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

MOG Orestor 2.8/100 with damaged coating
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:53 pm    Post subject: MOG Orestor 2.8/100 with damaged coating Reply with quote
A friend gave me this lens, in bad condition. The aperture mechanism was damaged and did not work, and the coating on one of the rear element was damaged too. So i took out the aperture and put in a disc with a hole that is little smaller than the aperture was wide open. So its now like fixed f/3,5 or 4. I made a few quick shots with the lens to see how much will the damaged coating influence the pictures.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote






PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi!
Nice lens work Smile

Which camera body? Did you do much Photoshopping afterwards?

I put your second photo through my "standard ACR & Photoshop routines",
which made it even better.

Last edited by twinquartz on Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:50 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photos taken with Canon 450D, standard picture style. No photoshoping, just resize for web.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you shoot in RAW format
or did you let the camera convert it into jpg?

Using the RAW format, you will be able to get much
more out of the lens Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, i shoot in RAW, but, in this case, i didn't do any additional adjusting, except for the applied picture style.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This coating damages usually not hurt much.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
This coating damages usually not hurt much.


But we didn't know that ... My friend was, like "Oooo, this is not usable, take this junk ..." By the way, he got it for 5 euros, including shipping. I think i will buy him a beer. Or two.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Even if we publish 100X it is not hurt, there will be always 'smart asses' who say opposite, under 5 yrs with many examples we didn't get much progress about scratches, coating damages. All amateur reject them , so now you are pro already Smile Thank you for nice presentation, hopefully your post one little step forward to save orphan, damaged lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Even if we publish 100X it is not hurt, there will be always 'smart asses' who say opposite, under 5 yrs with many examples we didn't get much progress about scratches, coating damages. All amateur reject them , so now you are pro already Smile Thank you for nice presentation, hopefully your post one little step forward to save orphan, damaged lenses.


I have only ever had one lens where a scratch was visible in the images produced, but that was a scratch so big it was like a scale model of the grand canyon.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have only ever had one lens where a scratch was visible in the images produced, but that was a scratch so big it was like a scale model of the grand canyon.

Ian, logic tells me you are right, but this cropped pic was taken with my Pentax- 1.7/50 and I can't see any scratches on it at all. It can't be on the negative, because of the light. What do you think it could be?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I never seen similar , spider web ? lens scratch if visible not this clear, black dots, lower contrast etc.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is it repeatable Peter? or just this one image?


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Is it repeatable Peter? or just this one image?


patrickh

That's an interesting thought Patrick. I've never seen it on any other pictures taken with this lens, but that's fairly unlikely anyway, given the rather unique lighting in this picture, the "scratches" are at the extreme top of the frame on a FF film camera, and that I hardly ever take the cap off this lens these days! I will try to see if I can reproduce it. I was standing well out in open space Attila, I can't discount a spider's web but it seems very unlikely to me.

Knowing the complete history of this lens since about 1984, and knowing some of the dusty, dirty (and smelly) places where I've used it, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was scratched to smithereens. But I think the point being made is that I believe one shouldn't be able to see any in-focus lens scratches like these (or bubbles, fungus, coating marks etc) on an image, so I am completely foxed about what caused them. If that's true then there must be some other cause, but I'm not sure I'm right about that. I saw a lady photographer from the local paper a while ago using her 5D with an L lens. The front element was absolutely filthy. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
twinquartz wrote:
Did you shoot in RAW format
or did you let the camera convert it into jpg?

Using the RAW format, you will be able to get much
more out of the lens Smile


What more would you like Smile? Photos are splendid.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
What more would you like? Photos are splendid.

Oh yes, but I think the lens quality would appear even better after some micro-contrast tweaking.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
twinquartz wrote:
... I think the lens quality would appear even better after some micro-contrast tweaking.


Sure, there's always a room for some adjustment. But the whole purpose of my post was just to show that some damages on the lens doesn't mean that the lens is useless. I wish i knew that before.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, finally i fixed the aperture blades, they working perfectly, but the out-of-focus highlights are "very hexagonal", even at f/4. Is that the way it should be?
example


and a 100% crop


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berw.

I have an old elmarit M 2,8/90 (oooldddd chrome large lens) that is like yours (or a bit poor). And i can take with it some nice portraits (they are not so good because me, and not the lens guilty Embarassed).


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berw wrote:
Well, finally i fixed the aperture blades, they working perfectly, but the out-of-focus highlights are "very hexagonal", even at f/4. Is that the way it should be?


Yes.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sonyrokkor

Don't get me wrong, this Orestor is in bad shape, but i like it. It's sharp enough, with nice color rendering. I was just worried that i assembled the aperture blades in a wrong way Laughing With my other lenses, with same number of blades, i get more rounded hexagons in the out-of-focus areas Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have just checked my own 100mm Orestor and I can confirm the blades are exactly like that - forming a perfect hexagon.

Based on the coating damage I'm sure it had some fungus in its life. That cannot be restored but such lenses can still work very well, as you have just proven. Nice work, please post more...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have only ever had one lens where a scratch was visible in the images produced, but that was a scratch so big it was like a scale model of the grand canyon.

Ian, logic tells me you are right, but this cropped pic was taken with my Pentax- 1.7/50 and I can't see any scratches on it at all. It can't be on the negative, because of the light. What do you think it could be?


What are the other patterns in the bokeh Peter? I'm thinking it's something external.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berw wrote:
twinquartz wrote:
... I think the lens quality would appear even better after some micro-contrast tweaking.


Sure, there's always a room for some adjustment. But the whole purpose of my post was just to show that some damages on the lens doesn't mean that the lens is useless. I wish i knew that before.


I've got a very nice Rokkor 135 2.8 with a rear element that is so fungused, so etched, that I thought it was good for nothing. I've had the elemnt out and hit it with everything, starting with cold cream and lighter fuel and working up to toothpaste. The element still looks as bad as it did with the fungus on it so I threw it in the box of junk with the few other basket cases. Then I found a lens that looked very like the Rokkor rear element and got it out to hopefully fit a different element - it wasn't anything like I remembered it so I didn't even try to fit it. But I did try the lens on the NEX, and I was stunned, no marks show at all. It does seem to be very low contrast, but I don't have a good lens to compare it to, and contrast is easily fixed. The lens is actually usable.

I've just taken a couple of pictures to show what I mean.

That is shot through the front element ( with a Rokkor 100 Macro ) and shows the damage, it's truly bad. If you run your fingernail over the element you can feel the pitting!

I put the lens on the NEX, balanced it on the corner of the desk and took this. No PP other than correction for the tungsten light and resizing. I know it's not the best subject for looking for marks on the image, but it sure as hell isn't bad!

I'd use this lens, and I have used it- just to try it really because I have got other 135's in very good condition. If it was my only 135, I'd just use it and PP the contrast.

Last edited by Lloydy on Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:20 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
What are the other patterns in the bokeh Peter? I'm thinking it's something external.

Here's the full picture. The scratches are definitely on the image - I tried re-scanning the neg after cleaning it and cleaning the scanner
glass too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2