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

Dreamy & Ethereal Portraits
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
Oops, I didn't realize that it was such a current lens. Thanks for clarifying that for me. And of course you are right about just going with what I like. If it inspires... that's what counts.

One question I had relates to the filter size of my lens. I have some stop down rings, but the thread size seems to be unconventional, not 77mm or 82mm. Any ideas?


The XR Heligons I've seen so far didn't have filter threads as such, just threads that are used for the retaining ring holding in the front lens. Your lens must have a whopping great front lens, I'd expect just over 100mm diameter for a 95mm f/0.95 lens. You should be able to measure that yourself I suspect. That was the reason I suggested square resin ND filters before, as high quality glass filters will be expensive in these sizes. Alternatively, depending on the amount of space behind the rear element perhaps some kind of rear drop in filter can be DIYed, like in supertelephoto lenses, as those can be much smaller in diameter.

Which brings me to my next question - do you know how this conversion was done? There are a few Heligon/high lumen/xray relay type lenses that project their image far enough behind their rear element that they can easily be used on mirrorless cameras while retaining the option of infinity focus. The Heligon 100/1.6 exists in such a design. Most of these lenses however are designed to reach infinity focus mere millimeters behind the rear element, way too close to get infinity focus on a Sony E mount. I have seen less scrupulous sellers sell such lenses without the original rear lens and not mentioning that. This results in a lens that can be focussed further than the original configuration would, but it isn't a 50mm f0.75 or in your case a 95mm f/0.95 anymore, as the original manufacturer designed it to be. Does your lens have the angle of view you would expect from a 95mm lens? If you compare it to a known 100mm lens, or a zoom lens zoomed to around 95mm?


This is a good point. Here is a link to an article online in which the lens has had the rear elements removed, which the poster seems not to know. As you can see, the rear element (what is left) is concave, a sure sign that the rear element group was removed. What results is an image with extreme softness in the corners (with negative field curvature that makes the edges seem stretched, or "exploding". Also extreme glow indicating uncorrected spherical aberration. And as pointed out, the focal length is increased, and the speed commensurately decreased.

I'm including a few shots with an XR Heligon, IIRC 95mm f1.0 or so. I cannot focus farther than the shot with thy cymbidiums. While the lens does have a misty look, the corners are reasonably sharp. I am not enchanted with the look and rarely use the lens.

BTW, When I have to mount filters on lenses with unconventional front diameters, I find the closest size and simply tape it on with PVC electricians tape.


https://allmyfriendsarejpegs.com/2018/06/09/canon-50mm-f0-75-xi-lens-review/


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
There is, of course, the Tamron 70-150mm soft focus:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html


Not an easy lens to find, and what it does is to move a rear group to change spherical aberration, which actually seems to increase depth of field (by changing the nature of the out-of-focus discs). At f2.8, the background is not particularly blurry. It is an interesting lens for bokeh however.

Check out the Japanese fountain in shots 3 & 4. In 3, the softness ring is at maximum. You'll notice more glow around the sharp detail of the waterspout, but the bokeh is harder. In 4 the sharp detail of the waterspout is more contrasty, but the rear bokeh is actually softer, but the actual depth of field does not change.

#1


#2


#3 Shot with full "softness"


#4 Shot with mild "softness"


#5


PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting to see those Tamron samples - very harsh bokeh in my eyes, not quite what I would associate with soft focus. Still, like almost any lens, an interesting tool to create images with.

I still think the Minolta Varisoft is a better match for the original poster as it has the most natural looking spherical aberration softness I have seen in such lenses. Then again I haven't seen all lenses and my taste in these matters may vary wildly from yours.

If you have a serial number on the Rodenstock XR Heligon this list should give you a more accurate idea of its age than my guess based on typography:

https://www.ground-glass.net/large-format/rodenstock-lenses-age

Last edited by dickb on Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:31 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:

Not an easy lens to find, and what it does is to move a rear group to change spherical aberration, which actually seems to increase depth of field (by changing the nature of the out-of-focus discs). At f2.8, the background is not particularly blurry. It is an interesting lens for bokeh however.


I have two copies.

I bought the second because there is a small, black, hard spot of fungus remnant on the rear element of the first.

I have never done much with it but it has remained on my to do list for many years.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
There is, of course, the Tamron 70-150mm soft focus:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html


I have seen some results with this lens and the bokeh is quite a bit different. Not as silky as far as I could tell...

-Charles


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
Oops, I didn't realize that it was such a current lens. Thanks for clarifying that for me. And of course you are right about just going with what I like. If it inspires... that's what counts.

One question I had relates to the filter size of my lens. I have some stop down rings, but the thread size seems to be unconventional, not 77mm or 82mm. Any ideas?


The XR Heligons I've seen so far didn't have filter threads as such, just threads that are used for the retaining ring holding in the front lens. Your lens must have a whopping great front lens, I'd expect just over 100mm diameter for a 95mm f/0.95 lens. You should be able to measure that yourself I suspect. That was the reason I suggested square resin ND filters before, as high quality glass filters will be expensive in these sizes. Alternatively, depending on the amount of space behind the rear element perhaps some kind of rear drop in filter can be DIYed, like in supertelephoto lenses, as those can be much smaller in diameter.

Which brings me to my next question - do you know how this conversion was done? There are a few Heligon/high lumen/xray relay type lenses that project their image far enough behind their rear element that they can easily be used on mirrorless cameras while retaining the option of infinity focus. The Heligon 100/1.6 exists in such a design. Most of these lenses however are designed to reach infinity focus mere millimeters behind the rear element, way too close to get infinity focus on a Sony E mount. I have seen less scrupulous sellers sell such lenses without the original rear lens and not mentioning that. This results in a lens that can be focussed further than the original configuration would, but it isn't a 50mm f0.75 or in your case a 95mm f/0.95 anymore, as the original manufacturer designed it to be. Does your lens have the angle of view you would expect from a 95mm lens? If you compare it to a known 100mm lens, or a zoom lens zoomed to around 95mm?


I would use a UV filter just to protect the front lens. But the filter thread diameter makes it problematic. I'll just have to be careful with my handling. This lens is generally a tough bugger though. Nothing plasticky about it.

I have no idea how the conversion was done. I think it does have that angle of view. But now that you mention it I shall put my attention on it. Thanks.

-Charles


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
dickb wrote:
charley5 wrote:
Oops, I didn't realize that it was such a current lens. Thanks for clarifying that for me. And of course you are right about just going with what I like. If it inspires... that's what counts.

One question I had relates to the filter size of my lens. I have some stop down rings, but the thread size seems to be unconventional, not 77mm or 82mm. Any ideas?


The XR Heligons I've seen so far didn't have filter threads as such, just threads that are used for the retaining ring holding in the front lens. Your lens must have a whopping great front lens, I'd expect just over 100mm diameter for a 95mm f/0.95 lens. You should be able to measure that yourself I suspect. That was the reason I suggested square resin ND filters before, as high quality glass filters will be expensive in these sizes. Alternatively, depending on the amount of space behind the rear element perhaps some kind of rear drop in filter can be DIYed, like in supertelephoto lenses, as those can be much smaller in diameter.

Which brings me to my next question - do you know how this conversion was done? There are a few Heligon/high lumen/xray relay type lenses that project their image far enough behind their rear element that they can easily be used on mirrorless cameras while retaining the option of infinity focus. The Heligon 100/1.6 exists in such a design. Most of these lenses however are designed to reach infinity focus mere millimeters behind the rear element, way too close to get infinity focus on a Sony E mount. I have seen less scrupulous sellers sell such lenses without the original rear lens and not mentioning that. This results in a lens that can be focussed further than the original configuration would, but it isn't a 50mm f0.75 or in your case a 95mm f/0.95 anymore, as the original manufacturer designed it to be. Does your lens have the angle of view you would expect from a 95mm lens? If you compare it to a known 100mm lens, or a zoom lens zoomed to around 95mm?


This is a good point. Here is a link to an article online in which the lens has had the rear elements removed, which the poster seems not to know. As you can see, the rear element (what is left) is concave, a sure sign that the rear element group was removed. What results is an image with extreme softness in the corners (with negative field curvature that makes the edges seem stretched, or "exploding". Also extreme glow indicating uncorrected spherical aberration. And as pointed out, the focal length is increased, and the speed commensurately decreased.

I'm including a few shots with an XR Heligon, IIRC 95mm f1.0 or so. I cannot focus farther than the shot with thy cymbidiums. While the lens does have a misty look, the corners are reasonably sharp. I am not enchanted with the look and rarely use the lens.

BTW, When I have to mount filters on lenses with unconventional front diameters, I find the closest size and simply tape it on with PVC electricians tape.

https://allmyfriendsarejpegs.com/2018/06/09/canon-50mm-f0-75-xi-lens-review/



Dick, I am still not sure whether the rear element was removed. I have seen evidence of a bit of stretching at the edges, but it was not severe and maybe another type of aberration is involved. I really like your macro shots actually. If you ever consider selling that lens let me know.

-Charles


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
e6filmuser wrote:
There is, of course, the Tamron 70-150mm soft focus:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html


Not an easy lens to find, and what it does is to move a rear group to change spherical aberration, which actually seems to increase depth of field (by changing the nature of the out-of-focus discs). At f2.8, the background is not particularly blurry. It is an interesting lens for bokeh however.

Check out the Japanese fountain in shots 3 & 4. In 3, the softness ring is at maximum. You'll notice more glow around the sharp detail of the waterspout, but the bokeh is harder. In 4 the sharp detail of the waterspout is more contrasty, but the rear bokeh is actually softer, but the actual depth of field does not change.


I find the bokeh of the Tamron a bit hard edged and busy. Not my preference, and certainly not compatible with the results I am getting with my Heligon.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
Interesting to see those Tamron samples - very harsh bokeh in my eyes, not quite what I would associate with soft focus. Still, like almost any lens, an interesting tool to create images with.

I still think the Minolta Varisoft is a better match for the original poster as it has the most natural looking spherical aberration softness I have seen in such lenses. Then again I haven't seen all lenses and my taste in these matters may vary wildly from yours.

If you have a serial number on the Rodenstock XR Heligon this list should give you a more accurate idea of its age than my guess based on typography:

https://www.ground-glass.net/large-format/rodenstock-lenses-age



Thanks Dick, that was a very helpful site. The manufacturing date is 2004. Wow. Much more modern than I expected.

The Minolta Varisoft does seem to have somewhat similar bokeh, but is still not as smooth and dreamy as the Rodenstock XR Heligon. I wll be posting more portraits as I get the hang of this lens. Unfortunately, monsoon season is about to strike. But the results I am getting are very special. I have really had to put aside my obsession with sharpness. But I feel like my photography has been revitalized.

-Charles


PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kymarto, your pics are just photographic perfection to my taste. Wow ! Since my pics don't get anywhere close to this level of art, I'm going to throw away all my camera stuff and go ... dono.. Congrats anyway.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you like the lens, then congrats. Personally, I find the images too soft. It's not just shallow DOF. There is literally nothing in focus or sharp to my eyes.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
If you like the lens, then congrats. Personally, I find the images too soft. It's not just shallow DOF. There is literally nothing in focus or sharp to my eyes.


It must be the downsizing because for most of them at least one eye is in sharp focus.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2