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

Trioplan again
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:30 pm    Post subject: Trioplan again Reply with quote

The trend continues! Laughing click on thumbnails:

1. Fountain in Castell'Arquato, wide open


2. Fountain in Castell'Arquato, stopped down


3. Same fountain


4. Same fountain


5. Dead pidgeon Crying or Very sad


6. Musa plants


7. Pidgeons on the cathedral, wide open


8. Pidgeons on the cathedral, stopped down



-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next time try an ordinary magnifier seems you can make excellent pictures with any lenses! Nice set!


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice set, the Musa plant looks like banana leaves. Why did you kill the
pigeon? Kidding...must have flown into a glass window somewhere. It
is certainly a lightweight lens, isn't it? Hardly weighs anything at all...

Bill


Last edited by Katastrofo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:49 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The more I shoot on digital with these old lenses (and it's nearly 2 years now), the more I become of the opinion that these old lenses have nothing to envy to the newer ones. They have all that it takes. Just note how sharp the Trioplan is once stopped down. And it's nothing but a very old triplet scheme.

Any shortcoming in using them is to blame on the photographer.
-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Nice set, the Musa plant looks like banana leaves.


Yes, Musa = Banana Very Happy Sorry it's my professional deformation, I keep calling plants with Latin names. Rolling Eyes

Katastrofo wrote:

Why did you kill the
pigeon? Kidding...must have flown into a glass window somewhere.
Bill


More likely a cat. The pidgeons fly down there to drink at the fountain, and I saw a colony of at least 30 cats living down there on the cliffs below the castle.
-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio

I remember eating pigeon when I was in Italy (in a farmhouse over on the east coast). That is a great series yet again from you and the Trioplan. It is a very convincing set and I guess it has to go on the list which never seems to et any smaller.



patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
Orio
I remember eating pigeon when I was in Italy (in a farmhouse over on the east coast). That is a great series yet again from you and the Trioplan. It is a very convincing set and I guess it has to go on the list which never seems to et any smaller.
patrickh


Thanks for kind words Smile
Yes, sometimes they cook Pidgeon with either the Polenta or within the Timballo di Riso (familiarly known as Bomba di Riso - Rice Bomb).
I have to confess I am not a big fan of bird meat - I like Chicken and Turkey maybe because they are not good fliers Laughing I don't know. But especially here in the North people eats a lot the wild birds (Pheasants, Quails, etc.) most often accompanied by Polenta and Mushroom sauce. And good Northern Italy red wine (Barolo, Gutturnio, Lambrusco, Sangiovese, Merlot). Wink

-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am startled by the revelation of these so-called "third party" lenses as being easily on a par with the "big time" lenses. You images are a case in point that can't be denied.

Since I have come to this forum, my eyes are opened a little wider from your philosophies of "try it out, you might be surprised" with these mundane lenses that seem to be scoffed at by the general populace of modern photography.

In fact, I talked to a couple of members of the local camera club, and I will be presenting some of Orio's images (with his permission) to show some of these hallmarks of the "unknown lenses". BOTH of those members immediately told me the following (annotated, of course, I don't remember the exact wording):

"Well, Laurence I'm glad that you are having fun in your MFLenses forum, but we are all going to have to agree beforehand that these three-element lenses aren't going to hold up at all against some of the modern, sharp lenses being produced by Canon, Nikon, etc."

When I asked why they feel this way, they indicated (annotated again):

"We'll concede that the older lenses had a fine workmanship and some are beauties to look at. But a lot of them are better as paperweights when compared to the overall sharpness of modern designs."

One of the members (Steve) went on to say (annotated): "It's not just the sharpness of the modern lenses that outperforms the older lenses, but the overall LOOK of the final image is miles apart [better] than the old lenses with their weird aberrations and focal problems. The triplets are notorious for this."

I asked Steve about bokeh, and he indicated (annotated): "I think that the modern lenses are surprisingly good in bokeh. There is a certain look to these modern lenses that provides bokeh that is even and gradual, and I think it is a product of the fact that the lenses are digitally accurate in their contruction."

So, there you have it. This is a truthful annotation of the conversation. Shocked

Edit: I wonder what these people will think of the bokeh and sharpness and three-dimensionality of the Zeiss 50/3.5 images of the ground cover Ivy? This will be interesting...


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want, I can give you some full resolution 5D shots taken with the Trioplan (to talk about the sharpness of triplet lenses).
And maybe with the Tessar also.

Maybe Veijo can give you a couple of his Radionar full res files to show these guys something about the bokeh of ancient lenses.

Then when you think you are ready to see them green in the face I can give you some full resolution 5D samples taken with the Hollywood Distagon and you'll ask them to compare with any 28mm Canon lens of their choice. Laughing


Last edited by Orio on Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
If you want, I can give you some full resolution 5D shots taken with the Trioplan (to talk about the sharpness of triplet lenses).
And maybe with the Tessar also.

Maybe Veijo can give you a couple of his Radionar full res files to show these guys something about the bokeh of ancient lenses.

Then when you think you are ready to see them green in the face I can give you some full resolution 5D samples taken with the Hollywood Distagon and you'll ask them to compare with any 28mm Canon lens of their choice. Laughing


I would LOVE it if anyone could send, or put up on FTP if they are super-large, for my comparison demonstration.

And, for the most part, I see that the camera club members REALLY DO feel that the modern optics are many times superior.

But, to be fair, there are at least 2 or 3 members who argue for the sake of "old lenses" and yes, even "old triplets". They are in a minority. There are about 30 members in total, and they are quite adamant about the virtues of "sharpness" and "detail" in the modern optics. Yet, I know for a FACT that many of them have never even USED anything but such lenses as the Canon L Series AF lenses. These ARE very good lenses, and certainly have a place for some applications.

But, I think (hope) they will be surprised by the beauty available in older lenses. It could be that I might be disappointed because of their feet being stuck in the sand.

I am looking forward to presentation to the camera club (this won't be a formal presentation, just "taking a look" on my calibrated 19 inch Dell monitor (which I will bring to the club meeting).


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will prepare for you a selection of both full resolution files and files sized down to your screen resolution.
Which resolution does your laptop work at?

And, what day is that meeting?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how many are there of us that own the Trioplan 100/2.8? Curious.

Bill


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


    Bill
    Orio
    Maxim
    Carsten
    Niblue
    Farside
    Bob955i
    Attila
    Piljke (3)


Last edited by Attila on Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:18 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And Steve, (niblue).


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We can almost make a Trioplan football team Laughing

-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Piljke of the Netherlands owns a couple of these, too, getting there,
Orio! Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence

You know :

1) some of the diehards will never be convinced
2) we expect a full accounting of the presentation.

Personally I dont know anyone who has at least one decent eye who can deny the ultimate sharpness and quality (in all its dimensions) of the Distagon as used by Orio


patrickh


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just had a good talk by telephone with Patrick (of the camera club), and he is one of the guys who feels that these old lenses, including some of the 3-element lenses can exceed the overall aesthetic of the newer, "computer built" lenses [his words].

He is going to also present a couple of images; one from his Zenitar 50/1.7 (which he uses more than just about any other lens) and one from his Tessar 40/3.5 (which he feels is outstanding in out of focus areas).

I don't think - and Patrick agrees - that showing these attributes will really affect the opinions of most of the members. Patrick worded it thus: "The people who own the modern lenses will swear by them, to the point that they will possibly turn a blind eye to what is front of them."

Now, I'm not THAT cynical, and I think that there will be some "diehards" that will admit that WHAT THEY SEE is incontrovertibly better than the "extremely sharp" newer lenses.

I am going to tape the meeting, if possible, to at least be able to provide accurate statements to you folks about what was said.

I think this will be a fun thing to do, and I look forward to seeing reactions to those wonderful images taken by the classic lenses.

I have a pretty good laptop, with a video card resolution up to 1180x1024; probably 1024x768 would be good enough, but feel free to go higher. The monitor, of course, will show the images efficiently.

Even though I am now sort of "shaking my head", especially at those who haven't even USED classic lenses, I DO see that they are having fun with their modern lenses; I doubt that this will make a whole cadre of patrons "rush out" to buy the older lenses.

Also, all that said, there are good photographers in the club. It's just kind of fun to pick up the challenge, and challenge THEM to look at the images and try to provide reasons why they aren't "as good or better" in overall QUALITY to the modern lenses.

I do this with a dimension of FUN, because it is ALL fun. I think that, even in my argument that lenses such as the Trioplan can be outstanding in creating an image that is a beauty to the eye, I will still have a polite and happy demeanor. Cool


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
So how many are there of us that own the Trioplan 100/2.8? Curious.

Bill


I own another one, but not yet used it.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ivo wrote:
Katastrofo wrote:
So how many are there of us that own the Trioplan 100/2.8? Curious.

Bill


I own another one, but not yet used it.

I'm waiting for mine... should arrive next week Surprised


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:


I don't think - and Patrick agrees - that showing these attributes will really affect the opinions of most of the members. Patrick worded it thus: "The people who own the modern lenses will swear by them, to the point that they will possibly turn a blind eye to what is front of them."

Now, I'm not THAT cynical, and I think that there will be some "diehards" that will admit that WHAT THEY SEE is incontrovertibly better than the "extremely sharp" newer lenses.



It's not a new phenomenom - many people will defend their purchasing choices to the bitter end because they spent their own money on them and are thus incapable of taking an objective viewpoint about the items in question.
It applies to cars, motorcycles, video recorders, cameras, gadgets and gew-gaws of all types, but especially to items which have cost more than a couple of bucks, like Canon 'L' glass.

And let's face it, nobody likes to have been told they've bought a pup.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing MF lenses can hardly beat actually with croped sensors is wide focal.
I own a 17-50 2.8 AF Tamron zoom and I don't think I can let it at home if I go travelling somewhere[*]... For sur I will take a faster 50mm in my bag but why would I take also a 28mm and a wider lens that is hard to find for cheap ?



[*] with kids and wife Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
I do this with a dimension of FUN, because it is ALL fun.


So far the discussion about the benefits of using manual lenses has been about sharpness and other aspects of image quality. Of course this is important, but for me it's only part of it. I also get a kick out of focussing, assessing the exposure and setting the aperture and shutter speed and then, if the picture turns out to be a good one, the enjoyment is even greater. It's like driving a vintage car, the joy is in the driving - not just arriving at the destination.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me it's very simple: with manual lenses on digital, I am obtaining quality results that I could never obtain with the autofocus lenses I was able to afford.
It's as simple as that.

Additionally, there is the aesthetical side - I love beautiful objects and hate the ugly. Many, if not most, manual focus lenses are beautifully crafted objects of metal and glass, which I love to own, collect and manipulate. All autofocus lenses (at least those that I could afford) feel and look like toys to me, and I can't feel no respect for them, and neither I feel like investing a lot of my money in those plastic things.

These two reasons are more than enough for me to never consider autofocus lenses anymore except as workhorses, when I need to do quantity photography in a short time, with the highest possible percentage of useable shots.
-


PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

So far the discussion about the benefits of using manual lenses has been about sharpness and other aspects of image quality. Of course this is important, but for me it's only part of it. I also get a kick out of focussing, assessing the exposure and setting the aperture and shutter speed and then, if the picture turns out to be a good one, the enjoyment is even greater. It's like driving a vintage car, the joy is in the driving - not just arriving at the destination.


I can also quote every word of this, Peter.

Adding that sharpness, is not the only quality of a lens.
-