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

Some Questions About Projection Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:56 am    Post subject: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

I have been impressed with the interesting and impressive results that people are getting with projection lenses, and I thought I would ask this experienced group some questions regarding these lenses. I have a Sony a7R II, having recently switched over from Fuji specifically so I could enjoy using third-party lenses more.

I was particularly impressed with the work of Andrius Maciunas on flickr. He has some amazing images taken with projection lenses. In fact, after seeing results achieved by him and other people, I am feeling a renewed sense of excitement about photography which has ebbed in the past couple of years.

So it seems to me the advantage of projection lenses is that they (a) have great looking bokeh, b) have wider DOF wide open than conventional manual or AF lenses. The problem with projection lenses, aside from the fact that most are bulky and heavy, is that they produce variable results, depending mostly on the lens model I would imagine. Please let me know if there are other factors involved, such as the quality of the refurbishment.

Here are my questions:

1. Some have very lovely bokeh, and others less so. I am not a fan of heavily swirly bokeh. I see it on some projection lenses more than others. Why is that? Aside from the manufacturer, are there certain types of pictures that accentuate the swirliness more, or attenuate it?

2. Let's take Andrius' image here.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adisx/49366859381/
It is wonderfully sharp with great bokeh to boot. Did he do anything to maximize this quality, aside from working with the native qualities of this lens?

3. Why are some of these lenses great for macro, and others better for portraits? It seems the focusing plane is different for these.

4. Does anyone know of anybody who machines mounts for these instruments (in my case, Sony)? Say I find a lens that I think has great potential (based on other people's success with it) and buy it without a mount, is there anyone I can send it to who will outfit it?

Thank you for any information or suggestions you can provide!

-Charles


PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:36 am    Post subject: Re: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

charley5 wrote:
I have been impressed with the interesting and impressive results that people are getting with projection lenses, and I thought I would ask this experienced group some questions regarding these lenses. I have a Sony a7R II, having recently switched over from Fuji specifically so I could enjoy using third-party lenses more.

I was particularly impressed with the work of Andrius Maciunas on flickr. He has some amazing images taken with projection lenses. In fact, after seeing results achieved by him and other people, I am feeling a renewed sense of excitement about photography which has ebbed in the past couple of years.

So it seems to me the advantage of projection lenses is that they (a) have great looking bokeh, b) have wider DOF wide open than conventional manual or AF lenses. The problem with projection lenses, aside from the fact that most are bulky and heavy, is that they produce variable results, depending mostly on the lens model I would imagine. Please let me know if there are other factors involved, such as the quality of the refurbishment.

Here are my questions:

1. Some have very lovely bokeh, and others less so. I am not a fan of heavily swirly bokeh. I see it on some projection lenses more than others. Why is that? Aside from the manufacturer, are there certain types of pictures that accentuate the swirliness more, or attenuate it?

2. Let's take Andrius' image here.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adisx/49366859381/
It is wonderfully sharp with great bokeh to boot. Did he do anything to maximize this quality, aside from working with the native qualities of this lens?

3. Why are some of these lenses great for macro, and others better for portraits? It seems the focusing plane is different for these.

4. Does anyone know of anybody who machines mounts for these instruments (in my case, Sony)? Say I find a lens that I think has great potential (based on other people's success with it) and buy it without a mount, is there anyone I can send it to who will outfit it?

Thank you for any information or suggestions you can provide!

-Charles


No 4 is the easiest for most projector lenses RAF camera on e-bay do quite a range of clamp on adapters designed to fit helicoids (you need the helicoid anyway for focusing). There no need to send it off for mounting, very simple screw up fittings is all that's needed. Or basic DIY for gluing on a stepping ring as an alternative. There are a few that are too wide for the available helicoids (65mm is the biggest of the standard options) those are more difficult I've picked up a spare mirror lens to canabalise, but am holding off on getting the projector lens now.

I suspect some of the answers to the remaining questions will be to do with the portion of the lens designed to be used for projecting - They have no need to worry about stray light so have less in the way of internal baffles than lenses designed for cameras.

There are also differences on how close the lens is designed to be to the film. I think slide projectors typically have the lens much further from the film than movie/cine ones. This difference in design will influence their macro performance


PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

About mounting, RAFCAMERA makes those for various lenses and cameras (via Rafcamera.com or ebay) and I have with him designed a modular mounting system, read here: https://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-to-modularily-mount-projection-or.html


PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

charley5 wrote:
I have been impressed with the interesting and impressive results that people are getting with projection lenses, and I thought I would ask this experienced group some questions regarding these lenses. I have a Sony a7R II, having recently switched over from Fuji specifically so I could enjoy using third-party lenses more.

I was particularly impressed with the work of Andrius Maciunas on flickr. He has some amazing images taken with projection lenses. In fact, after seeing results achieved by him and other people, I am feeling a renewed sense of excitement about photography which has ebbed in the past couple of years.

So it seems to me the advantage of projection lenses is that they (a) have great looking bokeh, b) have wider DOF wide open than conventional manual or AF lenses. The problem with projection lenses, aside from the fact that most are bulky and heavy, is that they produce variable results, depending mostly on the lens model I would imagine. Please let me know if there are other factors involved, such as the quality of the refurbishment.

Here are my questions:

1. Some have very lovely bokeh, and others less so. I am not a fan of heavily swirly bokeh. I see it on some projection lenses more than others. Why is that? Aside from the manufacturer, are there certain types of pictures that accentuate the swirliness more, or attenuate it?

2. Let's take Andrius' image here.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adisx/49366859381/
It is wonderfully sharp with great bokeh to boot. Did he do anything to maximize this quality, aside from working with the native qualities of this lens?

3. Why are some of these lenses great for macro, and others better for portraits? It seems the focusing plane is different for these.

4. Does anyone know of anybody who machines mounts for these instruments (in my case, Sony)? Say I find a lens that I think has great potential (based on other people's success with it) and buy it without a mount, is there anyone I can send it to who will outfit it?

Thank you for any information or suggestions you can provide!

-Charles


1. He has indeed taken great pictures. The most striking ones are not taken with the usual projector lenses for home use. What you need in this case is a Carl Zeiss Kipronar or Soviet counterparts. One is called KO-120M, I don't know much about these, the other members will have to help on this line of fast lenses. But if you don't like swirl stay away from the Petzval designs. The distance to the background will determine how much swirl is seen on a swirly lens.

2. He used the only sharp part of the lens with great effect. The plane of focus is super thin thanks to 140mm focal length and f/1.9 aperture. This is A Petzval design according to him.

3. Not sure. The ones with field curvature will be bad of course.

4. An alternative to what has already been mentioned is a simple friction mounting method. Wrap the lens in tape and insert into a helicoid adapter of choice. Not recommended for long time use or heavy lenses.


I also like projection lenses but only have a few modest ones. For example a Diaplan 100mm f/2.8 that can create soap bubble bokeh. But that's a whole different thing.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahh, yesterday I received a Kipronar f=14cm 1:1,9 (62.5mm) from a good fellow in Madgeburg, Deutschland. It is a most beautiful copy. I thought it had to be counterfeit. Wink

After comparing it to an older f=12,5cm 1:1,9 (82.5mm) it has similar optical abberations and color signature. The older Kipronar has much less coma.

I think it is a "one trick pony" lens for taking, and there is no way around that. You can do some things to make it easier to handle, but they are a dog to use.

Based on APS-C and the Visionar/Kipronar FL this gives good effect:

120-140mm Full Body
92-120mm Torso, Bust
71-92mm Portrait
??? Macro


Last edited by Blazer0ne on Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:35 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This photo was taken from about 4 meters from computer screen (82cm diag.) using the upper right corner crop as reference. Exposure was increased in post to bring out the corners.

Kipronar f=14cm 1:1,9 (More coma less light falloff. Small astigmatism)


Kipronar f=12,5cm 1:1,9 (Less coma more light falloff)


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:37 am    Post subject: Re: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

DConvert wrote:


No 4 is the easiest for most projector lenses RAF camera on e-bay do quite a range of clamp on adapters designed to fit helicoids (you need the helicoid anyway for focusing). There no need to send it off for mounting, very simple screw up fittings is all that's needed. Or basic DIY for gluing on a stepping ring as an alternative. There are a few that are too wide for the available helicoids (65mm is the biggest of the standard options) those are more difficult I've picked up a spare mirror lens to canabalise, but am holding off on getting the projector lens now.

I suspect some of the answers to the remaining questions will be to do with the portion of the lens designed to be used for projecting - They have no need to worry about stray light so have less in the way of internal baffles than lenses designed for cameras.

There are also differences on how close the lens is designed to be to the film. I think slide projectors typically have the lens much further from the film than movie/cine ones. This difference in design will influence their macro performance



Thanks, I am familiar with Raf. I had a discussion with him recently about whether aperture control would compensate for softness of these fast projection lenses when wide open. I am afraid I don't have much savvy when it comes to DIY projects. Thanks for the rest of the info!


Last edited by charley5 on Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:44 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
About mounting, RAFCAMERA makes those for various lenses and cameras (via Rafcamera.com or ebay) and I have with him designed a modular mounting system, read here: https://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-to-modularily-mount-projection-or.html


I definitely need to check out Raf's site more carefully. I only gave it a cursory glance last time. Nice system but I am nowhere there yet.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:45 am    Post subject: Re: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
charley5 wrote:
I have been impressed with the interesting and impressive results that people are getting with projection lenses, and I thought I would ask this experienced group some questions regarding these lenses. I have a Sony a7R II, having recently switched over from Fuji specifically so I could enjoy using third-party lenses more.

I was particularly impressed with the work of Andrius Maciunas on flickr. He has some amazing images taken with projection lenses. In fact, after seeing results achieved by him and other people, I am feeling a renewed sense of excitement about photography which has ebbed in the past couple of years.

So it seems to me the advantage of projection lenses is that they (a) have great looking bokeh, b) have wider DOF wide open than conventional manual or AF lenses. The problem with projection lenses, aside from the fact that most are bulky and heavy, is that they produce variable results, depending mostly on the lens model I would imagine. Please let me know if there are other factors involved, such as the quality of the refurbishment.

Here are my questions:

1. Some have very lovely bokeh, and others less so. I am not a fan of heavily swirly bokeh. I see it on some projection lenses more than others. Why is that? Aside from the manufacturer, are there certain types of pictures that accentuate the swirliness more, or attenuate it?

2. Let's take Andrius' image here.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adisx/49366859381/
It is wonderfully sharp with great bokeh to boot. Did he do anything to maximize this quality, aside from working with the native qualities of this lens?

3. Why are some of these lenses great for macro, and others better for portraits? It seems the focusing plane is different for these.

4. Does anyone know of anybody who machines mounts for these instruments (in my case, Sony)? Say I find a lens that I think has great potential (based on other people's success with it) and buy it without a mount, is there anyone I can send it to who will outfit it?

Thank you for any information or suggestions you can provide!

-Charles


1. He has indeed taken great pictures. The most striking ones are not taken with the usual projector lenses for home use. What you need in this case is a Carl Zeiss Kipronar or Soviet counterparts. One is called KO-120M, I don't know much about these, the other members will have to help on this line of fast lenses. But if you don't like swirl stay away from the Petzval designs. The distance to the background will determine how much swirl is seen on a swirly lens.

2. He used the only sharp part of the lens with great effect. The plane of focus is super thin thanks to 140mm focal length and f/1.9 aperture. This is A Petzval design according to him.

3. Not sure. The ones with field curvature will be bad of course.

4. An alternative to what has already been mentioned is a simple friction mounting method. Wrap the lens in tape and insert into a helicoid adapter of choice. Not recommended for long time use or heavy lenses.


I also like projection lenses but only have a few modest ones. For example a Diaplan 100mm f/2.8 that can create soap bubble bokeh. But that's a whole different thing.


Thank you. this is very helpful!


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:
Ahh, yesterday I received a Kipronar f=14cm 1:1,9 (62.5mm) from a good fellow in Madgeburg, Deutschland. It is a most beautiful copy. I thought it had to be counterfeit. Wink

After comparing it to an older f=12,5cm 1:1,9 (82.5mm) it has similar optical abberations and color signature. The older Kipronar has much less coma.

I think it is a "one trick pony" lens for taking, and there is no way around that. You can do some things to make it easier to handle, but they are a dog to use.

Based on APS-C and the Visionar/Kipronar FL this gives good effect:

120-140mm Full Body
92-120mm Torso, Bust
71-92mm Portrait
??? Macro


Blazer, it feels like very much a hit and miss with these lenses!

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

charley5 wrote:

Blazer, it feels like very much a hit and miss with these lenses!

-Charles


Didn't intend to steer you away. In fact, I think they are fun, and can be very rewarding with the right scene settings in mind.

This is the setup that I have most recently realized.

It is connected to the camera with parts that use standard tools. It is about ordering the right sized parts and making the connections. You won't need to file, machine or mill anything.

There is the RAF adapter for this lens and the oversized focus helical. A stepping ring and a camera specific slim ring.

The tube of flocking was added on purpose. It is just rolled up and stuffed in there for now.

However, I didn't really mean to drop in that M65-M42 Stepping ring. But I did anyway and it fit some way down the tube snugly. I lined it up and did some tests. The results were good.

The loss of light went from say ISO 1600 to ISO 2500 at 1/90s or from 1/6s to 1/4s at ISO 100. I can't say how much really changed since the exit at the camera is already reduced to 42mm.










PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

charley5 wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote:
Ahh, yesterday I received a Kipronar f=14cm 1:1,9 (62.5mm) from a good fellow in Madgeburg, Deutschland. It is a most beautiful copy. I thought it had to be counterfeit. Wink

After comparing it to an older f=12,5cm 1:1,9 (82.5mm) it has similar optical abberations and color signature. The older Kipronar has much less coma.

I think it is a "one trick pony" lens for taking, and there is no way around that. You can do some things to make it easier to handle, but they are a dog to use.

Based on APS-C and the Visionar/Kipronar FL this gives good effect:

120-140mm Full Body
92-120mm Torso, Bust
71-92mm Portrait
??? Macro


Blazer, it feels like very much a hit and miss with these lenses!

-Charles


I don't feel discouraged just yet, but I find it interesting that I have been looking for a Carl Zeiss Jena Kipronar 140mm f1.9 because that is the lens that Andrius Maciunas uses most effectively for portraits but you seem to imply that it has significant faults.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

charley5 wrote:

... most effectively for portraits but you seem to imply that it has significant faults.


Exactly! By understanding all the faults the lens then becomes a formidable tool.

The faults are what make this simple lens what it is desired.

It's not necessary to modify the inside barrel of this lens.

There are other fast normal camera lenses in that focal length like the Contax Planar 135mm F2 or 100mm F2. These will will have better correction, actual coatings and offer aperture control. Though not that exaggerated coma and corner falloff of the older projection lenses. It might help to compare photos against the Kipronar/Visionars.

There is other well corrected projection lenses such as a Leica Super Color Plan 90mm f2.5 P2 but I do not think it is becoming of a projection lens you are seeking.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:
charley5 wrote:

... most effectively for portraits but you seem to imply that it has significant faults.


Exactly! By understanding all the faults the lens then becomes a formidable tool.

The faults are what make this simple lens what it is desired.

It's not necessary to modify the inside barrel of this lens.

There are other fast normal camera lenses in that focal length like the Contax Planar 135mm F2 or 100mm F2. These will will have better correction, actual coatings and offer aperture control. Though not that exaggerated coma and corner falloff of the older projection lenses. It might help to compare photos against the Kipronar/Visionars.

There is other well corrected projection lenses such as a Leica Super Color Plan 90mm f2.5 P2 but I do not think it is becoming of a projection lens you are seeking.


Here is a result with the projection lens I bought presented in the actual ad. I haven't tried the lens out yet. It is a bit soft but the bokeh might turn out to be interesting.



PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:28 am    Post subject: Re: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

charley5 wrote:


1. Some have very lovely bokeh, and others less so. I am not a fan of heavily swirly bokeh. I see it on some projection lenses more than others. Why is that? Aside from the manufacturer, are there certain types of pictures that accentuate the swirliness more, or attenuate it?

2. Let's take Andrius' image here.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adisx/49366859381/
It is wonderfully sharp with great bokeh to boot. Did he do anything to maximize this quality, aside from working with the native qualities of this lens?

3. Why are some of these lenses great for macro, and others better for portraits? It seems the focusing plane is different for these.

4. Does anyone know of anybody who machines mounts for these instruments (in my case, Sony)? Say I find a lens that I think has great potential (based on other people's success with it) and buy it without a mount, is there anyone I can send it to who will outfit it?

Thank you for any information or suggestions you can provide!

-Charles


1- That depends on the optical scheme of the lens. The most common scheme I see in projection lenses is Triplet, since there are no cemented elements to be damaged by heat coming from the light. They give bokeh like the Trioplan does, with rounded shape with strong edges, and they're only nice-looking when there are few highlights scattered in the scene, without overlapping. Besides these, there are also other examples with more complex optical formulas like the F-92, a Planar, if I'm not mistaken. It gives swirlier bokeh, similar to the Helios, when used against a background with numerous small highlights.

2- In this shot, there seems to have a nice combination of both shallow depth of field and background compression, since it's a 140mm f1.9 lens. You can still see some swirliness in the out-of-focus areas, maybe due to the Petzval formula. If there's any modification to the photo, only the photographer knows. In general, projection lenses are decently sharp, even though they're stuck in their maximum apertures.

3- I have done both normal and macro shots with a Pentacon AV 80mm lens and a 103mm Kodak Ektanar-C lens. For me, I don't think it's the focusing plane, but its usability. In my tests, the AV is better because of how easy I can adapt it to closeup use, with one extension tube. The Ektanar takes some at least two and has even shallower depth of field, due to its longer focal length. For portrait use, It might depend on distortion tests, which I've not done, so can't answer that.

4- My lenses are quite small, so I could adapt them myself using a spare M42 mount/ring. The AV and the Ektanar are all plastic, so I had to saw them off and do the finishing touches with a Dremel. My next projection lens might be either the F-92 or the KO-120, larger lenses than I'm used to, and for them I might have to take a look into custom builds or specialized adapters, such as the ones by Rafcamera.com. Since I live in Brazil, I don't think I can recommend someone here to do the job


PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-kipronar-140mm-f1-9-cine-projector-lens-t62275.html


PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say that it might be better to experiment yourself, since these lenses made famous on flickr or youtube have reached absurd prices.

Talking about their qualities might lead to discoveries that would ultimately lead to speculative prices.

I can only suggest to you to try projection zooms, and even as inverted lenses: you just mount the entire zoom by its exit lens side.

I have had an adaper made by a machinist, it costed quite a bit (more than eighty euros).

Some people have used gutted camera zooms or fixed primes to house projection lenses.

I have just experimented with a broken helios 44-3, with the rear lens removed (not the cemented rear doublet. I removed just the rear meniscus)

Lens becomes a telephoto (the rear doublet is clearly a negative group)

Results were not encouraging, I got a dull lens.

I have had better bokeh from an isconar 135mm f:4 despite some blur being visible at a certain magnification (on canon 5d2).

With the portrait style of the 5d2 I got washed out colors and a reddish dominat that reminded me of the first color films of the early sixties.

Not bad if you wish a vintage look.

But your satisfaction will depend entirely on your vision. What is good for others might disappoint you in the end


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pleto wrote:


I have just experimented with a broken helios 44-3, with the rear lens removed (not the cemented rear doublet. I removed just the rear meniscus)

Lens becomes a telephoto (the rear doublet is clearly a negative group)



I've removed the rear groups from a couple of lenses (One a Sonar design, the other an Ultron design) both roughly doubled their focal lengths, but neither became a telephoto. I would expect this is what happened to your too.
A true telephoto is made by ADDING a negative group at the rear so the lens is shorter than it's focal length.

In my experiments the Ultron lens makes a reasonable soft focus lens with the rear group removed & extension added to compensate for the focal length change. The degree of soft focus effect is controlled by the aperture, but IMO dropped off rather too rapidly to be truly useful.

I didn't see any great degradation in IQ with the sonar lens. The rear group was severely fogged & didn't clean up as I'd hoped, but at least the lens remained perfectly usable with this removed.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:56 am    Post subject: Re: Some Questions About Projection Lenses Reply with quote

jhayashileite wrote:
charley5 wrote:


1. Some have very lovely bokeh, and others less so. I am not a fan of heavily swirly bokeh. I see it on some projection lenses more than others. Why is that? Aside from the manufacturer, are there certain types of pictures that accentuate the swirliness more, or attenuate it?

2. Let's take Andrius' image here.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adisx/49366859381/
It is wonderfully sharp with great bokeh to boot. Did he do anything to maximize this quality, aside from working with the native qualities of this lens?

3. Why are some of these lenses great for macro, and others better for portraits? It seems the focusing plane is different for these.

4. Does anyone know of anybody who machines mounts for these instruments (in my case, Sony)? Say I find a lens that I think has great potential (based on other people's success with it) and buy it without a mount, is there anyone I can send it to who will outfit it?

Thank you for any information or suggestions you can provide!

-Charles


1- That depends on the optical scheme of the lens. The most common scheme I see in projection lenses is Triplet, since there are no cemented elements to be damaged by heat coming from the light. They give bokeh like the Trioplan does, with rounded shape with strong edges, and they're only nice-looking when there are few highlights scattered in the scene, without overlapping. Besides these, there are also other examples with more complex optical formulas like the F-92, a Planar, if I'm not mistaken. It gives swirlier bokeh, similar to the Helios, when used against a background with numerous small highlights.

2- In this shot, there seems to have a nice combination of both shallow depth of field and background compression, since it's a 140mm f1.9 lens. You can still see some swirliness in the out-of-focus areas, maybe due to the Petzval formula. If there's any modification to the photo, only the photographer knows. In general, projection lenses are decently sharp, even though they're stuck in their maximum apertures.

3- I have done both normal and macro shots with a Pentacon AV 80mm lens and a 103mm Kodak Ektanar-C lens. For me, I don't think it's the focusing plane, but its usability. In my tests, the AV is better because of how easy I can adapt it to closeup use, with one extension tube. The Ektanar takes some at least two and has even shallower depth of field, due to its longer focal length. For portrait use, It might depend on distortion tests, which I've not done, so can't answer that.

4- My lenses are quite small, so I could adapt them myself using a spare M42 mount/ring. The AV and the Ektanar are all plastic, so I had to saw them off and do the finishing touches with a Dremel. My next projection lens might be either the F-92 or the KO-120, larger lenses than I'm used to, and for them I might have to take a look into custom builds or specialized adapters, such as the ones by Rafcamera.com. Since I live in Brazil, I don't think I can recommend someone here to do the job



This is very helpful. Thank you. I wish I was more skilled with my hands, but I was not born with that gift, so I have to rely on other people's engineering skills.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pleto wrote:
I would say that it might be better to experiment yourself, since these lenses made famous on flickr or youtube have reached absurd prices.

Talking about their qualities might lead to discoveries that would ultimately lead to speculative prices.

I can only suggest to you to try projection zooms, and even as inverted lenses: you just mount the entire zoom by its exit lens side.

I have had an adaper made by a machinist, it costed quite a bit (more than eighty euros).

Some people have used gutted camera zooms or fixed primes to house projection lenses.

I have just experimented with a broken helios 44-3, with the rear lens removed (not the cemented rear doublet. I removed just the rear meniscus)

Lens becomes a telephoto (the rear doublet is clearly a negative group)

Results were not encouraging, I got a dull lens.

I have had better bokeh from an isconar 135mm f:4 despite some blur being visible at a certain magnification (on canon 5d2).

With the portrait style of the 5d2 I got washed out colors and a reddish dominat that reminded me of the first color films of the early sixties.

Not bad if you wish a vintage look.

But your satisfaction will depend entirely on your vision. What is good for others might disappoint you in the end



I completely agree about experimenting for myself. So right about finding your own vision. I didn't even know there was such a thing as projection zooms.

-Charles


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possibly referring to projection zooms Angenieux St-Heand AX Type 65/75?