| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chudy128314
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 321
Location: Wrocław, Poland
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:57 am Post subject: 35KP 70/1.8 + Sony A7R |
 |
|
chudy128314 wrote:
35KP 70/1.8, soviet projection lens I converted to M42 with focusing:
I'm in love with these projection lenses, it's really something different to regular photo lenses.
Sony A7R, no post-processing besides resizing:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chudy128314
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 321
Location: Wrocław, Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
chudy128314 wrote:
One thing keeps me interested. There are many fast projection lenses (faster than photo lenses) with great image quality, significantly better than a lot of corresponding photo lenses. For instance, comparing this 35KP 70/1.8 to Jupiter-9 85/2 is crushing for Jupiter. You can also have 120/1.8 with better image quality than most 135/2 photo lenses.
What's so special about projection lenses? Often they're not bigger. Maybe they were super expensive then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 602
Location: South Finland, countryside
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe wrote:
lower production numbers with better quality control?
_________________
(my normal account password still on another computer) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Posts: 1364
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
| Quote: |
One thing keeps me interested. There are many fast projection lenses (faster than photo lenses) with great image quality, significantly better than a lot of corresponding photo lenses. For instance, comparing this 35KP 70/1.8 to Jupiter-9 85/2 is crushing for Jupiter. You can also have 120/1.8 with better image quality than most 135/2 photo lenses.
What's so special about projection lenses? Often they're not bigger. Maybe they were super expensive then? |
My guess it that these lenses are optimized for top performance at maximum aperture (do they even have irises for stopping down at all?) while photographic lenses are optimized for top quality at working aperture which is typically a few clicks down from max. Remember, the old school of photography teaches that for examples portraits should be taken at f/5.6 to f/11 and a wide maximum apertures in a portrait lens was there just for the sake of a brighter viewfinder and occasional low light shot where you don't expect good quality anyway. The fascination with thin DOF and bokeh is a relatively modern invention.
_________________
my flickr stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 602
Location: South Finland, countryside
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe wrote:
| chudy128314 wrote: |
| Maybe they were super expensive then? |
When you think of the soviet economic system, I think they had no price at all? They were just delivered where the movie projection committee saw suitable.
_________________
(my normal account password still on another computer) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chudy128314
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 321
Location: Wrocław, Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chudy128314 wrote:
Miran, fast (and only, no iris!) aperture optimization seems reasonable.
Moreover, old cameras nof often had 1/4000 or 1/8000 s shutter needed in a sunny day, so it was more natural to stop down. And focusing was not as easy as today with mirrorless cameras. Fast aperture and thin DOF (and all consequenses) can indeed be better handled nowadays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BurstMox
Joined: 04 Dec 2011
Posts: 1998
Location: France
Expire: 2016-08-02
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
BurstMox wrote:
Yes, using projetion lenses is a good way to get good result with fast lens, at low price (if you can adapt it).
I have the 75mm version, also converted, with internal diaphragme ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNBDQL5aOI ). Talking about competition with Jupiter-9, it is indeed a pretty good competitor.
And if you close a bit diaph :
_________________
Pierre
sovietlenses.fr
Soviet lenses Facebook group |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baychlen
Joined: 17 Aug 2017
Posts: 39
Location: Spain +/- 3000km
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
baychlen wrote:
I tried mine 35KM140 1.8 2 weeks ago, 1.5kg. some photos and no more fitness needed. No problem with the focusing with focus peaking Magic Lantern on 6D. Outsite ND can be helpful, if one dont want do lose the bokeh by using diaphragm. The optical resolution however Im not sure is so big, but the image circle isbig and because of this we are not working with the periferic part. Tripod needed, colar 66mm with some insider 1mm ring (still waiting my collars, cannot be sure). some 12-13mm of the rear barrel must be cut to get infinity, if chinese helicoid is used. Toys for boys hahaha...
Cheerz!
_________________
100% DIY homegrown amateur
KO-140M f1.8, 120 f1.8 / 35KM140 f1.8 / Kipronar 90 f1.9, 105 f1.9, 120 f1.9, 140 f1.9, 165 f2.2, 180 f2.2, 200 f2.1 / Visionar 55 f1.6, 130 f1.9, 141 f1.9, 154 f1.9/ Sonnar 180 f2.8 / Beseler 457 f3.5 / Pancolar 50 f1.8 / RO501-1 f2, 502-1 f2, 503-1 f2 / P5 150 f2, 180 f2 / Helios 44-2 f2 / Industar 51, 37 / Kinostar 125, 150 / Tair-3S 300 f4.5 / Pentacon 80 f2.8 / Diaplan 80 f2.8 / Mir-1B 37 / Triplet-6M 100 f2.8, 365 f3.65 / Jupiter 37A / Senkor 150 f2.5 / Leitz Wetzlar 150 f2.5 / Porst 135 f2.8, 35 f2.8 / Rokinon 135 f2.8 / Panorama 200 f3.5 / Meopta 50 f1 / RO-1091A f1.2 / Prokinar 90 f1.9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
