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

Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:05 pm    Post subject: Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test Reply with quote

I picked this up in a pawn shop for a smallish outlay, knowing full well that it would probably be rubbish, but would certainly be fun on a crop sensor DSLR!

And it certainly IS fun! Unprocessed shots look poor, and thus I wouldn't particularly recommend this for a film camera. However, with DSLRs we are able to add PP which will significantly improve the images produced (see later).

So for now, here's the lens:



Looks like it has been produced in other brands too, such as Hanimex, Soligor, Paragon etc. This one came with an OM mount, but I unscrewed it to find a standard T-mount beneath, as expected. I replaced the OM mount with an M42 one and off we went!

The first shots here are totally unprocessed from RAW. See the bottom of the post for processed shots, which look much nicer IMO Smile







In honour of luisalegria: the bird



100% crop



Here's the processed shots

All photos have have plenty of pp - lots of contrast added, colours warmed and a touch of sharpening (no more than usual).

#1



#2



#3



#4



#5



#6



#7



#8



Summary

Overall, the lens is very light and handles well. I didn't expect good results without processing, and thus I feel it's more a lens for DSLR users who don't want to lug around heavy 300mm primes or shell out for expensive zooms.

The doughnut bokeh is not for everyone's taste, but I really like it! The only issue is the effective focal length which is quite difficult to hand hold on a crop cam - I found 75% of my shots had to be binned Shocked Still fun though Smile


PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the doughnut bokeh is like Biotar "swirly" bokeh... You either like it a lot or you find it epilepsia-inducing.

Some very nice frames here, #4 has great symbolism and #7 is a very difficult shot well framed.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test Reply with quote

Shrek wrote:


The first shots here are totally unprocessed from RAW. See the bottom of the post for processed shots, which look much nicer IMO Smile


I am such a nitpicker that I feel I must mention, that actually the first images were also processed. Not only they were resized quite a bit, the raw-converter you used did almost certainly also do something besides demosaicing to them as raw converters tend to do stuff behind the curtains.

A nice lens though, I am sure, especially for digital use. I also use a mirror lens occasionally, 500/8 Soviet made one, and with a image stabilized body the practicality of the reach combinet to small lightweight package is amazing.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test Reply with quote

Anu wrote:
Shrek wrote:

The first shots here are totally unprocessed from RAW. See the bottom of the post for processed shots, which look much nicer IMO :)


I am such a nitpicker that I feel I must mention, that actually the first images were also processed. Not only they were resized quite a bit, the raw-converter you used did almost certainly also do something besides demosaicing to them as raw converters tend to do stuff behind the curtains.


In addition to Anu's points above, one should remember that there's no “standard” way to convert a given raw file; using default settings of a given converter just means accepting the authors' preferred processing, just like in-camera JPEG means accepting the camera manufacturer's processing.

The point is, of course, not to say that there's anything wrong with posting shots such as these, but rather that there's no such thing as an unprocessed digital photo that one can view… That is, don't worry about adjusting images in raw conversion even if they are meant as lens samples. (And also don't worry about not adjusting them if you don't want to, more samples is better. =)


(Apologies for taking this thread increasingly off-topic, but sometimes I think people attribute too much to “straight from camera”, as though it meant the photo is somehow truer to reality. Of course, this is in no way a reference to any poster in this thread or possibly even this forum.)


PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's an interesting arguement which I'm sure could carry on forever. As it is, there's no real way of seeing how a lens would perform on film unless you run it through a film camera, and then even the film can make a difference Laughing

I think I'll just enjoy using it and adding pp as necessary Wink


PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks ok to me!

The 100% crop is obviously a bit soft but with some PP and viewed at web size they look fine and let's be honest most of the photos we look at nowadays are on the web so until 10mp monitors are the norm it doesn't matter all that much unless you were going to use the lens for large prints or pro work.

The donut bokeh looks less hard edged than some lenses I've seen. I like donut bokeh anyway so I'm always happy to see shots taken with a mirror lens.

Looking for a 300mm mirror lens myself, 500mm is a little crazy on my 4/3 sensor!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fatdeeman wrote:
Looking for a 300mm mirror lens myself, 500mm is a little crazy on my 4/3 sensor!


If your camera has an image stabilizer, I think you might end up liking the 500 more Smile

I don't know how many pixels your sensor has, but it's effective reach is not that much larger than what on my K20D and 500 suits it really well Smile

Ok, all above was just an excuse to link something here from the summer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38713633@N05/3634601939/sizes/o/in/set-72157619001658044/


PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

500mm on a 4/3rds would make an effective 1000mm lens, wouldn't want to hand hold that Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shrek wrote:
500mm on a 4/3rds would make an effective 1000mm lens, wouldn't want to hand hold that Laughing


This is why everyone should buy a camera with an in-body image stabilizer Smile