| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: Ultra fast m42 lenses? |
 |
|
pulatom wrote:
Hi, I was wondering what are the brightest M42 lenses? I'm interested in obtaining ultra low DOF (usable e.g. in full length portraits), and I use 85/1.5 for this purpose so far  . I've heard of some 55/1.2's, but they probably won't flatten the DOF more than the former. An 85/1.2 or 50/0.9 available for M42 mount could be great  .
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos
Last edited by pulatom on Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blende8
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 260
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
blende8 wrote:
You get the unsharpest background with that lens where focal length divided by the aperture is the largest number.
Some examples:
30/1.4 = 21
50/1.4 = 36
50/1.2 = 42
85/2 = 43
85/1,4 = 61
135/2,8 = 49
135/1,8 = 75
180/3.5 = 51
200/2.8 = 71
300/4 = 75
400/5.6 = 71
For fast portrait lenses, check here:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/FastLenses_en.html
and
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Fast85mm_en.html
_________________
Best wishes, Wieland
K-1, K-5IIs
Pentax, mysterium quod absconditum fuit ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
If you want minimal depth of field for full length portraits, maybe look for a 135mm f2 or f1.8 - there are few models to be found. I saw a 135mm f2 CD Soligor on eBay UK recently which sold for less than £40. Or perhaps think of an even longer focal length if you can get enough distance between camera and subject. A 180/200mm f2.8/f3.5 will cost a lot less than a 135mm f2 and probably give better performance at full aperture.
I've always thought that the longer focal lengths give a greater impression of "out-of-focusness" ( ) than very fast shorter ones, but if you're doing portraits in a small studio or indoors, I can appreciate that it might not be a viable way to go.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pulatom wrote:
Thanks for the replies, gotta look for some fast 135's I think. Very long telephotos will flatten the perspective too much for my taste (besides, there's not always enough room to keep such a long photographing distance  ). I was doing some shoots with Tair 135/2.8 and I think it's the longest portrait focal length I'll use .
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joosep
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 305
Location: Estonia, Tallinn
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joosep wrote:
I collect/use only m42 stuff, so ....
The 55 1.2 by Tomioka should be the fastest out there. The rear element is so big, that it is chipped to put the aperture pin in, look here.
The 85 1.4 by Zeiss is very very good, but very expensive. The Helios 85 1.5 is a tad slower but alot cheaper (cant really compare these two, in MTF the CZ wins hands down, but the Helios is known of its swirl, really an outstanding lens.)
The 135 1.8 (Porst should be the newest, there are a few out there, like the Sigmatel), is huge, kinda softish wide open, but clinically sharp when closed down.
These are the 3 main FAST FAST FAST boys. I didnt say anything about wides because I dont really find the need for really fast wide lenses, I use my wides stopped down anyway and handshake isnt really a big topic with 35 and under (30mm and 1/30 works perfectly if you arent running at the same time ). (If you want a 35, then I would recommend you the Mir-24M (its a 35 2.0), for now, the best colors Ive seen on a M42 lens).
I wouldnt really recommend the 55 1.2, it isnt THAT much faster than 1.4 and most certainly it does not have a better MTF than some very good 1.4-s.
The 85 1.5 or 1.4 is a must for me, my fav. portrait lenght. The bokeh on these is just perfect and I can focus with them quite easily (my right eye is about -1 dptr, so it is hard to focus with longer lenses).
The 135 1.8 is a monster. If you dont want to the mega mega weight on your bag, then get the 135 2.5 Tak, for now, this lens has the most MTF of all M42 135-s, its sharpness is just jawdropping (ps. there are two versions of this, if someone can clarify which one is the performer and which one is the OK one... dont remember).
This is what I have concluded for now...
_________________
The future is analogue.
23 cameras, 25 lenses and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
An 1.5/85 already does a great job with narrow DoF.
I don't think that you can easily find an M42 lens that show a greater effect, perhaps apart from the rare 1.8/135.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| scsambrook wrote: |
| If you want minimal depth of field for full length portraits, maybe look for a 135mm f2 or f1.8 - there are few models to be found. I saw a 135mm f2 CD Soligor on eBay UK recently which sold for less than £40. Or perhaps think of an even longer focal length if you can get enough distance between camera and subject. A 180/200mm f2.8/f3.5 will cost a lot less than a 135mm f2 and probably give better performance at full aperture. |
Agree 100%
In facts, at distance of 1 to 2,5 m, the differences between the DOF of the 135 mm lens qt f/ 2,8, and the existent at F/2 is so minimal that is almost negligible.
The differences in perspective in 180 mm and 135 mm, should be important for ones. Not for me. So, my opinion is very subjective. But using the 180 mm lens with an extension tube, a saw a very good portrais.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Of course when we talk about lenses and perspective, we really mean the distance to model to frame the shot the same.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pulatom wrote:
I once tried to shoot full length portrait with 200mm lens (Jupiter 21M, nice one, but F4 is too slow for me so I'm selling it ) and I had to stand so far away from my model that we had to shout to hear each other . It may be good for closeups, but for full-length I'm going to look for some kind of fast 135.
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eugen Mezei
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eugen Mezei wrote:
You always can increase the recording medium format to get less DOF. I'm shure for the price of a 1.4/85 CZJ or even the 1.8 Porst you can get a P6 or Kiev with a 120 or 150 mm lens. Not luminous, but DOF should be the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joosep
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 305
Location: Estonia, Tallinn
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joosep wrote:
| Eugen Mezei wrote: |
| You always can increase the recording medium format to get less DOF. I'm shure for the price of a 1.4/85 CZJ or even the 1.8 Porst you can get a P6 or Kiev with a 120 or 150 mm lens. Not luminous, but DOF should be the same. |
I own and use a P6 lens (Vega) almost every day and its not how it works.
In a sense that... On a 6x6, a 50 mm equivalent lens is about 80-90mm. But if you take that 80-90mm lens and use it with an adapter (to get the registry distance right) on your fullframe, you will still end up with a 80-90mm regular lens.
So that 150mm lens (if you are not mega rich enough for a the Astro, then most likely youll buy a 2.8 ) will behave just like any 150 mm 2.8 lens ever made for any fullframe (almost the same as 135mm 2.8 then).
85 / 1.4 = 60.71
150 / 2.8 = 53,1
_________________
The future is analogue.
23 cameras, 25 lenses and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Are you actually using the lens wide open for your portraits? Your DOF must be extremely shallow. What camera do you shoot with?
Could you post some samples of your work?
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
pulatom wrote:
I was thinking about moving to the medium format someday, I'm only afraid of the high prices of 6x6 film and its developing.
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
Are you actually using the lens wide open for your portraits? Your DOF must be extremely shallow. What camera do you shoot with?
Could you post some samples of your work? |
I shoot with a 35mm SLR (Ricoh Singlex TLS) and I seldom stop down any of my lenses . The overall sharpness ain't that important for me (my photos usually end up as a 10x15 prints or for sites like Facebook ), but the big, nice and swirly bokeh certainly is. I love using some home made lens attachments to get interesting BG effects.
Here are few of my recent shoots:
1. Pentacon 50/1.8, the standard focal length is enough for the scenes like this .
2. Cyclop 85/1.5, it gives the effect closest to that I want, but it's sooo hard to focus  .
3. And a self portrait with Jupiter 9, pretty similar to 85/1.5, but gives different bokeh.
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joosep
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 305
Location: Estonia, Tallinn
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joosep wrote:
| pulatom wrote: |
| I was thinking about moving to the medium format someday, I'm only afraid of the high prices of 6x6 film and its developing. |
Im right know now collecting money for my first medium format. The prices ? Well its the same with 135, the difference is that you get three times less pictures (depends what backs you use, 6x6 gives 12 frames).
I have friends who shoot to medium format and they are usually really picky on what they shoot. I can see you already now how to shoot, on medium format you just think alot before you take the shot.
99% of the time I shoot on 135, now if I use my dslr, I never tale more than 36 frames, I used to burst away.
The quantity of good stuff hasnt changed, just alot less crap.
So my point is, when you keep your cool, the running expenses wont be so big.
The equipment prices really vary.
Bronica and Kiev are the cheaper ones and Mamiya, Pentac, Hasselblad are on the expensive side. And so are the lenses...
Kiev ( or rebuilt ones lile Arax ) are most likely the best for the buck, because P6 lens choice is really big and you can even get CZ lenses or Astros (made the fastest medium format lenses out there).
But still I think im leaning towards Hasselblad. They really are the Rolls Roices of cameras. When you buy a 500/501, you know, you can sell it for the same price or higher.
_________________
The future is analogue.
23 cameras, 25 lenses and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| Joosep wrote: |
| pulatom wrote: |
| I was thinking about moving to the medium format someday, I'm only afraid of the high prices of 6x6 film and its developing. |
Im right know now collecting money for my first medium format. The prices ? Well its the same with 135, the difference is that you get three times less pictures (depends what backs you use, 6x6 gives 12 frames).
I have friends who shoot to medium format and they are usually really picky on what they shoot. I can see you already now how to shoot, on medium format you just think alot before you take the shot.
99% of the time I shoot on 135, now if I use my dslr, I never tale more than 36 frames, I used to burst away.
The quantity of good stuff hasnt changed, just alot less crap.
So my point is, when you keep your cool, the running expenses wont be so big.
The equipment prices really vary.
Bronica and Kiev are the cheaper ones and Mamiya, Pentac, Hasselblad are on the expensive side. And so are the lenses...
Kiev ( or rebuilt ones lile Arax ) are most likely the best for the buck, because P6 lens choice is really big and you can even get CZ lenses or Astros (made the fastest medium format lenses out there).
But still I think im leaning towards Hasselblad. They really are the Rolls Roices of cameras. When you buy a 500/501, you know, you can sell it for the same price or higher. |
The rollei SRL are a very good option too (ie 6006). And the lenses, Zeiss and Schneider are superb.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 16541
Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
You could try and use some of the cheap apertureless Xray machine lenses, converted to your camera. If you choose a suitably long focal length, the usually short rear register will suffice for portrait shots maybe. No rule can be given, but with some experimenting a solution could be found. I have the longer focal Rodenstock Heligon lenses in mind, like the 1.6/100mm. Examples are here: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Tsmd
_________________
Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Nice samples. I have the J9 and Pentacon 50 which I tend only to use on B&W film.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| Nice samples. I have the J9 and Pentacon 50 which I tend only to use on B&W film. |
Special lenses to use with B&W film.
Very good option for me too.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
pulatom wrote:
Thx, looks like I'm gonna buy some 6x6 stuff soon, it's always a nice new experience .
| kds315* wrote: |
| You could try and use some of the cheap apertureless Xray machine lenses, converted to your camera. If you choose a suitably long focal length, the usually short rear register will suffice for portrait shots maybe. No rule can be given, but with some experimenting a solution could be found. I have the longer focal Rodenstock Heligon lenses in mind, like the 1.6/100mm. |
I was already thinking about something like this, but from what I know they lack the focusing mechanism too. Is there any way to set the focus to the normal portrait distances?
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 1120
Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
| blende8 wrote: |
| You get the unsharpest background with that lens where focal length divided by the aperture is the largest number. |
This is VERY interesting. We can easily build spreadsheet tables that calculate this DOF INDEX for any focal length and aperture. The 50/1.7 and 58/2 are equivalent, and not far from a 90/2.8 or 180/5.5. The 50/1.2 and 85/2 are close. The 135/2.5 handily beats all of those.
Also consider: Some projector lenses are fast (and can be bellows mounted) and some projector lenses come in loose helicoid focusing tubes. I recently bought a couple of these in the US$1-$3 range. A GoldE Anastigmat 127/3.5 has a helicoid tube with an M42 thread -- it easily works infinity to macro range, and has thinner DOF than a 50/1.4. My TDC (Three-Dimensional Camera) VIVID Anastigmat 127/1.8 has a 41mm thread -- I cut a hole in a Pentax body cap to mount it on a PK bellows. I must call this my 'fastest' lens. Its DOF is only slightly thinner than a 300/4.
_________________
Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 3693
Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
| kds315* wrote: |
| You could try and use some of the cheap apertureless Xray machine lenses, converted to your camera. If you choose a suitably long focal length, the usually short rear register will suffice for portrait shots maybe. No rule can be given, but with some experimenting a solution could be found. I have the longer focal Rodenstock Heligon lenses in mind, like the 1.6/100mm. |
Mine is 1.5/100mm. Here presing it to my 5DmkII with hand. Rear part of the lens on mount border (it could go further but i didn't try my luck since the lens is heavy and could slip). I am sure one could get more out of this lens if familiar with physics of this glass and by using proper illumination and filters. I noticed when focusing on my fish tank's fluorescent light image became sharper.
You might have a laugh but I think this lens would rock on Sony Nex where it could reach infinity and get more center sharpness due to smaller sensor size.
_________________
---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pulatom wrote:
The longest and fastest glass I've found so far is Canon 65/0.75 for X-Ray machines (left). Is there any chance that it can reach infinity (or at least 10m for full length shoots) on an 35mm SLR? Maybe an additional element between the body and lens (like in Nikon/M42 adapters) will work?
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 544
Location: London, UK.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
To put things in perspective I spent a little time with my calculator making a table of DOF for 50mm, 55mm and 58mm, 70mm, 75mm, 80mm, 85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 110mm, 125mm, and 135mm lenses with all apertures from f1.1 to f2.8.
I was supprised to find that my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 actually has a shallower DOF wide open than a 50mm f1.1 Nokton!!!
I also discovered that my Nikon 35mm f1.4 has exactly the same DOF as a 50mm f2, which is'nt as deep a DOF as I thought it had.
Also very interesting that a 135 f2.8 (Which I consider a slow lens) has virtually identical DOF to a 58mm f1.2, which is a pretty fast lens by anyones standards.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8310
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8310 wrote:
| DSG wrote: |
[...]I was supprised to find that my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 actually has a shallower DOF wide open than a 50mm f1.1 Nokton!!!
I also discovered that my Nikon 35mm f1.4 has exactly the same DOF as a 50mm f2, which is'nt as deep a DOF as I thought it had.
Also very interesting that a 135 f2.8 (Which I consider a slow lens) has virtually identical DOF to a 58mm f1.2, which is a pretty fast lens by anyones standards. |
That is for the same distance, right? For the same framing you have to get closer to the object with a shorter focal length and then the short and fast lens does have a shallower dof than the longer and slower one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pulatom
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pulatom wrote:
Looks like it's best to go for some very fast 85 to get the compromise between the focal length (subject distance) and max. aperture .
_________________
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams
My photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
