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

Dreamy & Ethereal Portraits
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:10 am    Post subject: Dreamy & Ethereal Portraits Reply with quote
I have been using a Sony A7ii and a projection lens (modified rodenstock heligon 95mm F/0.95). Wide open, the results have an ethereal quality about them. In fact, given that I am in India this lens has a lot of potential for some magical pictures, but it is very finicky. The DOF is razor thin, I cannot shoot in full sunlight, and it is quite soft to begin with. But I think the results are worth it. I am wondering whether a fast modern lens would give similar results, or is there something special about this one?

-Charles





PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, if you are looking for a modern lens intended for photography, no lenses exist AFAIK that come close to 95mm f/0.95, with an image circle large enough for your A7 II. My guess is the specific look you like is caused by the razor thin DoF and the out of focus rendering. Modern lenses coming closest to these specs would be 85mm f/1.2 lenses, like the Canon EF L (II), FD L and Aspherical versions, in declining order of modernity. There is also a Zeiss Contax 85/1.2. And the more recent Mitakon and Samyang lenses. Alternatively there is a Sigma 105/1.4. So you lose a bit of speed either way and gain or lose a little focal length.

For shooting in bright sunlight, taping a large square ND filter to the front lens may be solution. I suspect good ND filters in 105mm size or whatever you need for the Heligon will be expensive.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just gorgeous pics. You nailed exactly what I'm looking for, but my best lens for such an effect (MD 58 F 1,2) doesn't come close to that. Thanks for sharing. Another way would be large format photography but this a completely different story... 😊


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent portraits charles.

You have a nice family to photograph too


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Canon 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical that dickb mentioned. It doesn't quite reach the level of DOF razor thinness of your f/0.95 optic, but it gets reasonably close.





Both of the above shots were taken at f/1.2. Both of these shots are from film, by the way. Canon F-1, the first was Fuji Superia 400 and the second was Kodak Elite Chrome. I find that when shooting with this optic wide open it gets tricky coming up with a keeper. The photographer must decide on a specific, exact focusing point, and then he or she cannot move at all prior to exposure. The slightest front to back movement will throw the subject out of focus. When shooting a portrait, I like to focus on the highlights reflected in one of the person's eyes. For inanimate subjects, like that camera, I decided on a bit of small detail, in its case the writing on the lens ring.

There are a few optics that are f/1.0 and faster intended for 35mm use. The first (that I know of) was the 50mm f/0.95 made by Canon for the 7s that has a unique mounting flange. After establishing the EOS line, Canon then introduced a 50mm f/1.0 with electronic focusing. And most recently there's the MS Optics 50mm f/1.0 in Leica M mount. And then there are the Mitakon and TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95s, which are bargain priced, relatively speaking when compared to the others.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I have a Canon 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical that dickb mentioned. It doesn't quite reach the level of DOF razor thinness of your f/0.95 optic, but it gets reasonably close. Both of the above shots were taken at f/1.2. Both of these shots are from film, by the way. Canon F-1, the first was Fuji Superia 400 and the second was Kodak Elite Chrome. I find that when shooting with this optic wide open it gets tricky coming up with a keeper. The photographer must decide on a specific, exact focusing point, and then he or she cannot move at all prior to exposure. The slightest front to back movement will throw the subject out of focus. When shooting a portrait, I like to focus on the highlights reflected in one of the person's eyes. For inanimate subjects, like that camera, I decided on a bit of small detail, in its case the writing on the lens ring.


I own the Canon 85/1.2 in FD Aspherical version and the FD L as well. On digital cameras zooming in on the live view image for exact focussing is essential, or focus bracketing your shots .

cooltouch wrote:
There are a few optics that are f/1.0 and faster intended for 35mm use. The first (that I know of) was the 50mm f/0.95 made by Canon for the 7s that has a unique mounting flange. After establishing the EOS line, Canon then introduced a 50mm f/1.0 with electronic focusing. And most recently there's the MS Optics 50mm f/1.0 in Leica M mount. And then there are the Mitakon and TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95s, which are bargain priced, relatively speaking when compared to the others.


Those shorter focal lengths will not give quite the same extremely shallow DoF at the same apertures. If I am to believe a quick test on an online DoF calculator, with the lens focussed at 2 meters a 95mm f/1.0 lens will give you 3cm of DoF, 85/1.2 4cm, 105/1.4 3cm and 50/1.0 9cm. These numbers are not absolute values, there are many underlying assumptions about acceptable circles of confusion and so on, but it gives a useful indication. With varying focal lengths you would probably get different ideal focus distances for portraits as well, complicating things further.

Anyway, the 105/1.4 may be the closest modern lens to yours, but the 85/1.2 options are probably the best compromise for similar results with useability, price and image quality in mind. Shorter focal lengths may also work well, but are less ideal for the portraits you showed, as the focus distance must be a lot closer.

Last edited by dickb on Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:38 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
Well, if you are looking for a modern lens intended for photography, no lenses exist AFAIK that come close to 95mm f/0.95, with an image circle large enough for your A7 II. My guess is the specific look you like is caused by the razor thin DoF and the out of focus rendering. Modern lenses coming closest to these specs would be 85mm f/1.2 lenses, like the Canon EF L (II), FD L and Aspherical versions, in declining order of modernity. There is also a Zeiss Contax 85/1.2. And the more recent Mitakon and Samyang lenses. Alternatively there is a Sigma 105/1.4. So you lose a bit of speed either way and gain or lose a little focal length.

For shooting in bright sunlight, taping a large square ND filter to the front lens may be solution. I suspect good ND filters in 105mm size or whatever you need for the Heligon will be expensive.


Dick, I am not sure whether a modern lens even wide open can replicate my results, even if I try to vintage it by doing some creative blurring and introducing heavier vignetting. I have the Mitakon, which I haven't tried yet. I also have the 55mm f1.4 Zeiss Otus... but it seems to me the sharpness would kind of take this in a different direction.

I am getting a special effect while using this lens in the shade so I am not sure whether I want to expand my shooting conditions just yet, but your idea about a square filter is excellent.

Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
Just gorgeous pics. You nailed exactly what I'm looking for, but my best lens for such an effect (MD 58 F 1,2) doesn't come close to that. Thanks for sharing. Another way would be large format photography but this a completely different story... 😊


Thanks, I really appreciate your encouragement. I don't get much of it from an artistic perspective, as it is usually the technical side that arouses interest.

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bwfcnottingham wrote:
Excellent portraits charles.

You have a nice family to photograph too


Thanks so much Phil. I really appreciate your comments!

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I have a Canon 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical that dickb mentioned. It doesn't quite reach the level of DOF razor thinness of your f/0.95 optic, but it gets reasonably close.





Both of the above shots were taken at f/1.2. Both of these shots are from film, by the way. Canon F-1, the first was Fuji Superia 400 and the second was Kodak Elite Chrome. I find that when shooting with this optic wide open it gets tricky coming up with a keeper. The photographer must decide on a specific, exact focusing point, and then he or she cannot move at all prior to exposure. The slightest front to back movement will throw the subject out of focus. When shooting a portrait, I like to focus on the highlights reflected in one of the person's eyes. For inanimate subjects, like that camera, I decided on a bit of small detail, in its case the writing on the lens ring.

There are a few optics that are f/1.0 and faster intended for 35mm use. The first (that I know of) was the 50mm f/0.95 made by Canon for the 7s that has a unique mounting flange. After establishing the EOS line, Canon then introduced a 50mm f/1.0 with electronic focusing. And most recently there's the MS Optics 50mm f/1.0 in Leica M mount. And then there are the Mitakon and TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95s, which are bargain priced,
relatively speaking when compared to the others.



These are great shots and their vintage quality is unmistakable. Film has such a different feel and texture to it. Yes, it has been challenging coming up with keepers with such narrow DOF. Luck plays some role, but mostly I rely on the magnifying assist in the Sony camera. I nail focus about 50% of the time. But even when I nail it, this lens is fairly soft wide open, so I have just decided to live with it and let go of my obsession with sharpness.

I am not convinced that a fast modern lens would give me comparable results after post processing. There is a certain authenticity to this projection lens that would be hard to replicate. Thanks for your suggestions though!

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
[Dick, I am not sure whether a modern lens even wide open can replicate my results, even if I try to vintage it by doing some creative blurring and introducing heavier vignetting. I have the Mitakon, which I haven't tried yet. I also have the 55mm f1.4 Zeiss Otus... but it seems to me the sharpness would kind of take this in a different direction.

I am getting a special effect while using this lens in the shade so I am not sure whether I want to expand my shooting conditions just yet, but your idea about a square filter is excellent.

Charles


So what would you want the modern lens to do that is different from what you get with the Heligon? Ease of use?

Looking at the Heligon photos I see what I interpret as a lot of spherical aberration that causes the extremely smooth out of focus rendering. One way to introduce that with other lenses may be certain high quality soft focus filters, I think there were certain Zeiss Softars and the old Minolta P soft focus filters that added spherical aberration in the out of focus areas. These functioned similar to the old Minolta Varisoft 85/2.8, where you could actually dial in the amount of desired spherical aberration.

Is your Heligon just marked Heligon? I have a couple of XR-Heligons and TV-Heligons, designed as tandem lenses to be used in xray machines. The XR lenses would face the screen of the xray machine and the TV lenses would face the camera.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
[Dick, I am not sure whether a modern lens even wide open can replicate my results, even if I try to vintage it by doing some creative blurring and introducing heavier vignetting. I have the Mitakon, which I haven't tried yet. I also have the 55mm f1.4 Zeiss Otus... but it seems to me the sharpness would kind of take this in a different direction.

I am getting a special effect while using this lens in the shade so I am not sure whether I want to expand my shooting conditions just yet, but your idea about a square filter is excellent.

Charles


So what would you want the modern lens to do that is different from what you get with the Heligon? Ease of use?

Looking at the Heligon photos I see what I interpret as a lot of spherical aberration that causes the extremely smooth out of focus rendering. One way to introduce that with other lenses may be certain high quality soft focus filters, I think there were certain Zeiss Sofars and the old Minolta P soft focus filters that added spherical aberration in the out of focus areas. These functioned similar to the old Minolta Varisoft 85/2.8, where you could actually dial in the amount of desired spherical aberration.

Is your Heligon just marked Heligon? I have a couple of XR-Heligons and TV-Heligons, designed as tandem lenses to be used in xray machines. The XR lenses would face the screen of the xray machine and the TV lenses would face the camera.


It is the XR Heligon. I read somewhere that these lenses may still be slightly radioactive. Is that true?

The reason I mentioned modern lenses is that I am still quite ambivalent. I have an obsession with sharpness, and even own a Zeiss Otus lens for this purpose. But i am slowly shedding this obsession with this vintage projection lens. Ease of use is certainly a factor, as is having more control of effects in post processing. But I sometimes wonder whether the authenticity of these results might be compromised if most of the effects are simulated in post.

I am not sure about the soft focus filters. It is definitely a consideration. But they cannot simulate the kind of drop off you get with these fast lenses. For instance, if you look at the hair of these people in the portraits above there is a wonderful graduated softness to them.

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
#1


Sidsel Endresen Norwegian singer, composer and actress.
Meostigmat 1.4/70mm


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wolfhansen wrote:
#1


Sidsel Endresen Norwegian singer, composer and actress.
Meostigmat 1.4/70mm


Interesting and moody effect, Wolfgang.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
It is the XR Heligon. I read somewhere that these lenses may still be slightly radioactive. Is that true?


I have no way of checking that. I would be surprised if it weren't slightly more radioactive than the background, as it probably was used in relative proximity of an xray source.

charley5 wrote:
The reason I mentioned modern lenses is that I am still quite ambivalent. I have an obsession with sharpness, and even own a Zeiss Otus lens for this purpose. But i am slowly shedding this obsession with this vintage projection lens. Ease of use is certainly a factor, as is having more control of effects in post processing. But I sometimes wonder whether the authenticity of these results might be compromised if most of the effects are simulated in post.

I am not sure about the soft focus filters. It is definitely a consideration. But they cannot simulate the kind of drop off you get with these fast lenses. For instance, if you look at the hair of these people in the portraits above there is a wonderful graduated softness to them.

-Charles


You may have slightly misinterpreted my suggestion. I am not saying that a soft focus filter would simulate the limited amount of DoF. I am saying that specific filters like the Minolta Portrayer P series alter the quality of the out of focus rendering by introducing spherical aberration, so you could make the limited DoF from a more modern lens look more like the limited Dof of your Heligon:

https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/index.php?id=4569&tx_faqmanager_pi1[question]=3536&tx_faqmanager_pi1[product]=66&tx_faqmanager_pi1[producttype]=14&tx_faqmanager_pi1[matchswords]=AND&tx_faqmanager_pi1[category]=25

Modern fast lenses tend to have a slightly harsher transition from in focus to out of focus, controlling all kinds of aberrations more than the XR Heligon. Also, many lenses and lens designs have specific characteristics that may appeal to you. Lenses based on the Biotar 75/1.5 design, like the Helios 85/1.5 and the previously mentioned Meopta 70/1.4 have a very distinctive radial background rendering that is completely different from the XR Heligons I know. Very different tools which both can be used to make interesting images.

How did you adapt your XR Heligon? What is the maximum focus distance possible on your Sony? My XR Heligon 100/1.5 f.i. can focus up to about 1.5m, if mounted directly onto Sony E mount, without any helicoid or other focus mechanism.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
It is the XR Heligon. I read somewhere that these lenses may still be slightly radioactive. Is that true?


I have no way of checking that. I would be surprised if it weren't slightly more radioactive than the background, as it probably was used in relative proximity of an xray source.

charley5 wrote:
The reason I mentioned modern lenses is that I am still quite ambivalent. I have an obsession with sharpness, and even own a Zeiss Otus lens for this purpose. But i am slowly shedding this obsession with this vintage projection lens. Ease of use is certainly a factor, as is having more control of effects in post processing. But I sometimes wonder whether the authenticity of these results might be compromised if most of the effects are simulated in post.

I am not sure about the soft focus filters. It is definitely a consideration. But they cannot simulate the kind of drop off you get with these fast lenses. For instance, if you look at the hair of these people in the portraits above there is a wonderful graduated softness to them.

-Charles


You may have slightly misinterpreted my suggestion. I am not saying that a soft focus filter would simulate the limited amount of DoF. I am saying that specific filters like the Minolta Portrayer P series alter the quality of the out of focus rendering by introducing spherical aberration, so you could make the limited DoF from a more modern lens look more like the limited Dof of your Heligon:

https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/index.php?id=4569&tx_faqmanager_pi1[question]=3536&tx_faqmanager_pi1[product]=66&tx_faqmanager_pi1[producttype]=14&tx_faqmanager_pi1[matchswords]=AND&tx_faqmanager_pi1[category]=25

Modern fast lenses tend to have a slightly harsher transition from in focus to out of focus, controlling all kinds of aberrations more than the XR Heligon. Also, many lenses and lens designs have specific characteristics that may appeal to you. Lenses based on the Biotar 75/1.5 design, like the Helios 85/1.5 and the previously mentioned Meopta 70/1.4 have a very distinctive radial background rendering that is completely different from the XR Heligons I know. Very different tools which both can be used to make interesting images.

How did you adapt your XR Heligon? What is the maximum focus distance possible on your Sony? My XR Heligon 100/1.5 f.i. can focus up to about 1.5m, if mounted directly onto Sony E mount, without any helicoid or other focus mechanism.


Do you think I should be concerned about the radioactive residue? Could it be harmful?

I see about the soft filters. Something I shall think about. Also, thinks for the lens suggestions.

I didn't do the adapting. I bought a refurbished version from a Chinese dealer on Ebay. It had a helicoid focuser and aperture control, although I only use it wide open.

-Charles


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
It is the XR Heligon. I read somewhere that these lenses may still be slightly radioactive. Is that true?


I have no way of checking that. I would be surprised if it weren't slightly more radioactive than the background, as it probably was used in relative proximity of an xray source.

charley5 wrote:
The reason I mentioned modern lenses is that I am still quite ambivalent. I have an obsession with sharpness, and even own a Zeiss Otus lens for this purpose. But i am slowly shedding this obsession with this vintage projection lens. Ease of use is certainly a factor, as is having more control of effects in post processing. But I sometimes wonder whether the authenticity of these results might be compromised if most of the effects are simulated in post.

I am not sure about the soft focus filters. It is definitely a consideration. But they cannot simulate the kind of drop off you get with these fast lenses. For instance, if you look at the hair of these people in the portraits above there is a wonderful graduated softness to them.

-Charles



You may have slightly misinterpreted my suggestion. I am not saying that a soft focus filter would simulate the limited amount of DoF. I am saying that specific filters like the Minolta Portrayer P series alter the quality of the out of focus rendering by introducing spherical aberration, so you could make the limited DoF from a more modern lens look more like the limited Dof of your Heligon:

https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/index.php?id=4569&tx_faqmanager_pi1[question]=3536&tx_faqmanager_pi1[product]=66&tx_faqmanager_pi1[producttype]=14&tx_faqmanager_pi1[matchswords]=AND&tx_faqmanager_pi1[category]=25

Modern fast lenses tend to have a slightly harsher transition from in focus to out of focus, controlling all kinds of aberrations more than the XR Heligon. Also, many lenses and lens designs have specific characteristics that may appeal to you. Lenses based on the Biotar 75/1.5 design, like the Helios 85/1.5 and the previously mentioned Meopta 70/1.4 have a very distinctive radial background rendering that is completely different from the XR Heligons I know. Very different tools which both can be used to make interesting images.

How did you adapt your XR Heligon? What is the maximum focus distance possible on your Sony? My XR Heligon 100/1.5 f.i. can focus up to about 1.5m, if mounted directly onto Sony E mount, without any helicoid or other focus mechanism.


Do you think I should be concerned about the radioactive residue? Could it be harmful?

I see about the soft filters. Something I shall think about. Also, thinks for the lens suggestions.

I didn't do the adapting. I bought a refurbished version from a Chinese dealer on Ebay. It had a helicoid focuser and aperture control, although I only use it wide open.

-Charles


Do not worry about radioactivity in lenses, unless you hold them directly up to your eye for six hours a day for ten years. In any case I do not believe the XR Heligons used thorium-doped glass. X ray lenses most often are notoriously soft and halo-y, with very soft bokeh. I have an Angenieux projection lens that specs out at 100mm @f1.2 that is sharp in the center, but being Petzval, has swirly and OOF edges, which I prefer to the "X ray lens" look. Here are a few examples


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As to "modern" lenses, I'll just post a couple of examples with my 50mm f0.95 Canon rangefinder lens. Though obviously very fast and with shallow DOF, it also has a certain sharpness that is unfortunately lacking in the XR Heligons and other X ray lenses. Of course it also costs and arm and a leg, but for shallow DOF it is my champ
#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
As to "modern" lenses, I'll just post a couple of examples with my 50mm f0.95 Canon rangefinder lens. Though obviously very fast and with shallow DOF, it also has a certain sharpness that is unfortunately lacking in the XR Heligons and other X ray lenses. Of course it also costs and arm and a leg, but for shallow DOF it is my champ
[/url]


Really interesting examples and very instructive. I am not a fan of swirly bokeh despite the fact that the foreground subject is certainly sharp with these lenses. I find the swirl quite distracting.

The question is, are there projection lens that yield sharp in-focus areas, with great bokeh (but not swirly). The person who sold me the Heligon answered this question by mentioning the following: zeiss visonar 109mm F1.6, heligon 100mm F1.6 , schneider or isco xenon 100mm F1.6. Do you agree with this list and can you recommend others?

Finally, I don't think the modern lenses yield quite the same effect. Is it that the transitions are too sharp and the renditions too perfect? The projection lens I have is quirky. It has a certain character that modern lenses seem to lack.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Charles


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
kymarto wrote:
As to "modern" lenses, I'll just post a couple of examples with my 50mm f0.95 Canon rangefinder lens. Though obviously very fast and with shallow DOF, it also has a certain sharpness that is unfortunately lacking in the XR Heligons and other X ray lenses. Of course it also costs and arm and a leg, but for shallow DOF it is my champ
[/url]


Really interesting examples and very instructive. I am not a fan of swirly bokeh despite the fact that the foreground subject is certainly sharp with these lenses. I find the swirl quite distracting.

The question is, are there projection lens that yield sharp in-focus areas, with great bokeh (but not swirly). The person who sold me the Heligon answered this question by mentioning the following: zeiss visonar 109mm F1.6, heligon 100mm F1.6 , schneider or isco xenon 100mm F1.6. Do you agree with this list and can you recommend others?

Finally, I don't think the modern lenses yield quite the same effect. Is it that the transitions are too sharp and the renditions too perfect? The projection lens I have is quirky. It has a certain character that modern lenses seem to lack.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Charles


If you are after smooth bokeh then it is worth looking at a number of good double gauss projection lenses for 35mm cinema. Schneider and Isco lenses are recommendable--Cinelux, Super-Cinelux, Super-Kiptar and Ultra are some of the brand names. There are f1.6 versions of some, more often they are around f2. Zeiss has three lines of projector lenses, none of which swirl: Kipronar, Prokinar and Visionar. Kollmorgen Snaplite. There are good Meopta double gauss lenses, called Meostigmat. The longer ones don't swirl at all. One of my favorites are the Bausch and Lomb Super Cinephor lenses. I have, for instance, a Zeiss Kipronar 120mm f1.9 that was only $70 (it is not double gauss, so less quality at the corners). I bought two B&L Super Cinephors for $150 each, a 6.5 inch and a 5.25 in ch (166mm and 133mm both f1.8 ). Also, there are Russian Lomo projection lenses (120 and 140mm f1.8 ) that can be had for $40 or so new or in new condition that can be very nice with no swirl.

#1 Meopta Meostigmat 130mm f1.9


#2 Zeiss Kipronar 120mm f1.9


#3 Bausch & Lomb Super Cinephor 166mm f1.8


#4 Bausch & Lomb Super Cinephor 133mm f1.8


#5 Bausch & Lomb Super Cinephor 133mm f1.8


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
charley5 wrote:
kymarto wrote:
As to "modern" lenses, I'll just post a couple of examples with my 50mm f0.95 Canon rangefinder lens. Though obviously very fast and with shallow DOF, it also has a certain sharpness that is unfortunately lacking in the XR Heligons and other X ray lenses. Of course it also costs and arm and a leg, but for shallow DOF it is my champ
[/url]


Really interesting examples and very instructive. I am not a fan of swirly bokeh despite the fact that the foreground subject is certainly sharp with these lenses. I find the swirl quite distracting.

The question is, are there projection lens that yield sharp in-focus areas, with great bokeh (but not swirly). The person who sold me the Heligon answered this question by mentioning the following: zeiss visonar 109mm F1.6, heligon 100mm F1.6 , schneider or isco xenon 100mm F1.6. Do you agree with this list and can you recommend others?

Finally, I don't think the modern lenses yield quite the same effect. Is it that the transitions are too sharp and the renditions too perfect? The projection lens I have is quirky. It has a certain character that modern lenses seem to lack.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Charles


If you are after smooth bokeh then it is worth looking at a number of good double gauss projection lenses for 35mm cinema. Schneider and Isco lenses are recommendable--Cinelux, Super-Cinelux, Super-Kiptar and Ultra are some of the brand names. There are f1.6 versions of some, more often they are around f2. Zeiss has three lines of projector lenses, none of which swirl: Kipronar, Prokinar and Visionar. Kollmorgen Snaplite. There are good Meopta double gauss lenses, called Meostigmat. The longer ones don't swirl at all. One of my favorites are the Bausch and Lomb Super Cinephor lenses. I have, for instance, a Zeiss Kipronar 120mm f1.9 that was only $70 (it is not double gauss, so less quality at the corners). I bought two B&L Super Cinephors for $150 each, a 6.5 inch and a 5.25 in ch (166mm and 133mm both f1.8 ). Also, there are Russian Lomo projection lenses (120 and 140mm f1.8 ) that can be had for $40 or so new or in new condition that can be very nice with no swirl.


That's great to get that list and look at some examples. I am going to do more research on these lenses. Unfortunately, I rely on a third party to machine a Sony E mount adapter, so I am confined to waiting for the right opportunity on eBay.

I still haven't made up my mind about whether to pursue photography with my projection lens. If I could sharpen it a bit in post processing without losing vintage authenticity and without introducing sharpening artifacts then I might continue with it. The more I use it the better I can judge its capabilities. It does have a certain magical quality, but unfortunately the response to it has not been encouraging in the portrait forums where technique is usually more important than art.

Thanks for your valuable insights,

-Charles


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
Finally, I don't think the modern lenses yield quite the same effect. Is it that the transitions are too sharp and the renditions too perfect? The projection lens I have is quirky. It has a certain character that modern lenses seem to lack.


I think you are confusing the term modern here. The XR Heligon isn't a terribly old lens, at least the 95/0.95 I see on eBay at the moment has the Rodenstock typography I associate with their lenses made in the 1990's, early 2000's. I own XR Heligons labelled Rodenstock (up to 2006) Linos (2006-2009) and Qioptiq (2009 to present day). The distinctive character of the lens doesn't come from its age but from the fact that it is a very fast lens designed for a specific industrial application. It is just a happy coincidence that it can be used as a photographic lens as well, by those who appreciate its character/quality/flaws.

charley5 wrote:
I still haven't made up my mind about whether to pursue photography with my projection lens. If I could sharpen it a bit in post processing without losing vintage authenticity and without introducing sharpening artifacts then I might continue with it. The more I use it the better I can judge its capabilities. It does have a certain magical quality, but unfortunately the response to it has not been encouraging in the portrait forums where technique is usually more important than art.

Thanks for your valuable insights,

-Charles


If you like its rendering, who cares if others don't? All lenses, cameras and processing techniques are tools, and if a certain combination gives you results you like ,go with it, I'd say.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
Finally, I don't think the modern lenses yield quite the same effect. Is it that the transitions are too sharp and the renditions too perfect? The projection lens I have is quirky. It has a certain character that modern lenses seem to lack.


I think you are confusing the term modern here. The XR Heligon isn't a terribly old lens, at least the 95/0.95 I see on eBay at the moment has the Rodenstock typography I associate with their lenses made in the 1990's, early 2000's. I own XR Heligons labelled Rodenstock (up to 2006) Linos (2006-2009) and Qioptiq (2009 to present day). The distinctive character of the lens doesn't come from its age but from the fact that it is a very fast lens designed for a specific industrial application. It is just a happy coincidence that it can be used as a photographic lens as well, by those who appreciate its character/quality/flaws.

charley5 wrote:
I still haven't made up my mind about whether to pursue photography with my projection lens. If I could sharpen it a bit in post processing without losing vintage authenticity and without introducing sharpening artifacts then I might continue with it. The more I use it the better I can judge its capabilities. It does have a certain magical quality, but unfortunately the response to it has not been encouraging in the portrait forums where technique is usually more important than art.

Thanks for your valuable insights,

-Charles


If you like its rendering, who cares if others don't? All lenses, cameras and processing techniques are tools, and if a certain combination gives you results you like ,go with it, I'd say.


Oops, I didn't realize that it was such a current lens. Thanks for clarifying that for me. And of course you are right about just going with what I like. If it inspires... that's what counts.

One question I had relates to the filter size of my lens. I have some stop down rings, but the thread size seems to be unconventional, not 77mm or 82mm. Any ideas?

Thanks,

-Charles


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is, of course, the Tamron 70-150mm soft focus:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
Oops, I didn't realize that it was such a current lens. Thanks for clarifying that for me. And of course you are right about just going with what I like. If it inspires... that's what counts.

One question I had relates to the filter size of my lens. I have some stop down rings, but the thread size seems to be unconventional, not 77mm or 82mm. Any ideas?


The XR Heligons I've seen so far didn't have filter threads as such, just threads that are used for the retaining ring holding in the front lens. Your lens must have a whopping great front lens, I'd expect just over 100mm diameter for a 95mm f/0.95 lens. You should be able to measure that yourself I suspect. That was the reason I suggested square resin ND filters before, as high quality glass filters will be expensive in these sizes. Alternatively, depending on the amount of space behind the rear element perhaps some kind of rear drop in filter can be DIYed, like in supertelephoto lenses, as those can be much smaller in diameter.

Which brings me to my next question - do you know how this conversion was done? There are a few Heligon/high lumen/xray relay type lenses that project their image far enough behind their rear element that they can easily be used on mirrorless cameras while retaining the option of infinity focus. The Heligon 100/1.6 exists in such a design. Most of these lenses however are designed to reach infinity focus mere millimeters behind the rear element, way too close to get infinity focus on a Sony E mount. I have seen less scrupulous sellers sell such lenses without the original rear lens and not mentioning that. This results in a lens that can be focussed further than the original configuration would, but it isn't a 50mm f0.75 or in your case a 95mm f/0.95 anymore, as the original manufacturer designed it to be. Does your lens have the angle of view you would expect from a 95mm lens? If you compare it to a known 100mm lens, or a zoom lens zoomed to around 95mm?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2