View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6624 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
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
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 Still fun though _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
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. _________________ Vilhelm
Nikon DSLR: D4, D800, Nikon D3, D70
Nikon SLR: Nikon F100, Nikon FM2n
Nikkor MF: 20/2.8 Ai-S, 24/2 Ai-S, 24/2.8 Ai-S, 28/2 Ai-S, 28/2.8 Ai-S, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 Ai-S, 45/2.8 GN, 50/1.2 Ai, 50/1.2 Ai-S, 50/1.4 Ai, 50/1.4 Ai-S, 50/1.8 AI-S "long", 50/1.8 AI-S "short", 55/1.2 Ai, 85/1.4 Ai-S, 85/1.8H, 105/2.5 Ai, 135/2.8Q, 135/3.5 Ai, 180/2.8 Ai-S ED
Nikkor AF/AF-S FX: 14-24/2.8G, 16/2.8D Fisheye, 16-35/4G VR, 17-35/2.8D, 24/1.4G, 24/3.5D PC-E, 24/2.8D, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.4D, 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 35/2D, 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 60/2.8 Micro, 60/2.8G Micro, 70-200/2.8G VR, 70-200/2.8G VR II, 80-400/4.5-5.6D VR, 85/1.4G, 85/2.8D PC-E Micro, 105/2D DC, 105/2.8G VR Micro, 135/2D DC, 200/2G VR, 200-400/4G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 300/4D ED, 400/2.8G VR, 800/5.6E VR
Nikkor AF/AF-S DX: 10.5/2.8G Fisheye, 12-24/4G, 18-70/3.5-4.5G
Topcor: Auto-Topcor 58/1.4,
Voigtländer SL: 40/2 Ultron, 58/1.4 Nokton, 75/2.5 Color-Heliar, 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar, 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar, 180/4 APO-Lanthar
Zeiss ZF: Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF
M42 SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM
M42: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.4, Tessar 50/2.8 T, Super-Takumar 55/1.8, Biotar 58/2 T, Pentacon 135/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5
Medium format: several Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16 Opton-Tessar 80mm f/2.8, Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 Opton-Tessar 75mm f/3.5
Leica: R7, M4, Super-Angulon-R 4/21, Elmarit-R 2.8/28, Summicron-R 2/35, Summicron-M 2/35, Summicron-M 2/50, Elmarit-R 2,8/180 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test |
|
|
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.
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: Super Travenon 300mm mirror lens test |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
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.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6624 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
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
I think I'll just enjoy using it and adding pp as necessary _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fatdeeman
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fatdeeman wrote:
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! _________________ - Dave
www.lensporn.net
www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/
DSLR: Canon EOS 60D, Samsung GX-1S (Pentax *ist DS2)
Mirrorless: Panasonic DMC-G1, Sony NEX-5N
Compact: Canon PowerShot G3
Lenses:
Wide: Tokina RMC 28mm F/2.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 28mm F/2.5, Sun Optical 28mm F/2.5, Super paragon 28mm F/2.8, Sigma filtermatic 24mm F/2.8, Fujinon 35mm F/2.8, Sun Optical 35mm F/2.8
Standard: Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2, Helios 44M, Helios 44M-3, Pentax-M 50mm F/1.4, Pentax-M 50mm F/1.7, Pentax-M 50mm F/2, Ricoh 50mm F/1.7, Chinon 50mm F/1.7
Tele: Pentacon 135mm F/2.8, Pentacon 200mm F/3.5, Optomax 200mm f/3.5, Sun Optical 135mm F/3.5, Soligor 350mm F/5.6
Zoom: Tokina 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 SZ-X270 SD, Sigma Zoom Pi 35-200mm F4-5.6, Sun Optical 28-80mm F/3.5-4.5, Sunagor 80-205mm F/3.8, Tokina RMC 80-200mm F/4, Vivitar 70-150mm F/3.8, Tamron 95-205mm F/6.3, Tamron Adaptall 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical, Tokina RMC 70-210mm F/3.5
Mirror: Falcon (Samyang) 800mm F/8, MTO-11CA 1000mm F/10, Tamron Adaptall 2 500mm F/8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
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
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
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/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6624 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
500mm on a 4/3rds would make an effective 1000mm lens, wouldn't want to hand hold that _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
Shrek wrote: |
500mm on a 4/3rds would make an effective 1000mm lens, wouldn't want to hand hold that |
This is why everyone should buy a camera with an in-body image stabilizer |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|