View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:47 pm Post subject: Earth is Round, Earth is Flat |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
The fisheye lens was born as a scientific optical instrument. At first, many saw the fisheye only as a curiosity, but with time the photographers started to learn how to take advantage of its unique qualities. To efficiently use a fisheye, you must learn what works, and what does not work photographically speaking. But that goes for any lens ...
The first picture is more or less as it came out the camera. Since the girls are in the center of the frame, they practically don't suffer from distortion. In contrast, the curved horizon and the waves breaking on the sand convey an idea of the immensity of the ocean.
The idea behind the second photo was to achieve a 3D effect through defishing and change of perspective. The defishing effectively transforms a fisheye into an ultra wide angle lens. This type of technique has become very practical with the emergence of digital post-processing. It is somewhat surprising that camera manufacturers have not incorporated so far the defishing into the camera software.
The picture was taken with a Sigma fisheye XQ 16mm F2.8 on a Sony A99, ISO 1250, 1/320s, aperture not recorded.
_________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Excellent work! I like the idea of transforming the photo into a pseudo-3D. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
edri
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 Posts: 315 Location: walking in the air
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edri wrote:
Wow. Very nice effect. How did you do? Where can I find a tutorial with this type of PP? _________________ http://www.adlightstill.smugmug.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grainy
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Posts: 54 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
grainy wrote:
Yes it's so interesting~ I want to know how too! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
_________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
calvin83, edri, grainy, Thomas,
edri wrote: |
Wow. Very nice effect. How did you do? Where can I find a tutorial with this type of PP? |
Well, the procedure I used is relatively simple:
1) defish the image using any suitable method.
There is a lot of information on the Internet about how to defish a picture. There are specialized softwares for that, but plain Photoshop can do the job by using, for example, the commands Filter - Lens Correction - Auto Correction. Then you "borrow" the profile of a fisheye lens, for example, the Canon 15mm F2.8 or Nikon 16mm F2.8. Check the Geometric Distortion square, so defishing is made automatically.
2) Crop the defished image to a rectangular shape.
3) Use the commands Filter - Lens Correction - Custom.
With the slider Vertical Perspective tilt the vertical edges to give the effect of perspective.
4) Select a narrow band at the bottom of image. This band will be used to produce the thickness effect.
5) Use the commands Edit - Transform - Perspective to produce the effect of folding of the selected band.
6) Darken the band to simulate an illumination effect.
7) Create a black background, or any other color you like. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16544 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Cool!! _________________ 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 |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Great idea with second photo! I like.
Here's another idea. Take the 2nd shot and cut away the top little bit of ocean, around the height of the girls' shoulders (of course keep the girls themselves intact). Should look even more convincingly 3D. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
edri
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 Posts: 315 Location: walking in the air
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edri wrote:
Gerald wrote: |
...
Well, the procedure I used is relatively simple...
|
Thanks for explanations. _________________ http://www.adlightstill.smugmug.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10540 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
(Attila, I think we need Emoticon for "Award") _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
edri
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 Posts: 315 Location: walking in the air
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edri wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
(Attila, I think we need Emoticon for "Award") |
Indeed. _________________ http://www.adlightstill.smugmug.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Klaus, miran, visualopsins, edri,
Thank you for your kind comments!
miran wrote: |
Great idea with second photo! I like.
Here's another idea. Take the 2nd shot and cut away the top little bit of ocean, around the height of the girls' shoulders (of course keep the girls themselves intact). Should look even more convincingly 3D. |
I agree with you. In fact, that idea also occurred to me but I was feeling a little tired (aka lazy ) and ended up not implementing it.
I have just tried to lower the horizon to emphasize the girls, but in doing so their hairs end up blending with the black background , as you can see in the picture below. If the background is changed to a medium gray, it might work, I don't know.
_________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
What a super technique. The first picture is great the second is awesome!
I also thought about doing what Gerald has done. Well done sir.
I think however I prefer the second shot.
Very inspiring! _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grainy
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Posts: 54 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
grainy wrote:
Thank you! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10540 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
edri wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
(Attila, I think we need Emoticon for "Award") |
Indeed. |
_________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
What an honor!
Cheers! _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 902 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
Very effective & thanks for sharing the post processing!
I tend to try & minimize the distortion on fish-eye horizons - I've obviously been missing something.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
DConvert wrote: |
Very effective & thanks for sharing the post processing!
I tend to try & minimize the distortion on fish-eye horizons - I've obviously been missing something. |
Cheers!
You have two options with regard to the distortion of the fisheye: accept it or fight it. The goal of a photographer should be to produce images that work photographically, no matter how. I think there are two ways to efficiently use a fisheye lens: 1) observing the work of other photographers, and 2) trying yourself.
I was just thinking about what really is that "distortion" of the fisheye lens. The Wikipedia article "Fisheye Lens" begins with the following statement:
"The fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic image or hemispherical"
I emphasized the word "distortion" because it is a commonplace to characterize the fisheye as a lens that produces distortion par excellence. Of course, "distortion" is not being used in the Wikipedia article in a positive sense. That kind of prejudice has been afflicting the fisheye lens since the beginning of its popularization 50 years ago. The irony is that in a broader sense, ALL photographic lenses produce distortion. In fact, the passage from the 3D space of the real world to the 2D space of a photographic image necessarily implies a distortion. For example, circles in the real world appear as ellipses in the photograph, but this is not considered as distortion. Also, the bokeh, which is very prized in a photograph today, is something that simply doesn't exist in the real world.
Many photographers consider the fisheye lens a little more than a photographic gimmick, not suitable for "serious"photographic work. However, I have the impression that the situation is changing slowly. Maybe the huge popularity of cameras of type GoPro will produce in the future a great photographer who will be called Master of Fisheye, like Ansel Adams was the master of the large format, and Cartier Bresson was the master of the small format and the "decisive moment" captured by a 50mm lens on a Leica camera.
Willen Jonkers is a Dutch photographer who has been producing excellent street pictures with a fisheye. Check it out here:
http://www.willemjonkers.com _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 902 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
Gerald wrote: |
Cheers!
You have two options with regard to the distortion of the fisheye: accept it or fight it.
|
I'd say your shot is more than just accept it, it's gone right into emphasise it
Most of my landscape shots would have the horizons been carefully centered to reduce the distortion.
For fun portraits I do tend to work with the distortion - works well with the kids & the cats, not so recommended photographing the wife, or friends
Distortions from my 360° adapter are even more radical, but rarely manage to leave people looking natural.
IIRC this is the only one I've managed to have people reasonably undistorted:
NEPW - P1080495 small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
DConvert wrote: |
Distortions from my 360° adapter are even more radical, but rarely manage to leave people looking natural.
IIRC this is the only one I've managed to have people reasonably undistorted:
NEPW - P1080495 small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr |
Mike, that Kaidan 360 seems to be a very radical but difficult lens to tame!
In my opinion, the key to success with a fisheye is a good composition. There may be more or less bent lines in the image, but the "fisheye distortion" shouldn't be the dominant feature of the picture. To draw a parallel, a dessert can be sweet, but the sugar shouldn't be the dominant taste. In other words, a good fisheye photo shouldn't trigger the reaction of "Look, Mom, another photo taken with a fisheye!".
I intend to open another topic with some photos, including portraits, in which the composition with a fisheye worked fairly well in my opinion. Who has time (the video is lengthy) may want to watch this video in which Gene Ho presents his interesting techniques on how to use a fisheye lens to shoot a wedding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-WxCoDewbY _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
listera
Joined: 24 Oct 2013 Posts: 126 Location: Ankara
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
listera wrote:
Appreciate your explanations.
Will work on old wide-angle shots (17mm) displaying distortions (17mm) to see how they react to same process. _________________ Zuikoware / Rokkorprone / FDthropist
https://www.flickr.com/photos/97103793@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CBokeh
Joined: 15 Oct 2009 Posts: 147 Location: Southern California
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CBokeh wrote:
More info on how to defish an image here...
http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
listera wrote: |
Will work on old wide-angle shots (17mm) displaying distortions (17mm) to see how they react to same process. |
Good luck!
Good information! Thanks!
I mentioned earlier how composition is important in fisheye photography. I remembered then the Henri Cartier-Bresson's response to the NY Times. As we know, Cartier Bresson was a photographer who almost exclusively shot with 50mm lenses.
Q. Why the 50-millimeter lens?
A. It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.
from: http://jeremiahrogers.com/2014/07/bresson50/
Cartier Bresson considered "extremely difficult" to compose with a 35mm lens, which he also thought as a lens that "shouts"! I just wonder what he thought of ultra-wide angle and fisheyes lenses… Well, when Cartier Breson speaks, we pay attention. He was a genius of street photography with little interest for other types of photography. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uddhava
Joined: 22 Aug 2012 Posts: 3072 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10540 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Gerald wrote: |
...
Cartier Bresson was a photographer who almost exclusively shot with 50mm lenses.
Q. Why the 50-millimeter lens?
A. It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.
from: http://jeremiahrogers.com/2014/07/bresson50/
Cartier Bresson considered "extremely difficult" to compose with a 35mm lens, which he also thought as a lens that "shouts"! I just wonder what he thought of ultra-wide angle and fisheyes lenses… Well, when Cartier Breson speaks, we pay attention. He was a genius of street photography with little interest for other types of photography. |
50MM LENS HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE NORMAL LENS FOR HIS CAMERA (I needed tg shout that )
In modern terms he refers to the "normal" lens, i.e. for crop sensor camera that is 28mm or 35mm focal length... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|