Bob, focus is primarily pre-focusing (home plate, first base, etc). Is the depth of field shallower than a conventional lens at the same aperture? Toronto's baseball stadium is domed, and though it is retractable, 80% of the games are at night under artificial light.
Exposure at Rogers Centre (formerly SkyDome) is around 1/1000 f4 - 5.6 with ISO 1600 under the lights. -Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: mirror/cat lenses Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:19 pm Size: 1K To: [email protected] On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > I was wondering if anyone here had experience with faster mirror > lenses. I saw a lens that tickled my fancy and budget, a 300mm > f4.5, and I've been thinking about picking it up. > > www.rugift.com/photocameras/rubinar_300_lens.htm > > I'd be primarily using it for baseball, for which I've been > stealing Dave Brooks' Sigma 300mm f4. Speed-wise I've been > shooting f5.6-ish anyways, so the fixed aperture is not an issue. > > Part of my interest is the size/weight factor; another part is the > desire to differentiate my work. Aside from the donuts, what are > the usual characteristics of a mirror lens? > > I probably shouldn't buy it. If I buy it and hate it, are there > any Toronto PDMLers who'd want to buy a slightly used 300mm f4.5 > for 90% of the price listed at that link? > > Alternately, is anyone out there looking to sell some longer, > faster glass? 300mm is a bit short for a cat lens. I have the 500/5.6 MC Rubinar Macro and the 1000/8 Rubinar Macro. Both are very good, but the 500 is significantly better. These are not good lenses for sports since they are rather slow to focus and the depth of field is very shallow. They're best for static or slowly moving subjects. Bob
