MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
DiskFreeVault safely moves Mac apps and data to external storage.
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Trioplan again but different - sons of the same mother
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:22 pm
Post subject: Trioplan again but different - sons of the same mother
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:22 pm
Post subject: Trioplan again but different - sons of the same mother
Reply
We all know that the Trioplan 2.8/100 silver model is the holy grail of bubble ring bokeh, and the little brother 2.9/50 does quite well, but I would like to know more about all the others. I will soon have a 3.5/75 (from Welta folding camera) and will thoroughly test that one. However, there are several more variations of focal length and max aperture. I would like this to include the lenses found on folding cameras as well - basically everything Trioplan.

I would imagine the lens design would be different in some respects by application. For instance, a folding camera lens is more compact, so must be different from a SLR, correct? The ultimate goal of this exercise is to understand what might be expected from each variant; specifically, bokeh and sharpness. I hope you will participate if you have a variant.

Currently, I have only shot with 2.9/50 Trioplan for Altix. I will start with pictures and comment on that lens. I have found my copy, which came to me in near mint condition, to be surprisingly sharp even at wide open. Very bright spots will display some glow similar to the big brother, but I think sharper. The bokeh rings are there and very good, but maybe not quite exactly the same as the 100mm. I do highly recommend the lens.







Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
A Trioplan is a Trioplan is a Trioplan. Laughing

Like your pictures


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I like them too;) decided to go the cheap route and got my hands on a broken Altix iv, gonna rip me the lens off and do a conversion!!


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Why do I have a sudden urge to drink champagne? Lovely captures!


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
GoldMark wrote:
A Trioplan is a Trioplan is a Trioplan. Laughing

Like your pictures


But is it? What I mentioned in my opening post is that they have been made in widely different focal lengths and configurations. I already know the difference in bokeh between the 2.8/100 and 2.9/50, which isn't drastic, but I do wonder about the others. I'm hoping there will be some folks here that have other Trioplan variants that car show images and report their impressions.


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:44 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:44 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Do you think a Trioplan is very different from a Triotar, like from a broken rollei B 35 (40mm/3.5)?
There are quite some other triplets on old folders that could be interesting?
Or is there something really special in the build of a Trioplan that delivers this kind of bokeh?
Fundamentally different from Novar, Radionar, Agnar, Cassar etc.?
The samples make me very curious about that, but I don't feel ready yet to dismantle my old folders!


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:59 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:59 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I don't know the answer to that yet, but hope we learn some things from this thread. As I mentioned, I have a 3.5/75 coming that I will have to adapt, then test. That lens is from a folding camera. I've also seen a 2.9/75 and a 2.9/105 on a folding camera. I hesitate in buying too many until I've seen some results.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:08 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:08 am
Post subject:
Reply
It is a bit exciting, and I have some oldies laying around that might be interesting.
Like an Agfa Isoly III boxcamera, with Agnar 3.5/60mm.
Mmm ... a bit too charming to take it apart.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:59 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:59 am
Post subject:
Reply
You're pics are amazing Woodrim. Even when you're playing with Bokeh!


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:17 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:17 am
Post subject:
Reply
Thank you.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:22 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:22 am
Post subject:
Reply
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
f you take lenses apart, as some are want to do from time to time, you will discover that some have the sides of the elements painted black, some don't. That, coupled with how well designed the internal baffling is, gives you the answer to why some lenses have these outlines on the bokeh circles.

I've got 8 or 9 triplets for my 6x9century, some Schneider Radionars, some Meyer Trioplans, some Kodak Anastigmats etc. Some have this bright outline, some don't. Some of my tessar types have the bright outline, some don't.

Therefore it's not a matter of the lens's formula, but of specifics of how it's constructed that matter in this phenomenon.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
f you take lenses apart, as some are want to do from time to time, you will discover that some have the sides of the elements painted black, some don't. That, coupled with how well designed the internal baffling is, gives you the answer to why some lenses have these outlines on the bokeh circles.

I've got 8 or 9 triplets for my 6x9century, some Schneider Radionars, some Meyer Trioplans, some Kodak Anastigmats etc. Some have this bright outline, some don't. Some of my tessar types have the bright outline, some don't.

Therefore it's not a matter of the lens's formula, but of specifics of how it's constructed that matter in this phenomenon.


+1


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
f you take lenses apart, as some are want to do from time to time, you will discover that some have the sides of the elements painted black, some don't. That, coupled with how well designed the internal baffling is, gives you the answer to why some lenses have these outlines on the bokeh circles.....


No, it depends on optical construction. Lenses with background soap bubble bokeh have over corrected spherical aberration. They have smooth bokeh in foreground.

The Meyer Diaplan has the central lens with blackend sides. Front and back lens have uncoated sides.
Even after blackening the front and back lens the bokeh effect stays the same.

There are lenses with variable spherical aberration, like the Nikon DC Nikkor 105 and 135mm f/2.0. There one could control the bokeh behaviour.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
You can also alter the amount of spherical aberration of a humble tessar, you simply increase the distance between the front two elements. It's an old trick of large format photographers, they did it to get a softer more glowy look on portraits if they didn't have a dedicated portrait lens.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:50 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:50 am
Post subject:
Reply
Found this very interesting Trioplan-Primotar image comparison...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpp/11552486005/


Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:52 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:52 am
Post subject:
Reply
Yeah, the Primotar 135 has the same bokeh circles as a Trioplan. I pointed that out a couple of years ago. Primotar prices haven't gone up so I guess no-one noticed.


Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:01 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:01 am
Post subject:
Reply
woodrim wrote:
Found this very interesting Trioplan-Primotar image comparison...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpp/11552486005/

That man Gideon, made a modification on Primotar, I saw his works on facebook


Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:35 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:35 pm
Post subject:
Reply
IAZA wrote:
woodrim wrote:
Found this very interesting Trioplan-Primotar image comparison...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpp/11552486005/

That man Gideon, made a modification on Primotar, I saw his works on facebook


Really? Can you point us to that?


Post
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
from your flickr link:

Quote:
meyer primotar mod vs trioplan


Post
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Tedat wrote:
from your flickr link:

Quote:
meyer primotar mod vs trioplan


Aha, I had read that as short for model. I will ask the fellow what he did.


Post
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I have just purchased a Diaplan 2.8/100. I will be able to provide images, but unfortunately I do not have the 2.8/100 Trioplan for comparison.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1