# 600mm too long?



## Morlin (Dec 17, 2013)

Hi. 

Ok.. I know that there has been several threads regarding this focal length and I have also created one earlier regarding the accessories needed to support and use a lens this big but here comes another one =) 

It´s hard for me to rent one and I have no friend that owns one so the only thing I can do to get an idea about using this focal length is to look at many pictures of a variety of animals and try to figure out if it´s a good thing to go for or not. 

Is it a very limited use for this lens? Does objects need to be VERY far away to fill the frame in a good way? 
Of course I understand that an elephant can´t be compared to a small bird in an example and that is not the flexibility I am asking for when purchasing this lens. But maybe there is someone out there who can give me their thoughts on how it is to use a 600mm? 

I photograph everything. All from wild boars and deers to tiny birds. Is it too limited so any place that has not got an open area of many meters is too hard to handle? Do I need open fields or is it flexible enough in the woods? Now I am talking about the focal length and not the handling. 

Do you who own this lens often feel that a 500mm would have been a better focal length and for you who own a 500mm does it feel a bit short from time to time? I know that many use their 600mm with converters so that is a proof that more reach is wanted sometimes but for avarage use and not only small birds? 

On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on. I have a 70-200mm which will often follow as a backup and I think I later will go with the 300mm 2,8 as a more flexible smaller lens those days the big one will stay at home or so. 

I know it´s tricky to answer but maybe you who have the lens can tell me your thoughts and how you use it. And maybe even what made you go for this instead of the 500mm.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 17, 2013)

I use it for birds in flight but I have also used it for landscape as well as other nature photos. It all depends on how close you are going to get. For a zoo it's too much lens...for a safari you may wish you had an 800. I use this lens almost exclusively now with a full frame camera. With a cropped sensor camera you get about the same fl with a 400mm. You could also rent a 300 mm and a 2xiii converter and see how you like the fl.


----------



## lol (Dec 17, 2013)

I haven't used a 600mm prime, but do use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with 2x at times. In that sense I find the zoom valuable. For a similar price to the 600L, there's the 200-400L that could be considered? At 600mm it will have less aperture than the 600L, but you gain the benefit of the zoom.

At a practical level I'm not keen on the weight of the Sigma, so I hate to imagine lugging the 600L around in the wild. I haven't used either but do understand the weight difference between the 500L and 600L is quite significant.


----------



## Morlin (Dec 17, 2013)

I have thought about the 200-400L but I want the shallower dof you get from the prime lenses 500-600mm and also I want the reach you can get from a 500-600 with a converter. The 200-400mm is a good one but it´s too big for the shorter distances where I might have wanted a easier lens to carry. For those times I think I would manage having 200-400 in focal length I would prefer carrying a 300mm 2,8 instead even though the zoom has the benefit of the built in converter. With the 200-400 I would have flexibility in reach but not handling. 

My thoughts are:

One "monster" like the 500 or 600 and then a faster more versatile lens for narrower or "quicker" shots or dusk/dawn where a 2,8 is needed. Or for those days I will walk around a lot in the woods where a big one is to hard to handle.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 17, 2013)

A 300/2.8 and 600/4 combo is great. I decided to go for the 200-400 in combination with the 600. I have not regretted it. I would not worry much about DOF with the 200-400. 400 at f4 gives you pretty thin DOF and a good pop. At 560 f5.6 it is the same. But the primes are of course a little bit thinner. I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, but sold it when I got the 200-400. I am still thinking about the 300 f2.8L IS II. It may have the fastest and most accurate AF and it is extremely sharp, even with the 1.4x/2xIII extenders.

Regarding the 600, I have almost never felt that it is too long. I actually believe >80% of my shots are with the 1.4xIII extender. Since you have to do this a bit theoretically, one way of getting a feel for it is to calculate how far away you need to be, for whatever you are shooting to fill the frame, and then go out a see what that means in real life. My guess would be that you could use the 600 for most of it. If you complement that with a 300, you are definitely well set up.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 17, 2013)

Morlin said:


> On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on.



MFD of the 600mm is 14.77 feet.
You can not be closer than that.

For birds and foxes you want the 600mm.
For big game like deer and elk the 500mm would be my preference.

It all depends on how close you regularly get. 

The difference in the two lenses isn't that drastic, simple explanation is that you will have the same field of view with the 500mm at 500' that you do with the 600mm at 600'. You have about a 18% reach advantage with the 600mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> Morlin said:
> 
> 
> > On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on.
> ...



The MFD is easily worked around with the use of a 15 or 25 mm extension tube.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Morlin said:
> ...



Yes it is, but I didn't say a 600mm with an extension tube is....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2013)

Morlin said:


> ... the only thing I can do to get an idea about using this focal length is to look at many pictures of a variety of animals and try to figure out if it´s a good thing to go for or not.



I'm not sure how helpful it is to look at others' images. You might try cropping a bunch of your images to 1/3 their original size (1/3 of width, 1/3 of height), and if you're cutting off lots if body parts, 600mm might be too long. 

I don't find it too long, in fact, I probably shoot about 85% with the 1.4xIII, 5% with the 2xIII, and only 10% with the bare lens (on a FF camera). 

The shots below are with the 1.4x, the second one as the hawk flew close by is uncropped in the horzontal direction, and for that shot I had to add a little canvas on the right to give the red tail some 'flying room' in the frame. There were a couple of shots in the series where a wing tip was out of the frame, so _maybe_ 840mm was too long, but 600mm wouldn't have been. 

_"Taking Flight"_



EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/2500 s, f/8, ISO 640

_"Flyby"_



EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/2500 s, f/8, ISO 640


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

My longest lens is 400mm on a crop body. It is not long enough for birding and wildlife. Many times you can not get any closer without swimming, or if you get close enough for a picture, the animal leaves. Sometimes you do not want to get closer (I call my 400 my Grizzly Bear lens cause that's as close as I want to get).

I would love to have a 600F4, and if I did get one it would be paired with a 1.4X teleconverter for more reach.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 17, 2013)

So...as with any lens there is a penalty when using an extender. The 1.4xiii is undoubtedly the best choice for most cases but the biggest hit you get is with AF speed. I've found with the 5diii or 1dx that you don't gain a whole lot with the extender. I've compared crops with and without and you can't really tell the difference in the real world without pixel peeping. You are far better off in aperture and AF speed to use the big primes without an extender and crop in post. An exception is when your subject is at the limit of the system and then an extender will help. However honestly if the subject is at the limit of the 600 you may be better off waiting for another opportunity.





Don Haines said:


> My longest lens is 400mm on a crop body. It is not long enough for birding and wildlife. Many times you can not get any closer without swimming, or if you get close enough for a picture, the animal leaves. Sometimes you do not want to get closer (I call my 400 my Grizzly Bear lens cause that's as close as I want to get).
> 
> I would love to have a 600F4, and if I did get one it would be paired with a 1.4X teleconverter for more reach.


----------



## Morlin (Dec 17, 2013)

I really like this forum. Said it before and it´s worth mentioning again =)

So you have convinced me =) I will keep on saving with the aim towards the 600mm. Maybe in a couple of month if it all turns out well. I have enough for the lens itself pretty soon but I don´t want to buy it before I have all the other gear it takes to use it. Of course it can be handheld but I have a looong list that includes all from a RRS tripod and leveling base to lenscoat camo, Wimberley gimbal head and a Lowepro bag for it =) Much much money but my girlfriend is ok with it so and we have food on the table so why not. Sold my motorbike and this is my only interest so let it cost then. There must be more reasons to go to work than just get your bills and food paid. Hehe.

I live very near a good place where I always see fallow deer every time I am over there and often eagles, foxes, moose, badgers and a lot of other animals. It´s a photographers heaven. Of course nothing like a rainforrest or safari in Africa but really good to have 10 minutes away =)


----------



## surapon (Dec 17, 2013)

Morlin said:


> Hi.
> 
> Ok.. I know that there has been several threads regarding this focal length and I have also created one earlier regarding the accessories needed to support and use a lens this big but here comes another one =)
> 
> ...



Dear Morlin.
Your Question = " 600mm too long? " , Do you ever seen 16 "/50 Caliber M 1919 Gun in US Army ?---Is it too long ?----The Answer is NO, Not Too long, Depend on what will we/ US Army use for. Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer, That why 2-3 years ago, I get 600 mm. And I am very happy ABOUT THIS third big Gun---Yes, Next will be my 800 mm, And If my wife do not divorce me before I die, My last lens is 1,200 mm. ( $ 120,000 US Dollars ???)---Ha, Ha, Ha
Nice to talk to you.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Dec 17, 2013)

Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
Surapon


----------



## Morlin (Dec 17, 2013)

surapon said:


> Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
> Surapon



Never given the moon that much of a thought as a object to photograph but as you show it can be really nice pictures. 
Thank you for your advices and I am getting more and more convinced that I will be happy with a 600mm. 

I have the 2x mkiii converter and have used it sometimes on my 70-200 but never really liked the result that much. Often better to crop. But guess I will save it though if I ever get the 300mm which seems to be the best lens to use it with.

Nice to see your photos. Someday I might post some myself showing the result of my new purchase =)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

Morlin said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
> ...



On most lenses a teleconverter costs you resolving power, but when you use ultra sharp lenses like the big whites, the lens is so sharp that the degraded image through a teleconverter is still better than the camera could normally resolve.


----------



## surapon (Dec 17, 2013)

Morlin said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
> ...



You are welcome, Dear Morlin.
I still in learning stage in every days, Yes, Learning from all of our friends, CR Members = The PRO, SEMI-PRO and Hobbyist----Yes, Some time, If we think( Ha, Ha, Ha = ???), We know some Information or Good Tricks/ Mistake that we made in the Past, Yes, We just share to our friends. Yes I was the Member of " Multiply web site" for 8 years, we do the same thing here, SHARING---But The Multiply Web site was closed 11 months ago.
Yes, Please Post your Photos, Good or Bad---No one care, But my point are, We learn from the UNIQUE POINT OF VIEWS of all the Photos that Post Here----Yes, The Difference Technique of individual Photographers too. No, So many times, Sharp or not sharp is not matter, But The Most important Idea are the Composition, The Story Teller and The Point of Views.----Just only my IDEAS, Some of our friends might think in difference ways, depend on their skill and knowledge of their brains.
Have a great day.
Surapon


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 17, 2013)

Morlin said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
> ...



The 2 x Mk3 extender is quite useable with the 600 F4 IS Mk1 in good light and (apparently) better with the 600 Mk2.
You didn't say whether you were looking to get a 600 Mk1 or Mk2. I used to have the Mk1 and it is a superb lens, but very heavy - the Mk2 is significantly lighter but more expensive.

As to the lens being too long, well sometime, it can be - but not often! I sold my 600 to help pay for a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - so I think you can guess my opinion on how often the 600 was too long!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2013)

Where I live you can rarely get close enough to birds. 600 is not long enough for me. But, on my one birding holiday in Brazil, the 100-400 on a 7D was pretty optimal as we got so close to the birds and a 600 would have been too long and unwieldy for much of the time.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 18, 2013)

Morlin, yes the lens is just the first big expense. It can be handheld for about 10 or 15 seconds....more if you work out with it! Not something you want to do every day. The shot below is one I took hand held on a VERY windy and cold morning (hat blew off and ended up hiking after it after the shoot) with IS enabled. I had just pulled into a parking lot and this adult was feeding in a tree over a nearby creek...no time to deal with tripods or monopods...just get out and start shooting...freezing cold and screaming in pain from holding the lens up for so long...but I got the shot. So maybe get the lens and move forward with the accessories later. Have some fun first.




Morlin said:


> I really like this forum. Said it before and it´s worth mentioning again =)
> 
> So you have convinced me =) I will keep on saving with the aim towards the 600mm. Maybe in a couple of month if it all turns out well. I have enough for the lens itself pretty soon but I don´t want to buy it before I have all the other gear it takes to use it. Of course it can be handheld but I have a looong list that includes all from a RRS tripod and leveling base to lenscoat camo, Wimberley gimbal head and a Lowepro bag for it =) Much much money but my girlfriend is ok with it so and we have food on the table so why not. Sold my motorbike and this is my only interest so let it cost then. There must be more reasons to go to work than just get your bills and food paid. Hehe.
> 
> I live very near a good place where I always see fallow deer every time I am over there and often eagles, foxes, moose, badgers and a lot of other animals. It´s a photographers heaven. Of course nothing like a rainforrest or safari in Africa but really good to have 10 minutes away =)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Where I live you can rarely get close enough to birds. 600 is not long enough for me. But, on my one birding holiday in Brazil, the 100-400 on a 7D was pretty optimal as we got so close to the birds and a 600 would have been too long and unwieldy for much of the time.


I agree, I can rarely get close enough.

The issue becomes complicated with very long focal lengths, distortion from the air, haze, vibration, and the like seem to make 1200mm as much as I can handle. I tried my 600mm with 2 TC's stacked so it was at 1680mm and ended up with really poor quality images. This was partly due to vibration, distortion from the two TC's, and haze or air currents. Even then, eagles that I thought were close were still too small in the image, and cropping severely made it worse yet.


----------



## Morlin (Dec 18, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Morlin, yes the lens is just the first big expense. It can be handheld for about 10 or 15 seconds....more if you work out with it! Not something you want to do every day. The shot below is one I took hand held on a VERY windy and cold morning (hat blew off and ended up hiking after it after the shoot) with IS enabled. I had just pulled into a parking lot and this adult was feeding in a tree over a nearby creek...no time to deal with tripods or monopods...just get out and start shooting...freezing cold and screaming in pain from holding the lens up for so long...but I got the shot. So maybe get the lens and move forward with the accessories later. Have some fun first.
> 
> 
> Really like the picture of the eagle. Birds of prey is nothing that has been avaliable for me earlier but that will
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 18, 2013)

Morlin said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Morlin, yes the lens is just the first big expense. It can be handheld for about 10 or 15 seconds....more if you work out with it! Not something you want to do every day. The shot below is one I took hand held on a VERY windy and cold morning (hat blew off and ended up hiking after it after the shoot) with IS enabled. I had just pulled into a parking lot and this adult was feeding in a tree over a nearby creek...no time to deal with tripods or monopods...just get out and start shooting...freezing cold and screaming in pain from holding the lens up for so long...but I got the shot. So maybe get the lens and move forward with the accessories later. Have some fun first.
> ...


----------



## Morlin (Jan 28, 2014)

And now I have bought it!! 

Just needed to tell someone before I expload from the inside of excitement! =) 

I hope I can get it at the store this Thursday or Friday. Also bought a 1,4 converter and a Lowepro Lens trekker AW II. This weekend I will also order a RRS TVC-34L, Wimberley gimbal head, RRS lens foot and some other stuff. 

Broke but happy =) 

Thank you all for your advices.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 28, 2014)

Morlin said:


> Broke but happy =)


I think we all know that feeling, but congrats on the new lens and upcoming gear. I'm sure you'll make great use of it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 28, 2014)

Morlin said:


> And now I have bought it!!
> 
> Just needed to tell someone before I expload from the inside of excitement! =)
> 
> ...



Nice one, congrats!
Now looking forward to seeing those birds and foxes 
Indeed, a quick browse through the lens galleries usually makes my day a lot better...


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 28, 2014)

Morlin said:


> And now I have bought it!!
> 
> Just needed to tell someone before I expload from the inside of excitement! =)
> 
> ...



Good job, depending on the actual definition of "broke". I would never want to put myself in a position where I actually have nothing in the bank, but spending leftover cash is a good feeling.

Right now I'm debating between getting a new car, or a nice used car with leftovers going to a big white. I really have no need for any of it, but those who are good at saving get to have these problems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2014)

Congrats and enjoy!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Morlin said:
> 
> 
> > Broke but happy =)
> ...



+1....stay broke with photography(hobby) bank account is *OK*


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> A 300/2.8 and 600/4 combo is great. I decided to go for the 200-400 in combination with the 600. I have not regretted it. I would not worry much about DOF with the 200-400. 400 at f4 gives you pretty thin DOF and a good pop. At 560 f5.6 it is the same. But the primes are of course a little bit thinner. I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, but sold it when I got the 200-400. I am still thinking about the 300 f2.8L IS II. It may have the fastest and most accurate AF and it is extremely sharp, even with the 1.4x/2xIII extenders.
> 
> Regarding the 600, I have almost never felt that it is too long. I actually believe >80% of my shots are with the 1.4xIII extender. Since you have to do this a bit theoretically, one way of getting a feel for it is to calculate how far away you need to be, for whatever you are shooting to fill the frame, and then go out a see what that means in real life. My guess would be that you could use the 600 for most of it. If you complement that with a 300, you are definitely well set up.



I might take this route very soon.........


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 28, 2014)

Morlin said:


> And now I have bought it!!
> 
> Just needed to tell someone before I expload from the inside of excitement! =)
> 
> ...



Congrats.........don't be shy to post some pics


----------



## applecider (Jan 28, 2014)

Two pictures from a walk around a local park in Portland OR during a sunny January day. Both taken with the 600mm with a 2x extender. The first a Great Blue Heron in a tree over the path and the second a wood duck taking off- with an inadequate shutter speed causing unsharpness. The GBH is cropped a little the wood duck is adobe bridged for exposure and sharpness conversion from raw to jpeg, otherwise unchanged.
Edit my point here is that the the 840 (600+1.4) is not too long for a variety of fairly close range wild life use, the second picture would have been better if I had been able to remove the 1.4, and upped the shutter speed.


----------



## Morlin (Jan 28, 2014)

Thank you all. 

Like a child waiting for Christmas I´m almost having a hard time getting to sleep because of the excitement and expectations. I know though that there will be a learning period to use that focal length but I´m willing to practice. 

I have my "camera gear account" and that one will be pretty empty after this but I sold my motorbike (a sports bike with expensive insurance) and did a lot of paid studio photography and so on last year to save the money needed. I guess I would have a pretty upset girlfriend if this was taken from our ordinary account but she is very understanding and knows that this is my only interest and there is no place I´m so calm and feeling so good as in the woods. =) 

Pictures will be posted later and I totally agree that a daily check in the lens picture category and also the different categories as BIF and so on is worth a daily check =) 

Really glad I found this forum. So many people with knowledge that are helpful and also have humor. Much appreciated. 

For those interested here is a link to some pictures. http://www.pbnphoto.se/djur

Have more on Facebook. Also PBN Photo. The language is Swedish but I guess you can have a look around anyway. "Fotogalleri" = Photo gallery. The site is not the best when it comes to looking at pictures but it´s free and ok enough for me and my hobby for now. 

Now I will try to get some sleep to make the time go faster until Thursday =)


----------



## candc (Jan 29, 2014)

You have a lot of really good photos posted on that site. Looking at what you have there I would think the 200-400 would fit the variety of shooting that you do very well, I really don't think you are going to be wanting a shallower dof than what that lens offers, usually you want to stop down at those long fl to get more in focus, not less.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 29, 2014)

Is that doughnuts I see?


----------



## Morlin (Jan 29, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Is that doughnuts I see?



Doughnuts? Where? Or what do you mean?


----------



## Morlin (Jan 29, 2014)

candc said:


> You have a lot of really good photos posted on that site. Looking at what you have there I would think the 200-400 would fit the variety of shooting that you do very well, I really don't think you are going to be wanting a shallower dof than what that lens offers, usually you want to stop down at those long fl to get more in focus, not less.



Thank you. I have a lot more that do qualify for my little site but I´m a bit lazy updating it. Might be more often when I have the 600mm =)

The choice was hard between the 600mm and the 200-400mm but my thought was that when I walk around in the woods doing my best to come near the animals and don´t have a specific breed in mind to photograph and where the 200-400mm and the flexibility that it offers would come in handy I think it´s too heavy and big to be seen as versatile. And when I move around like that in the woods I don´t like to carry too much heavy gear and want to be able to crawl and move very easy to get close. For an example I often climb up a little bit in a tree and so on to get closer to the animals. Today I use a 70-200 for that but my goal is to have a 300mm 2,8 for that and also use it with converters when I want the portability and also reach. But for the longer distance shots and when I have planned where to sit and need the reach I think that 600mm will come in handy.

Thanks though for the advice and your thoughts.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 29, 2014)

Thank you. I have a lot more that do qualify for my little site but I´m a bit lazy updating it. Might be more often when I have the 600mm =)

The choice was hard between the 600mm and the 200-400mm but my thought was that when I walk around in the woods doing my best to come near the animals and don´t have a specific breed in mind to photograph and where the 200-400mm and the flexibility that it offers would come in handy I think it´s too heavy and big to be seen as versatile. And when I move around like that in the woods I don´t like to carry too much heavy gear and want to be able to crawl and move very easy to get close. For an example I often climb up a little bit in a tree and so on to get closer to the animals. Today I use a 70-200 for that but my goal is to have a 300mm 2,8 for that and also use it with converters when I want the portability and also reach. But for the longer distance shots and when I have planned where to sit and need the reach I think that 600mm will come in handy.

Thanks though for the advice and your thoughts.
[/quote]

I found the combination of a 600 F4 IS Mk1 and a 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 to be excellent but a bit heavy when carrying both! Given that you have bought the, much lighter, 600 Mk2 adding a 300 F2.8 would still allow you to cover reasonable distances and offer great flexibility (greater with your extenders). When you have to do some more serious walking the 300 will shine as it works so well with extenders, it will fit (with the hood in the ready position) in your pack and give a very good lightweight setup with serious reach in good light.
You are going to have some fun with your new lens, adding a 300 F2.8 will just be icing on the cake!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 30, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Morlin said:
> 
> 
> > And now I have bought it!!
> ...



Go with a used car and a big white. A new car doesnt get you much but a loss of thousands as soon as youndrive it off the lot. Put that money toward a good lens. There really is no other logical choice in the matter.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 31, 2014)

Morlin said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Is that doughnuts I see?
> ...



On your website, in the tenth image from the bottom (and a few others) the bokeh looks like the ring effect you get with a mirror lens. If that's the case it makes your images that much more impressive, as far as I know mirror lenses don't have autofocus.


----------

