Bubbles in the Bubbles

[BeardsAreBest]

I have a Primotar 135 3.5 that i got for the bubbles that it produces and is way cheaper than trioplan.
Anyway each time i've used it there have been amoeba type dudes in the highlights.
Thinking it could be small fungus or dirt or something i pulled it apart to clean and found on close inspection the rear element has these little bubbles inside of it.
Is this something that has happened during production of the glass? Seems like it's a flawed element. Still works fine just has eyes in the highlights.

[wolan]

[Pancolart]

isn't that a bonus ?

[Eddie46]

The 'eyeballs' are a bit distracting but that picture overall floats my boat nicely.

[Lightshow]

Older lenses tend to have bubbles, especially the better ones, the issue is that the crucible would deteriorate if the molten glass was left in long enough to have the bubbles rise out.
The bibles aren't really noticeable in normal shooting, think of it like a mini symmetrical photography lens, it only really shows up in the bokeh balls, because the mode the light travels through the lens is different.

[pdccameras]

I really like your image. The bubbles in the glass used to be sign of quality. I personally don't mind the look. In any case, removing the small bubbles in post should not be a big chore. The bright ring around the outside of the big bubble is probably more of an aesthetic concern, but here again, it's more a question of personal taste.

[Sciolist]

There are real experts in their field on this forum. I'm not one of them. So please bear that in mind.

Firstly, from what I've read, the idea that bubbles in elements was a sign of quality may have been a sales tactic in the early 1970s due to Japanese camera manufacturers beginning to provide lenses without these 'flaws', as the technology improved. Personally, I have no idea what is true.

Also I've read, that before the 1970s/1980s, it wasn't unusual to have air bubbles in lens elements. I have one in my 1960s Carl Zeiss Biotar. It doesn't seem to present itself in the images I produce, and so that leads me on to what else it could be, just in case. There appears to be an inclusion inside the air bubble (if that is what is creating the aberrations inside the optical bubbles). This has led me to suggest you look with a loupe to try and ascertain if the aberration is due to air bubbles in the glass, or for example, the cement between elements.


I really hope that doesn't send you off on a red herring. I don't know an awful lot about this area. Just posting an observation you could perhaps eliminate.

To make it plain - when I view your image on my laptop, if the aberration you highlight is due to an air bubble, then the air bubble appears to have something inside it. That has led me to suggest you check that the issue is not in the cement between two elements, rather than the glass. I'm more than happy for anyone to dismiss this and save the poster time if I'm wrong in my observation, or misreading what I see.

[woodrim]

[jamaeolus]

Just trademark it!

[BeardsAreBest]

[woodrim]

[pdccameras]

I made some images recently with an SMC 100mm f/4 macro takumar stopped down to f/11 with about 25mm of extension - the amount of "dust bunnies" that popped up was incredible!

Don't get me wrong about the bright rings around the booked bubbles -it wasn't meant as a negative criticism. I really like the look, but bokeh doesn't seem to have a standard reference. What I personally like for some images is considered by many to be "nervous". Also, I feel it is difficult to categorize bokeh as universally good or bad. What works in one image may not be right for another image.

Once again - nice work!

Paul