Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

5 inch f/4.5 Cooke Anastigmat.... test of the second Cooke
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:08 pm    Post subject: 5 inch f/4.5 Cooke Anastigmat.... test of the second Cooke Reply with quote

I succeeded in doing some shooting with one of the new toys, the 5 inch f/4.5 Cooke Anastigmat extracted from the front panel of a late 1920's Thornton-Pickard reflex camera and mounted on a 5D using bellows for focusing. It was too cold and windy for very exact focusing and framing, but the lens seems to be OK. Here are a couple of examples, and more can be found at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos5d_tpca.html



Note the bokeh in the following shots:







Here it is, this time mounted on a 350D:



The back edge of the lens barrel is glued on an M42 extension tube from which the auto-aperture mechanism has been removed. The glue was of a slowly setting type, and I used Blu-Tack for centering the barrel within the slightly too wide tube. The widest part of the lens assembly is the aperture ring.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks on the same quality level as your previous Cooke triplet - it's fantastic how you can revive these old lenses. The bokeh is magnificent.
-


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that it looks as good in quality as the previous Cooke you showed. However, the bokeh here has a little more "pizazz" for me.

In particular, the shot through the rigging ropes, shows a beatuiful fading of the masts in the background, yet there are some nice effects going on in the ever-so-slight double-ring specules on the light sources.

The detail in the ropes is stunning! Did you do any sharpening to bring this out?

In fact, that particular black and white image is one of the best I've seen in a while, anywhere. The tonality is to die for, and the richness of the greys is over the top. It exudes a feeling of a cool, misty day.

The depth of field falls off quickly, looking at the halyards and pulleys on the left side. Do you have the f:stop information available? I assume pretty much a wide-open shot?

Spectacular, and it so much FUN to see what you are achieving! And again, back to the black and white rigging shot - world class, in my little opinion. Devastating Shocked .

postscript: I see now that it was f:4.5...the web images are fantastic as well.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
The detail in the ropes is stunning! Did you do any sharpening to bring this out?


Yes, I did, mainly to increase contrast. Here is an unsharpened version (I reconverted it so the blackpoint may differ somewhat):



Quote:
In fact, that particular black and white image is one of the best I've seen in a while, anywhere. The tonality is to die for, and the richness of the greys is over the top. It exudes a feeling of a cool, misty day.


Well, at a larger size there could be some visible pixelation as I'm using Gimp which is 8-bit only. I converted a JPEG image into LAB space, took the luminance channel as the basis for B&W conversion and adjusted the black point. The bokeh and the lens flare did the rest.

Quote:
Spectacular, and it so much FUN to see what you are achieving! And again, back to the black and white rigging shot - world class, in my little opinion. Devastating Shocked


Thanks Smile Anyway, these old lenses are the proper tools for atmospheric shots. Here is an older shot with the 2.9/50 radionar on 5D:



Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Extremely fascinating. The Radionar 50/2.9 also has a beautiful "look". I assume by the OOF areas, this was at f:2.9. I suppose that such a large aperture might introduce some problems.

I am familiar with the Xenar 50/2.9, and I know that there were many lenses made in the period that equated to 50/2.9. I am assuming the difference between the Radionar and the Xenar probably is the number of elements. (I'm doing a lot of assuming here Very Happy )!

You have inspired me now...I'm going to have to find the time to travel to my father-in-law's home, because I know there is an old Akarette in his storeroom with probably a Radionar on it.

There is also a box there that I haven't explored, but he has indicated that it has "old photo gear in it that I haven't used for 70 years...". The box is marked "Cameras" on the outside.

He is quite a wonderful elderly man with some memory problems and dementia now, but did say that he used to shoot with "the best"...not sure what that means...the best "cameras"', the best "photographers"...just not sure, and now I don't think he has the ability to actually tell me. Sad

One other thing that he mentioned is that there is something called a "carbon" camera in one of his boxes. I'm curious about that as well. I've never heard of something like that.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
Extremely fascinating. The Radionar 50/2.9 also has a beautiful "look". I assume by the OOF areas, this was at f:2.9. I suppose that such a large aperture might introduce some problems.


On a crop body the problems are minor and mostly cut off, on an FF body they are, in a way, one reason to use the lens now, they impart the signature. Of course, the 50 mm Radionar is perhaps the smallest 50 mm lenses you can mount on an EOS:



Quote:
I am familiar with the Xenar 50/2.9, and I know that there were many lenses made in the period that equated to 50/2.9. I am assuming the difference between the Radionar and the Xenar probably is the number of elements. (I'm doing a lot of assuming here Very Happy )!


Radionar is a triplet, Xenar is a Tessar type. However, the main difference here is that a 50 mm Radionar may just be possible to mount on an EOS body, a Xenar is probably impossible because its body may extend too far back - I tried to use a Xenar taken from the same type of 35 mm Balda from which I had taken the Radionar, but it couldn't be used. Even the Radionar is difficult, I had to make a slight modification in order to achieve infinity focus, and now the aperture must be changed before mounting the lens.

Quote:
an old Akarette in his storeroom with probably a Radionar on it.


The registration distance may or may not cause difficulties if you try to use the lens on a different camera.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, these shots look terrific! Great!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I second all comments about particular ambiant pictures taht cooke produces.

Indeed, I think you have some un-rawtizer problems with the B&W one, it has some stranges artefacts on horizontal & vertical lines.

It looks like similar that artefacts on this test page :

http://www.rawtherapee.com/index.php?page=compare&compar=hv


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flor27 wrote:
I second all comments about particular ambiant pictures taht cooke produces.
Indeed, I think you have some un-rawtizer problems with the B&W one, it has some stranges artefacts on horizontal & vertical lines.
It looks like similar that artefacts on this test page :
http://www.rawtherapee.com/index.php?page=compare&compar=hv


Hi Florent, this is interesting.

It's confusing to me, because the artifacts look like the "usual" artifacts from heavy jpeg downsizing that was needed to present the image on the web.

Could you clarify the relationship between the apparent artifacts on the b&w image, and the un-rawtizer problems?

If there is, in fact, a relationship, would something like rawtherapee be useful for presenting web images, or does it have more usefulness in preparation of the image for printing?

Veijo, I am also curious to know how the full-size image looks to you -- does it also have artifacts?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flor27 wrote:

Indeed, I think you have some un-rawtizer problems with the B&W one, it has some stranges artefacts on horizontal & vertical lines.


Do you mean the first B&W photo, above the "Cooke on 350D" picture? It may exhibit some artefacts due to sharpening for screen display, but at that size it shouldn't have any other visible artefacts - unless your browser is resizing the image to fit the screen, the image is supposed to be viewed 1131 pixels high. The original RAW file is so soft that the RAW conversion doesn't cause any.

Quote:
It looks like similar that artefacts on this test page :

http://www.rawtherapee.com/index.php?page=compare&compar=hv


I tried to access that page, but it seems to be unaccessible at the moment. However, I've tested rawtherapee and compared it with LightZone, which is what I'm using. Rawtherapee may be ever so slightly better on some photos when pixel peeping but mostly not and not significantly for any practical purposes. However, LightZone suits my workflow very much better so I'm sticking with it.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
Veijo, I am also curious to know how the full-size image looks to you -- does it also have artifacts?


I don't think so, c.f. http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos5d_tpca_files/ca2_9511bw.jpg

As far as I can see, the only artefacts are caused by lens flare and bokeh.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
Hey, these shots look terrific! Great!


Thanks Smile

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: Re: An initial test of the second Cooke Reply with quote

LensLunatic wrote:
vilva wrote:
I succeeded in doing some shooting with one of the new toys, the 5 inch f/4.5 Cooke Anastigmat extracted from the front panel of a late 1920's Thornton-Pickard reflex camera and mounted on a 5D using bellows for focusing. It was too cold and windy for very exact focusing and framing, but the lens seems to be OK....

Hi Vilva,
your pictures shown here are FAR more than "seemingly OK" .... I LOVE them. The old lenses you've revived deliver very, very "atmospheric" results, the bokeh alone is as pleasantly "dreamy" as one could ever wish for, to say the least. Plainly wonderful artworks to look at. Please keep sharing these with us. Very Happy


Thanks, I'll do that Smile

It is much more rewarding and relaxing to work with these old lenses than with the modern, "high quality" ones, as one doesn't need to be so concerned with the ultimate optical quality all the time, one can just concentrate on photography.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vilva wrote:
Laurence wrote:
Veijo, I am also curious to know how the full-size image looks to you -- does it also have artifacts?


I don't think so, c.f. http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos5d_tpca_files/ca2_9511bw.jpg
As far as I can see, the only artefacts are caused by lens flare and bokeh.
Veijo


Okay, good! Because I would certainly not have anticipated any artefacts at all with the full size print.

These are just exemplary images that you are able to bring out of those old lenses! I never thought that "bokeh" could be so CREAMY and RICH!

As others have said, please continue to bring us the pleasure of viewing your work and your experimentation!

Laurence