View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
So I was right!!! _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
macheck
Joined: 30 Oct 2013 Posts: 131 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
macheck wrote:
Hello Woodrim, I deliberately didn't reveal the identity of the lens since it is a shabby, uncoated old one and rather exotic too, so maybe its soap bubble bokeh is not a generic virtue. I still have to collect several of them and then maybe a general trait will be present.
All I can say it is not a Meyer or latter Pentacon product.
Marek, thank you very much, your butterflies are perfect.
Generally allow me to add something on the Trioplan like soap bubble bokeh: it is characterized by the very pronounced sharp circle (the better if it is of rainbow split colors) surrounding bokeh image that is rather dim and better semi-transparent, the best of split colors addition. AndreaEOS' last picture is superb on this, she touched the sweet point of bubbly bokeh creation (that is the distance between lens and the object and between lens and the sensor and a kind of specular reflections that were the subject of bokeh). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Today was a very overcast and dim day, but I still did some basic lens tests of new arrivals. Unfortunately I have no adapter for this one, so I had to hold it in front, but out from the flange using my hand which allowed a lot of light infiltration and no doubt a tilt. This may not be fair to ask, but it is one of the lenses discussed here and I'm wondering if anyone can identify it from its rendering...
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snowcat
Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snowcat wrote:
Some bokeh shots I've made yesterday. I unpacked my New Year lights for these shots...
Trioplan 100
Primotar 135
Trioplan 50 + 1.7x TC (Promaster Spectrum 7)
Quite interesting that both Telemegors I have (150 and 180) gave no bubbles at all. But I am positively sure that they do give bubbles in the sunlight. So I guess there is some kind of threshold in lights power that give those bubbles. Weak LEDs could not reach Telemegor's limits... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Can you show the Telemegor 150 and 180 results? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snowcat
Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snowcat wrote:
Sorry, I already deleted all that stuff... It originally was made for some initial diagnostic of my trioplan... Telemegors gave circles uniformly filled with colors, just as any modern lens...
I have one more lens that is said to be "like trioplan" - Promura 135/3.5. It's a triplet also and it should give those bubbles too. But there are no bubbles at any f number from any lights. BUT I have not tested it in sunny weather yet... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
I have a Primotar on way to me and look forward to it. Those results are quite nice. I have a Primoplan which provides excellent characterful bokeh, but I have not yet figured out the conditions needed for the bokeh rings without solid centers. |
Minimum focus distance, wide open, point source light some meters away.
I just tested my CZJ 80/2.8 Tessar and it produces soap bubbles, enough that I will hold off any Trioplan purchase. EDIT: Nevermind, it's not very pronounced. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
Last edited by Lightshow on Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
woodrim wrote: |
I have a Primotar on way to me and look forward to it. Those results are quite nice. I have a Primoplan which provides excellent characterful bokeh, but I have not yet figured out the conditions needed for the bokeh rings without solid centers. |
Minimum focus distance, wide open, point source light some meters away.
I just tested my CZJ 80/2.8 Tessar and it produces soap bubbles, enough that I will hold off any Trioplan purchase. |
All lenses will give the bokeh circles, but getting those Trioplan-like empty circles is the chore. I received a bunch of lenses a few days ago and am beginning to go through them. Today I tried out the Primotar 3.5/135, but was a dim and cloudy day without significant specular highlights to find for the background. These are about the best I could do today...
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
Lightshow wrote: |
woodrim wrote: |
I have a Primotar on way to me and look forward to it. Those results are quite nice. I have a Primoplan which provides excellent characterful bokeh, but I have not yet figured out the conditions needed for the bokeh rings without solid centers. |
Minimum focus distance, wide open, point source light some meters away.
I just tested my CZJ 80/2.8 Tessar and it produces soap bubbles, enough that I will hold off any Trioplan purchase. |
All lenses will give the bokeh circles, but getting those Trioplan-like empty circles is the chore. |
I do know the difference, thanks.
I retested in darker ambient light, and it's barely noticeable now... oh well.
I thought some may find this interesting.
http://spie.org/x33126.xml _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
edri
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 Posts: 315 Location: walking in the air
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
edri wrote:
Snowcat wrote: |
... Telemegors gave circles uniformly filled with colors, just as any modern lens...
|
Depends on light conditions. My Telemegor is totally different by modern lenses bokeh. It is much closer to Trioplan. I did a series of tests, here is an example of Telemegor 180/5.5 highlights bokeh, too.
http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-night-highlights-bokeh-with-some-lenses-t70200.html
Set 1 picture 3.
Lightshow wrote: |
I just tested my CZJ 80/2.8 Tessar and it produces soap bubbles, enough that I will hold off any Trioplan purchase. EDIT: Nevermind, it's not very pronounced. |
I think it depends a lot on shooting conditions, light, distance ...
In my tests with Tessar 50/2.8 (Set 1 picture 5 and all photos in Set2) I got kind trioplan bokeh and bokeh much different as well.
Perhaps in certain conditions the Trioplan can not get any bokeh like Trioplan type _________________ http://www.adlightstill.smugmug.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snowcat
Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Snowcat wrote:
As now I have a collection of these lenses, I can say that trioplan itself gives those bubbles in bokeh very-very easily. Practically, you don't need to anything special, any, even weak light source becomes an empty circle. Even if I shoot street from my window in dull winter day it finds out weak car lights and turns them into those bubbles.
Trioplan 50 is the same, but as it is only 50mm vs 100mm it's bubbles are much smaller. Yet it should be a very nice street lens...
The closest to this effect is Primotar 135/3.5 (which I have for a long time), but it's circles are smaller and generally "less empty", depending on lights sources or course.
Telemegor 180 (which I have for a year or so) need strong and small light sources, like strong LEDs in the dark, or like drops of water on the grass in sunny day.
I guess Telemegor 150 will be similar to Telemegor 180...
Lydith is the hardest to get those bubbles as it's only 30mm/3.5 and has a huge DOF.
Fujinon 55/2.2 gives you similar bubbles but they are less pronounced and are often not a complete circles. Anyway this lens gives beautiful pictures, it's one of my favs. As it costs nearly nothing, I recommend it to everyone interested in MF lenses.
I also have Promura 135/3.5 which is SAID to have those circles too. I could not find them at all. Maybe the strong sunny sparks are the answer... Al I can say now, is that is' surprisingly sharp even wide open, throughout all the field of APS-C. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Brazile
Joined: 15 Feb 2009 Posts: 1 Location: Boston
Expire: 2017-01-01
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:06 pm Post subject: Takumar 50/1.4? |
|
|
Brazile wrote:
It seems some of the Takumars might be capable of a bit of this. This is from a Super-Takumar 50/1.4:
Robert |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
edri wrote: |
Snowcat wrote: |
... Telemegors gave circles uniformly filled with colors, just as any modern lens...
|
Depends on light conditions. My Telemegor is totally different by modern lenses bokeh. It is much closer to Trioplan. I did a series of tests, here is an example of Telemegor 180/5.5 highlights bokeh, too.
http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-night-highlights-bokeh-with-some-lenses-t70200.html
Set 1 picture 3.
I think it depends a lot on shooting conditions, light, distance ...
|
edri: I believe you have hit on a few important factors. At your other post (link above) you mentioned faint lights resulting with rings from Trioplan. I have been wondering if that is one of the keys to it - not to have very bright highlights. The bright ones seem to fill the circles. I suspect we will eventually come to the conclusion that no other lens will be exactly like Trioplan, and no other lens will deliver circles as large... or maybe I have already come to that conclusion. As a side note, not even all Trioplan provides the same. The 50mm does well, but smaller circles as pointed out. I have seen results from 140mm Diaplan and it does not seem to perform well. I have a 3.5/75 Trioplan from a box camera that I still need to test, however I am not expecting the elusive bubbles.
Yesterday I failed to achieve the desired circles with Primotar 135mm, but the lighting was not condusive; unfortunately today is as bad. I will be be testing again the Primotar and Telemegors 150mm and 180mm. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There's nothing special about the Trioplan 100, nothing, nada, zilch, simple triplet.
The Primotar 135 is a tessar and if handled right, does those rings/bubbles/whatever you call em very well indeed - see the bokeh only thread for proof..
Keep practising, it's the technique not the lens.
I also think you could emphasise the rings with a bit of simple PP. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
edri
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 Posts: 315 Location: walking in the air
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edri wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
...
I also think you could emphasise the rings with a bit of simple PP. |
Where is the fun then? Lost all the charm of using an old lens. _________________ http://www.adlightstill.smugmug.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snowcat
Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snowcat wrote:
iangreenhalgh1, yes you are perfectly right, BUT trioplan 100 requires less conditions to achieve that praised bubbles in bokeh. Two years ago when I saw trioplan 100 made pictures, I said to myself "Hey, those are spherical aberrations, I am sure that this can be achieved on other then trioplan 100 lenses." And fs trioplan 100 already was rather pricey, I've started to search, buy, try. Now, two years and like 10 lenses later I've bought my trioplan 100 and even on simple tests I see the difference YET you're still right. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Correct, Trioplan is not special. People should sell accordingly. I'll buy one out of pity. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16541 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
The Meyer f2.8/50mm Trioplan: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157647498715330/
The Steinheil Cassarit 2.8/50mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157647927267742/
The Steinheil Cassarit f3.5/100mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157648368362182/
The Minolta Rokkor-TC f4/135mm : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157647841639577/
The Meyer Orestor f2.8/100mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157648029908525/
so many lenses are able to produce "bubbles" ....
Here the original Trioplan 2.8/100mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157626697409814/
If you know what causes them and how to arrange your subjects, the background and light, it is really not difficult. I can do that with about any lens... _________________ 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 |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Yes, Klaus, but as I annoyingly said to Lightshow, it is the character of the bubble, not just a bubble. Macheck got very close here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129563138@N03/16504340506/in/set-72157650823856435.jpg _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snowcat
Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Snowcat wrote:
kds315, among your photos only some from ... trioplan 50 (of course!) have "that right kind of bubbles", and, of course, they are small. To give large circles a 50mm lens should have speed 1.4.
"Right" bubbles are not only non uniform, but have a sharp bright border. That what makes them so attractive. Something like this - https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/15323028165/in/set-72157647498715330 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16541 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Gosh, I get really tired with this thread: Go get a Trioplan if you want those bubbles and don't be so cheap!
Basically that whole thread boils down to just one point: "how can I have it if I can't afford it"
I'm out... _________________ 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 |
|
|
Snowcat
Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Snowcat wrote:
Yes, it's about "how can I have it if I can't afford it", but I can't see why it is wrong... Personally I already have trioplan 100 and I am posting here to help other people make their decisions. Including those that are on a strict budget. That alone doesn't make them worse...
Well, at least this is how I see it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
This whole forum is about having lenses cheaply vs. modern expensive lenses.... for the most part. I freely admit I cannot pay the large dollars for the big Trioplan. However, my dilemma and struggle is in realizing that I have spent in total much more money on cheaper lenses than would cost fewer very desirable ones. I suppose it is psychological. Nevertheless, it is good to know how other lenses compare.
I have hit the magical bubbles a few times and I continue to study the circumstances needed. We have seen where big Trioplan can also fail to provide the desirable bubbles - Klaus' images from it also largely miss the target. I am coming to the conclusion that smaller - maybe more dim - specular highlights seem to produce them better than very bright and large highlights. I find this true when photographing the smaller twinkles reflected from water. Here are two examples where water provided... first is 50mm Trioplan and second is Domiplan...
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I guess what is magical and desirable to some is simply boring, uninspired, banal and unoriginal to others.
Bubbles are one thing, but a picture that has bubbles but also works artistically, is interesting and has some merit is entirely another.
I agree with Klaus, this thread has become tiresome.
Quote: |
Gosh, I get really tired with this thread: Go get a Trioplan if you want those bubbles and don't be so cheap!
Basically that whole thread boils down to just one point: "how can I have it if I can't afford it" Twisted Evil |
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Please don't feel compelled to follow it... or comment. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|