I have been offered the chance to shoot this lens on "spec" before buying but I have to pay for round-trip shipping. I have heard this was a $30K lens when new and is supposed to outperform other lenses in terms of resolution.

Has anyone actually used one of these, and, if so, what did you think?

The disadvantages are obvious--large, no vertical shooting, fixed aperture. Still, it is ideal for bird or wildlife portraits. the price is the same is as a Canon 500f4 L.

Is it worth the expensive shipping to try this lens?

thanks!!

Well, FWIW you can look at the MTF´s at

http://www.smt.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Mirotar4.5_500mm_e/$File/Mirotar4.5_500mm_e.pdf

If you don´t like it send me a PM and I´ll help you get rid of the pain. Since I got my ZE21I´ve suffered a getmorezeiss-frenzy, untouchable by any nonprozeissial argument.

I've never seen this lens, but how could you not orient it to a vertical orientation? And, it has no aperture control? Pretty strange.

Jeffrey wrote:
And, it has no aperture control? Pretty strange.

No, this is standard for lenses designed like this.

Wikipedia

Just to make sure: you are talking about the Zeiss (West) Mirotar 500/4.5, not the Zeiss (Jena) Spiegelobjektiv 500/4.5? Both are reported to be great mirror lenses, but the Mirotar should warrant a higher price. According to the spec sheet, the Mirotar has a way of switching between horizontal and vertical shooting.

Most people like mirror lenses for their relative light weight and compactness. The Zeiss 500/4.5 lenses are neither (OK, a little more compact):

Zeiss Mirotar 500mm f/4.5 (193 x 235mm) (4,500g)
Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM Lens (146 x 387mm) (3,870g)

You'll get a distracting out of focus rendition and a lack of adjustable aperture. For practical use the Canon will be much more practical. Still, if you have a love/lust for Zeiss and you like the notion of owning a very rare lens, I'd say get it and report back on the IQ.

Thanks, everyone for your responses. I found some sample photos taken with the lens after a lengthy search. It was/is tack sharp with no CA whatsoever. The busy, nervous bokeh, however, is just not for me. It would be a very expensive and very limited use lens.

I am going to have a Contax N 400mm teleapotessar converted to Canon mount. Using the 7D will give me a 560mm f4 with gorgeous bokeh and all the optical benefits (sharpness/no CA) of the mirror lens. Much more practical and even with the conversion cost and adding the 7d body about the same price as the mirror lens alone.

These were probably the end of the world when they were introduced in the 70s, but modern refractive lenses seem virtually as good and better in the bokeh/controllable depth of field respects.

Guy

Out of curiosity, in what respect would the converted 400/4 be better suited to your needs than a Canon 500/4 IS? Since the original lens you were looking at was a 500mm, you may miss the extra 100mm focal length. The weight difference is minimal, 3850g for the Canon, 3580g Contax. Don't get me wrong, I really like using unusual lenses on my Canons, just not sure how much you gain by going Contax. Maybe if you manage to find a reasonably priced one..

Alternative forum or not, it is hard to beat the EF 500/4.

I lucked out on a brand-new in-box 400 from a reputable dealer at a price that will allow me to have the conversion done and still end up under $4K. I could add a 7D body and still be at the price of the 500 alone. That is one big advantage.

When Zeiss says APO performance, I expect it will be true. Certainly, the 350 APO and 120 APO for my Contax 645 are the finest optical instruments I have ever used. The film shots from the Zeiss 400 (I tested it on an N1 with Velvia) are stellar, and the digital images/crops I have seen posted here show an incredible amount of resolution and clean fine detail from the Zeiss. The rest is on faith for now.

I can't say what CA control the Canon shows, though, but it certainly has a great reputation. I did love my Canon 400 2.8 (original Mark I non-IS version) but it died of motor failure may years ago. I cannot say, though, that the film slides I shot with the Canon are sharper that the recent ones I shot with the Zeiss (they are not, in my view). If the price for the converted Zeiss were the same as the Canon, then honestly I probably would have gone for the Canon (or, realistically, just could not have afforded either one). But I am hoping to have equivalent or better quality at a much lower price.

dickb wrote:
Just to make sure: you are talking about the Zeiss (West) Mirotar 500/4.5, not the Zeiss (Jena) Spiegelobjektiv 500/4.5? Both are reported to be great mirror lenses, but the Mirotar should warrant a higher price. According to the spec sheet, the Mirotar has a way of switching between horizontal and vertical shooting.

Most people like mirror lenses for their relative light weight and compactness. The Zeiss 500/4.5 lenses are neither (OK, a little more compact):

Zeiss Mirotar 500mm f/4.5 (193 x 235mm) (4,500g)
Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM Lens (146 x 387mm) (3,870g)

You'll get a distracting out of focus rendition and a lack of adjustable aperture. For practical use the Canon will be much more practical. Still, if you have a love/lust for Zeiss and you like the notion of owning a very rare lens, I'd say get it and report back on the IQ.

I don't get it. Why is is so heavy?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

because it is German?