered with a cheap T2-(micro)FourThirds-adapter included. I have tested the Vivitar-clone of this mirror-lens. The quality is a disaster. Cropped parts of an image taken with a ZD 70-300mm lens at 300mm show much more details as this mirror lens does at 500mm. Everything looks completely blurred. The aperture is not f/8 as labeled, it lies between f/9 and f/10. Even worse, some cheap FourThirds-adapters can damage the mount of the camera body. Hint: Before trying a non-Olympus-lens on the camera, test it with an Olympus lens-cap. If the lens-cap doesn’t fit on the third-party-lens the same way a genuine Olympus-lens does, you risk destroying the camera body. Novoflex high-end-adapters are expensive but absolutely worth the price—in my opinion.

  • I made an inquiry on their website about their lenses and the compatible mounts. The “Opteka 650-1300mm High Definition Telephoto Lens” would be much more intriguing if it fits my E-520. I was thinking about going into the Paparazzi business anyway… lol

  • jak0b

    Wow 500 to 1000mm!!! That’s like a telescope. Is that also why they use mirrors instead of glass?

  • I’m not aware of any lens apart from the Noktor 50mm f/0.9 that has a native *µ43* mount.

    Therefore almost 100% sure this is classic Four Thirds mount.

  • On theit website, you can choose your camera mount, and only Olympus 4/3 is listed, not MFT. So I guess it works via an adapter. But I’d love to be proven wrong :-)

    http://opteka.com/opteka500mmf8highdefinitiontelephotomirrorlens.aspx

  • I did some more research.

    All lenses by Opteka have the T-mount which is also popular with telescopes. In order to use any of their lenses, you need to adapt the lens to your mount. There are T-adapters for the E-system (thus 4/3), Canon, Nikon etc.

    I am still waiting for an answer from Opteka.

    Check out this:

    http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Olympus/dp/B000RLF35E/ref=dp_return_2?ie=UTF8&n=502394&s=photo

    Also read the customer feedback.

    This would be the adapter:

    http://www.amazon.com/T-Mount-Adapter-Olympus-Digital-Camera/dp/B000IMYK4W/ref=pd_sim_p_2

    If you get the lens directly from Opteka, you get the adapter and extras:

    http://opteka.com/opteka650-1300mmhighdefinitiontelephotolens.aspx?product=33529&edit=true

    I guess their stuff is especially interesting for folks shooting the moon and other static, far away objects as much manual setup has to be done before a shot. There is no communication between the camera and the lens as the adapter does not contain electronics and most if not all lenses are manual focus, manual aperture as far as I see it.

  • Visorblue
  • Just to clarify, this is NOT a 500-1000mm zoom. It’s a 500mm prime (it says so right on the box), which is equivalent to 1000mm in 4/3 and M4/3. That’s why it’s billed (somewhat misleadingly) as “500-1000.”

  • Oh wait, I’m partly wrong. It’s “500-1000” because it comes with a 2X “multiplier.” So in 4/3 and M4/3 talk, that’s essentially 1000-2000!

  • elliot

    f/8 on four-thirds sails you right into diffraction issues, and f/8 is going give you a pretty dark viewfinder in everything but bright sun. This is not a lens for image quality, but if you’re a pap stalking Britney Spears a cheap and light 1,000mm lens could be useful.

  • Visorblue

    F6.3 or f8 are not for indoor or low light shooting, however, outside during the day for nature and other uses they can be fun. I had a 500mm f8 mirror lens long ago and even did portrait work with it. Some people won’t like the donut shaped bokeh but we used to put a black strip of label maker (1/4-1/2″) tape across a clear filter which did a decent job of breaking it up. Fun lens, cheap and the f8 version appears to come with a 2x multiplier, too.

    Seen these (f6.3 and f8) under a variety of names; Vivitar, ProOptic, Rokinon…

    Here’s a review of the ProOptic version of the f6.3 one:
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/ProOptic-500mm-f-6.3-Mirror-Lens-Test

    Flicker mirror lens images: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=mirror%20lens&w=all

    Saw a few comparisons to traditional 500mm lenses and they didn’t do too bad, especially for the price and add-in that you can tweak in post.

  • RW

    In theory, I have nothing against an ultracheap – lowish quality 1000mm that is small enough to be usable on my GF-1. I am not sure I can live with the bubbles that this lens produces when an OOF highlight appears in the photo. One or 2 photos like that would be a novelty – but…

    At the end of the day, this is an occasional use lens as far as I am concerned – and is maybe a pretty reasonable acquisition at that price for the amount of times that it would come out of the bag.

  • chris

    Thank you, Visorblue, for the links! One picture says more than thousands words. My own test results are corresponding to the following one:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wintrhawk/640548634/sizes/o/

    I use a 35 years old Nikkor 200/4 lens mounted through a Novoflex-Nikon-FourThirds adapter on my E-30 camera. Cropped parts of such a 200mm photo show us a significantly higher resolution than photos taken through a samyang/vivitar/walimex/whatever-branding 500/8 mirror-lens. The image quality of this mirror lens can only be compared to lensbaby’s plastic lens—like it or not.

  • John

    I believe mirror lenses compute aperture somewhat misleadingly, so f/8 might be technically correct if you don’t account for the large mirror blocking a large portion of the aperture. I would guess its effective aperture is something like f/13 or slower as far as light gathering ability is concerned.

    There are a lot of people on dpreview that are happy with this lens in its various brands for the price, and shoot wildlife, etc. at a long distance. The doughnut bokeh is artsy looking and not necessarily “bad” unless you are doing portraits or something in which case you wouldn’t be using this anyway. There are some links on the net comparing the sharpness that I dont have a link for, but I think as far as sharpness goes it was a bit shaper at 1000mm than a cropped 600mm pentax lens. So I guess we can think of it as a sharp 1200mm equivalent or a crappy 2000mm equivalent.

  • Well, these lenses are “fake” lenses. They are not zooms, however the 650-1300 (or 500-1000) sounds “zoomish”. So, they could be m43 compatibles in their title, but needs an adapter as you need a 2x converter (=totally killed imagequality) to get the “tele” focal length.

    Have no official info, just thinking loud…

  • FatDrunkAndStupid

    Erroka,
    You don’t need the adapter to make it telephoto length. Without the adapter, it is a 500mm prime, which is 200mm further than the most ambitious (and not even out yet) native m4/3 telephoto lens. The length is real. The problem is f/8 and no OIS. You would need bright light, a tripod, and probably a remote shutter release to have any hope at all of getting a decent picture with this thing. On the other hand it’s only a hundred bucks so it’s limitations are clearly priced in to the product. But anybody who wants to stalk Britney Spears would be better off waiting for the 100-300mm Panny lens coming out in the fall. Hand held shots would be utterly impossible with a f/8 mirror lens.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close