Zeiss Mirotar 500/f4.5

[biggles3]

Hi everyone, can anyone point me to a guide price for this lens? It looks like another one is coming my way in May or June and I have no idea what is a reasonable price to pay. I saw that the more rare, and hernia-inducing, 1000 Mirotar appeared on ebay at an asking price of $22,000 - I only found out after the auction so I've no idea if it met the price. The 500 being a little more common is hopefully not so costly. Ffordes of Inverness told me they sold one for a mere £2000 or so not long ago - hardly a lens of interest then to Canon users I suspect. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks,

Graham

 

[antonyb]

Graham,

Ffordes have 2 mirotar f8 500's 2nd hand for around £800 right now. £2000 new maybe, but as you cant get new ones now unless they are old stock a mint 2nd hand would be the best bet (as always).

Ant

 

[biggles3]

Hi Antony,
It's not the Mirotar 500 f8 I'm enquiring about - I bought a new one from Classic Camera Exchange recently for around £500. It is the much older 500 f4.5 which was only ever made to order apart from the odd promotional one available through Hamburg in the late 70s and early 80s. Believe me, it's a very different beast! Thanks though for taking the trouble to reply.

Best wishes,
Graham

 

[planar]

Hi Graham,

There are alot of 500mm f8 about at the present time along with the 1.4X Mutar III and going at very good prices, the 500mm f4.5 had a selling price in the UK of £16000 and that was 4 years ago Ffordes were the only people to have any in stock and this was a commission sale.
Kyocera in the last 14 years only sold 3 units.
Other popular lenses were the 300mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.0, if you are interested in either drop me a private email

 

[biggles3]

Thanks Robert, I'm not surprised that few have been sold - technology has moved at such a pace and fast 500mm lenses are more commonplace, a lot smaller and lighter - who needs a hernia? 3 units in 14 years - says it all at that price though no one doubts the quality of the image it produces. 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 - fabulous lenses but I'm going to have to save for the Mirotar first - by mid-May I'll know whether I can buy it at a sensible price.
Kind regards,
Graham

 

[fotografz]

Gotta butt in here and just mention that when you get into this range of lens, Canon IS glass really comes into play as a consideration. Their long optics aren't to be confused with all the other stuff they make. A cheap Canon body is all that's needed.

 

[dk0]

Also, the Mirotar 500 F4.5 will not work with the Canon 1DsII using a simple CY/EOS adapter. I tried to use this with the Canon 1DsII, and the lens focusing bellows system does not clear the body of the Canon. However, it will clear if you add a Mutar. I think it should clear a smaller Canon body, like the 5D, but I have not actually tried.

 

[antonyb]

"Gotta butt in here and just mention that when you get into this range of lens, Canon IS glass really comes into play as a consideration. Their long optics aren't to be confused with all the other stuff they make. A cheap Canon body is all that's needed."

Marc, (or anyone else for that matter) I have a couple of IS lenses and am contemplating the EFS 10-22 (which I am told is actually L glass but Canon wont associate anything non-full frame with the L monika) - do you have any experience of this lens? or its rivals?

sorry for being off topic...

 

[fotografz]

10-22 is okay Antony. Crisp pics and decent color ... but it color fringes too much for me. I had one and sold it.

I won't invest in any cropped frame lenses any longer. I doubt Canon will even make cropped frame DSLRs with-in a couple of years... on which those lenses will be useless. The 16-35 is a better investment IMO. Not as wide, but how wide do you really need? Truthfully, only you can answer that question.

 

[bobbytan]

I agree with you Marc. The EF-S 10-22 is "OK" at best and certainly not on par with an "L" lens. I had it when I had my 20D. It's no match for the 17-40L either.

If any non-L lens is as good as an L lens in terms of sharpness, contrast and color, and also in terms of low distortion, it would be the 50/2.5 macro, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 macro USM.

 

[antonyb]

ok thanks guys. i'd love something like the EF 16-35 F2.8L but as i use a 20D the crop factor would mean that i end up with pretty much the same lens i already have, (in terms of range at least). I have an EF75-300IS and have to say, so far I have been pretty dissapointed! its making me wonder whether the jump upto the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS should be made. any thoughts on either of those two lenses?



antony

 

[antonyb]

talking of good canon glass...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

FYI

 

[bobbytan]

Antony, if you are shooting with a 20D you should get the 10-22 because even though it may not be as sharp as either the 16-35L or 17-40L, it's still very decent and better than the 3rd party options.

I've never had or used the 100-400L but those who own it all say it's a very sharp lens. Check out the FM user reviews on this lens.