Simon, are you using it with a mirror camera or mirrorless one?

@@SIBIRIAKoriginal Both - a Sony a7iv mirrorless and a Pentax K1 DSLR.

Mmmmm donuts

My Rubinar 500/5.6 is a delight. and absolutely massive.

Gosh it’s ugly lol

I don't get the obsession with "perfect" lenses. Let lenses be special. Let there be niches. I think often "perfect" quality lenses can look incredibly boring.

I like them too. You gotta know what you buy first.. Then complain

Lmaoooo

As a Spurs (soccer) supporter, the phrase blowing bubbles (from West Ham) rather rankles. But good idea - I'll try this.

@@Simonsutak That's funny I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about because I'm here in America and don't follow any sports at all anymore because they've made it all political. But I think with the right background and the right individual blowing soap bubbles you could make it look like they were blowing the entire world into existence or something. Could be very artistic if done correctly. God bless I hope everything is good for you over in that part of the world

I said the same thing in the comments!

@@danielnorman8595 Spurs and West Ham are two big soccer teams based in London with a long rivalry. The American song I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles was adopted as the anthem of West Ham.

@@barneylaurance1865 Thank you for that explanation I understand now

I'd agree with your assessment, I use a couple old Soviet mirror lenses on a Sony A7SII and for the most don't have any issues nailing focus or getting enough light and the IBIS works well enough that I don't really need a tripod unless I'm trying to get video.

Maybe the thread mount is M42x0,75 - i.e. T-mount.

Thank you! So you haven't spotted me yet around Chiswick House and gardens?!

@@Simonsutak Not yet, but I shall keep an eye out for a man with a Takumar. I might even take one of mine on my K1.

Because it's a copied design. It basically is the RF-ROKKOR. Another tell tale is the M42 mount, which is exclusively an SLR mount like the SR mount in the rokkor

There is always a distinct softness to a mirror lens with a catadioptric design. However this one in particular seems to be slightly corrected optically.

That the Rubinars? MTO maybe?

@@somegeezer MTO for both, good call!

This is a very interesting question! I like using the Sony EVF's functions - where you zoom into the scene and focus on precisely what you want to focus on, through the viewfinder. My Pentax K-1's rear screen allows you to do this as well. But outside, in the daylight, it can be hard to see details on the screen. However, I do prefer the optical view from the Pentax's mirror/prism. It's a more natural look. Indeed, it's so good I found focussing through the viewfinder, without focus zoom, reasonably easy. I'd say around 80/20 Sony/Pentax for the pictures in the video - perhaps more for the Sony. That's because I used the Sony for videos as well, so I normally took the Sony out with the lens. If you send me your email, I can give you access to all the images I've posted privately on Flickr using the lens with the Sony and Pentax - if you'd like to go through them all!

@@Simonsutak Look into a Hoodman loupe for using live view / rear screen on the Pentax. Basically turns the live view screen into a giant EVF that can be used in daylight. Also, a question - does this lens do infinity focus when used with an M42 -> K adapter? Did you have to use an adapter with glass to accomodate infinity focus?

I've talked about the SMC K 85mm f1.8 before. I owned one but sold it because I needed the money for another lens and preferred the Takumar f1.9 (which I still own). Do you mean the Pentax M 85mm f2? This is a lovely, small, lens. I've used one briefly, but not owned one and was very impressed.

I will if I can find the time. Do you like the performance of your lens?

Thanks - I've changed the link, it should work now.

@@Simonsutak Many thanks. But I just remembered I have an old 250mm Tamron reflex, which I will pull out of storage to try. I love my 500mm reflexes, but as you say, they can be a bit of a beast to handle. My favorite use is with a 1.4 TC, using the 500 as a close-up lens.

Yes, focus peaking is strong on my Sony a7iv with this lens. However, with a narrow depth of field around the focus point, I preferred to use the zoom-in EVF view to nail the focus on precisely where I wanted the focus.

@@Simonsutak I agree, the zoom in is the better choice, mirror lenses are very sensitive to the focus point, it needs to be exactly on point !

Because sometimes they may not be dressed in regular clothing, but camouflage as well? Seems quite obvious, no?

OK. It's true - I've been positive about the last four lenses I've reviewed. (1) This 250mm reflex lens is a better, lighter, cleaner, easier to focus option IMO than the 500mm mirror lens I own and reviewed. I was very careful to use the same words about the donuts in each video. "You have to embrace the donuts". You might not like them. But if you do embrace them you can produce interesting artistic effects. (2) The Brightin Star f0.95 is impressively sharp wide open - I enjoyed trying such a fast lens. (3) The Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 Classic is a fine lens (when I bought my original FA 50mm f1.4, it was rated as one of the best fast fifties) with amazing rainbow flares. (4) TTARTISAN's 100mm Trioplan copy is a great way to try triplet bokeh at a much lower price than the original Meyer Optik Gorlitz lens. It is true I've been critical of the hype surrounding some of the older lenses I've purchased and tried recently. The Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8 and the Olympus Zeiko 50mm f1.4 being two cases in point. You might not agree with my opinions but they are only my opinions. Alternatively, I've been very positive about some other old lenses. So it is true I've said good things about lenses I've been sent to review. But there's a self-selecting reason for that. You may be surprised to read that I turn down quite a lot of requests to do new lens reviews. If I know I'd have to say - why are you producing this lens?..or..there are better options already on the market...etc etc...I won't do a review.

@@Simonsutak thank you a lot for the answer and explanation. I love your truth and integrity. I will keep watching all your videos as I did before. And while I'm here I hope in the future you will cover contax-yashica Carl Zeiss lenses. Have good day!

@@yesanton Many thanks for your kind words. I would very much like to try the C/Y Carl Zeiss Planar f1.4. But for the moment, I've recently purchased a RE Topcor 58mm f1.4 and a f1.8, and they are keeping me busy!

@@Simonsutak "If I know I'd have to say - why are you producing this lens?..or..there are better options already on the market...etc etc...I won't do a review." In aggregate this is still a way of giving a biased impression of how good lenses are. Each lens only gets reviewed by people who expect to like it. It's a bit like the file drawer effect in academia where research with negative results doesn't get published.

@@barneylaurance1865 You make a very relevant point. I've often wondered what I would do if I was sent a lens to review that I really didn't like. Would I send it back and say I can't review it? Or would I give it a bad review in public? Fortunately, I've not been in that position...yet.