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

SK Radionar 2.9/75mm on NEX
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:08 pm    Post subject: SK Radionar 2.9/75mm on NEX Reply with quote

I did a quick test with a £10 Korelle SK Radionar 2.9/75mm @ F2.9 see exif.

Focus is on barcode, so the battery is slightly oof.
I think its pretty good, the low contrast is because the lens is uncoated. Not bad for a lens made in 1936....



PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice. The Radionar is one of the best triplets. I have a 4.5/105 Radionar that I use on my Century Graphic 6x9. I also have a Xenar 3.5/105 and it's a toss-up which is the better lens, the Radionar is very sharp and has a very nice character, the Xenar is perhaps sharper towards the edges.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ian , I know we both share a passion for Schneider glass. The "master tailor" Smile

I was drawn to this lens after seeing this flickr set (not mine). The tonal aspects got me hooked.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/86956792@N06/sets/72157636496915253/

Then one day found myself staring at this
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH-7-5cm-f2-9-RADIONAR-LENS-/141532815694?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=GePcwjZho0nJ2RXogfGNM5yk%252FsQ%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

mounting was a breeze, M42 tube and some plumbers tape, job done


PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

could I ask you to try some some shots where you focus on the OOF areas, as its a triplet I want to see if you get the onion rings on the highlights they can produce?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Layer-cake wrote:
could I ask you to try some some shots where you focus on the OOF areas, as its a triplet I want to see if you get the onion rings on the highlights they can produce?


Is this what you meant?, I have no onions just dust Smile



PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, no onion-rings from that lens type Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnBar wrote:
Thanks Ian , I know we both share a passion for Schneider glass. The "master tailor" Smile


Indeed, I have never had a single S-K lens dissappoint me so far.

JohnBar wrote:
The tonal aspects got me hooked.


Same for me in that it was the tonal rendering when used to shoot BW film that made me appreciate uncoated lenses - there is a definite difference to a coated lens and to my eyes, for many subjects, it can be more pleasing.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

indeed it is and Klaus is correct no onion rings. thanks for checking for me though.

I've checked a couple of lenses out for this, but very few have pronounced onion rings, was hoping this would as it is a triplet.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Layer-cake wrote:
indeed it is and Klaus is correct no onion rings. thanks for checking for me though.

I've checked a couple of lenses out for this, but very few have pronounced onion rings, was hoping this would as it is a triplet.

If the onion rings is not at the back, you might be able to find them at the front unless the lens is perfectly corrected for spherical aberration.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
Layer-cake wrote:
indeed it is and Klaus is correct no onion rings. thanks for checking for me though.

I've checked a couple of lenses out for this, but very few have pronounced onion rings, was hoping this would as it is a triplet.

If the onion rings is not at the back, you might be able to find them at the front unless the lens is perfectly corrected for spherical aberration


do you mean in the oof areas in front of the main subject? I don't think I've ever taken the time to look for the highlights in that section.

the whole concept of spherical aberration and their relationship of the onion rings is a bit over my head, I have tried reading up on it but it hasn't clarified to me what I should be looking out for in lens schemes


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Layer-cake wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
Layer-cake wrote:
indeed it is and Klaus is correct no onion rings. thanks for checking for me though.

I've checked a couple of lenses out for this, but very few have pronounced onion rings, was hoping this would as it is a triplet.

If the onion rings is not at the back, you might be able to find them at the front unless the lens is perfectly corrected for spherical aberration


do you mean in the oof areas in front of the main subject? I don't think I've ever taken the time to look for the highlights in that section.

the whole concept of spherical aberration and their relationship of the onion rings is a bit over my head, I have tried reading up on it but it hasn't clarified to me what I should be looking out for in lens schemes

Yes. A simple lens scheme will not tell you if a lens is over-corrected or not. You could check the follow site to learn more how the bokeh affected by lens design.

http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/#what_affects_bokeh_shape


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

many thanks for that, the article puts quite a few things into context for me! I will need to read it again;)