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

Manual Zooms With a Bit of a Vintage Quality or Character
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I just played around a bit with my Pentax-A 35-105mm f/3.5. It’s a bit heavy, but optical performance seems to be very good. Some CA’s wide open, but gone once stopped down half a stop. Close focus ability alows for nice bokeh shots, and good portraits. Really cheap this lens for what you get. For some reason underrated apparently like a lot of Pentax lenses.


Yes, I just looked at some sample images taken with this lens. Very nice!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
alex ph wrote:
That's a discussion that continues for years in the forum: if lenses should be introduced and evaluated basing on out-of-camera shots or basing on "optimized" shots. Both sides have good arguments. Raw shots give a better idea of optical characteristics and flaws of the lens, while processed shots give a better idea of what the lens is capable for in the final account. In such controverses I find most interesting if both OOC and processed images are presented side by side, that gives a really valuable idea of the range of possibilities.

For this reason, Kymarto, I am pretty sceptic of your qualification "kinda SOOC" of the first shot. Having tested Angenieux projection and printing lenses, I know them giving much less colourful and shape-pronounced images SOOC. Meanwhile they let the sensor keeping a large amount of visual info, so shots "optimizing" is easy an lets pop out a stronger character. When you tweak colour and contrast of the initial shot, there is nothing speaking against the lens' qualities. But it would be incorrect to present the result "kinda SOOC" after having applied basic PP, as it changes pretty much the shot perception.


SOOC means no corrections to contrast, sharpness, exposure, saturtion, etc., or to Daylight white balance...these go in Manual Focus Lenses sub-forum so folks can compare lens qualities instead of comparing post processing.

The MF Galleries sub-forum, such as Digital Gallery MF, are for showing post processed images which have enhanced lens qualities.


This is totally anal and actually makes no sense. White Balance is completely made up by the camera itself and varies from camera to camera. Exposure is not a function of the lens itself but of how much light you are letting through it to hit the lens itself. Contrast varies by situation, and can be highly influenced by light direction and whether there is a hood, etc. As an example I post two shots straight out of how ACR thinks the raw data should be mapped. The camera meter decided that they should be exposed about a stop apart, giving one a totally washed out look as compared to the other. I find it kind of idiotic to take anything SOOC. Cameras expose differently depending on type of metering chosen and photographer decision and lenses react differently to different situations. Cameras also have different algorithms for white balance. This completely kills any idea that lenses can be compared unless you are using the same camera in controlled conditions. RAW converters all have their own algorithms, and images from a RAW in one can look completely different than in another. Since I shoot RAW I just shoot AWB, since I always correct that in pos, so there is a noticeable difference between the WB in these two shots, having nothing to do with the lens.

If the above are rules of the forum they should be posted somewhere for unwary photographers instead of picture takers. As it is, this will be my last post here, since I am totally uninterested in posting ugly images that do not do justice to the potential of a lens.


I really love these images! Thanks for sharing. How did you nail manual focus with so much movement going on?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:56 am    Post subject: 25-50mm f/4 AIS Nikkor Reply with quote
Although it has been several years since I got this lens, it has come in handy on several occasions. I do not use zooms as a general rule, opting for fast primes instead, but when me and my fiancé go to Charleston, SC for a day trip, I will usually carry a couple of them, the 50-135mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor usually the other, with me for no other reason I don't feel like dragging a bunch of lenses around with me if we are just going sightseeing.

The 25-50 f/4 AIS Nikkor is really superb little lens; extremely well built, very sharp and very well coated against flare and ghosts. For outside work, the f/4 maximum aperture is usually not an issue.


#1


PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a very open question - what is vintage character?

Looking at some zooms I know the characters are very different. for example, an Olympus 85-200 (sharp, cool colour cast, blue fringing) a Contax 80-200 (sharp, warm, slightly more shadow detail than Olympus) or a Tamron 70-150/2.8 SP (sharp in the centre even wide open, warm-ish but noticeable blue fringing) are very different! Then, of course the Tamron 70-150 can bring in spherical aberration to taste which may be a 'feature' of many vintage zoomed anyway.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I just played around a bit with my Pentax-A 35-105mm f/3.5. It’s a bit heavy, but optical performance seems to be very good. Some CA’s wide open, but gone once stopped down half a stop. Close focus ability alows for nice bokeh shots, and good portraits. Really cheap this lens for what you get. For some reason underrated apparently like a lot of Pentax lenses.


Here is another with the Pentax A 35-105 at 100mm. Heavy reduction in resolution



Original for a better look:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126796413@N03/34001013115/in/album-72157646898749860/

and this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/126796413@N03/15202189256/in/photolist-TNy5C4-PjSG7p-Fpt8Qj-Soy217-oUTcAx-pancej-p3qetH-pcohbZ-pcFCv9-pcFyrN-paFrfj-oVdM6d

RemcoR


PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote:
Other than pulling highlights to look more greyish (tone mapping or what have you) I think the results are similar across the lenses I can compare to directly. Kymarto deals in super rare lenses, so not too many folks get a chance to make such a limited claim. And yes you have to know light in order to get that look. I would guess it’s probably just an eye on bringing out the Nisen in post and the rest of the photo just falls in place as it does. Well done Kymarto!

What's worse is that isn't all. The lens to subject and subject to background distance means everything. Source point light in the background should be more parallel like when it passes through the aperture of leaves in a tree. The location of the sun behind the tree foliage changes the effect of the nisen at the edge. At night, Intense LED lights, as well, make different results. All again based on distances. Lots of variation in results. Keep trying. Wink


I usually process with Topaz Detail set at 0.03 for small and medium detail. It does very slightly delineate OOF details. I also use Piccure +, a truly wonderful deconvolution plug in to clean up the spherical aberration blooming so prevalent in vintage lenses. And yes, I do tailor contrast to use the entire contrast range.

Two other things are that I do not shoot in flat light, almost always against the light or with side light. And I pay a lot of attention to the planes of focus and focus distances to the subject in order to be in the sweet spot where the bokeh is most delineated, and there are multiple planes of focus and progressive defocus. Too far and the bokeh is barely noticeable, too close and it all turns to simple blur. And of course I alway shoot wide open.

One final point is that I choose my lenses carefully for maximum quirky bokeh. I have Helios lenses and a Trioplan and I had a Pentacon, but I find that bokeh very bland, so I choose and use lenses carefully, and sometimes reversed, in order to get the wackiest bokeh I can.

If I wanted neutral bokeh I would shoot with modern lenses. I have never understood the attraction of vintage lenses stopped down or for shooting general scenes. For that I have excellent modern glass.

If you like wacky bokeh you may like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6AuYf4ndKQ&ab_channel=Simon%27sutak


PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In terms of the status legacy of zoom lenses, no other zoom lens can beat this Voigtlander 36-82mm f/2.8. This is the first 135 film zoom lens https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62744717. This is a push-poll design, supported by four silver bars OUTSIDE of the lens tube. Image quality is reasonable and the maximum aperture is f/2.8. Yes, it is 2.8!

CK


PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In terms of the status legacy of zoom lens, no other zoom lens can beat this Voigtlander 36-82mm f/2.8. This is the first 135 film zoom lens https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62744717
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4