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

Vintage Kodak Series III No. 1A: KODAK ANASTIGMAT F5.6 130mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:23 am    Post subject: Vintage Kodak Series III No. 1A: KODAK ANASTIGMAT F5.6 130mm Reply with quote
I bought the Vintage Kodak Series III No. 1A camera, for lens only. As I dont use any film (currently), tok the lens out and used the lens on 350D.
The adapter setup was simple,
Canon 350D->EOS-M42 Adapter->M42 Bellows->M42 42mm camera cap->Lens
(I made the hole in the camera cap, so that the lens screw just fit into the cap.
The lens is KODAK ANASTIGMAT F5.6 130mm.
The problem with set up is long focal length. Its difficult to keep the shake within acceptable limit (bellows focusing and managing the setup)

Few results, all have dynamic range stretched with Picture Window pro. The contrast was little low..





B&W conversion:





And one floral.. more like a macro.. very difficult for me (handheld),



PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not bad at all , great captures!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
#1 is nice portrait.
What hits me is the colour, it looks like old negative film where dyes are fading, which makes no sense on a digital camera!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice Pictures. And Very interesting setup Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, that's nice! Surprisingly high sharpness!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:05 am    Post subject: Re: Vintage Kodak Series III No. 1A: KODAK ANASTIGMAT F5.6 1 Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:
I bought the Vintage Kodak Series III No. 1A camera, for lens only. As I dont use any film (currently), tok the lens out and used the lens on 350D.
The adapter setup was simple,
Canon 350D->EOS-M42 Adapter->M42 Bellows->M42 42mm camera cap->Lens
(I made the hole in the camera cap, so that the lens screw just fit into the cap.
The lens is KODAK ANASTIGMAT F5.6 130mm.
The problem with set up is long focal length. Its difficult to keep the shake within acceptable limit (bellows focusing and managing the setup)


Nice photos. It isn't possible to say much about the sharpness as the photos are down-sampled for the web, but I guess it is sufficient for most purposes. The lens doesn't employ front-cell focusing so it may be slightly sharper at some distances than a front-cell focusing Radionar. On the other hand, you cannot easily have a rigid setup unless you have access to a suitable focusing helicoid for the lens - I disassembled a broken 135 mm lens for the Rapid Rectilinear.

The bokeh seems to be good. The lowish contrast will probably prevent excessive purple fringing under even very difficult circumstances, see e.g. the comparison with a 1.4/50 Planar and the last two images on http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_r50.html.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
What hits me is the colour, it looks like old negative film where dyes are fading, which makes no sense on a digital camera!


Well, it isn't quite that simple. Here the illumination has a rather low contrast, which augments the low contrast of the lens, but under different circumstances the saturation can still be pretty high although it hardly ever gets excessive, c.f. my Radionar pages.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
Orio wrote:
What hits me is the colour, it looks like old negative film where dyes are fading, which makes no sense on a digital camera!


Well, it isn't quite that simple. Here the illumination has a rather low contrast, which augments the low contrast of the lens, but under different circumstances the saturation can still be pretty high although it hardly ever gets excessive, c.f. my Radionar pages.

Veijo


I don't know how to describe it better... but surely on your Radionar pictures, I can see the colours toned down because of the moderate contrast, yet, the colours are all there (they only need to be saturated at will).
Here instead, it looks like there is some, I dont' know... not exactly a cast, rather, it seems like some colours have lost saturation more than others, just like it happens with film, where aging affects the colouring in a different way depending on which colour layer.
But as I said, this makes no sense on a digital camera, so I don't really know what is going on there.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Here instead, it looks like there is some, I dont' know... not exactly a cast, rather, it seems like some colours have lost saturation more than others, just like it happens with film, where aging affects the colouring in a different way depending on which colour layer.
But as I said, this makes no sense on a digital camera, so I don't really know what is going on there.


It is mainly a question of WB. Pushing the color temperature to 5600 (picked from the first picture) gives us





These already seem much more natural.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That gives us a warmer touch. It depends what you want to show/express...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
That gives us a warmer touch. It depends what you want to show/express...


it isn't only a question of expression. The original photos have a lot of uncompensated blue skylight, and as there are no strong yellows or reds within the FOV, the color scheme gets a wee bit lopsided although the lens probably isn't excluding any significant part of the spectrum. Many of my own photos might give a similar impression if viewed in isolation - only seeing a wider selection saves them.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First, thanks for comment..
more will come in this category... I have few more lenses, need to make adapter, and find the time...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, Veijo: First I am feeling pity of not putting one critical detail about the first colored pic. Yes, the color cast is there, and by picture window pro software. The initial picture was more natural. The picture window pro has function to to choose white in original, and it try to take all the cast in the final one.
I was just playing with that (clicking on the white part of my wife's top), and the software increased the green cast and reduced the blue (without impacting red channel). In the final, I just reduced blue very little and enhanced green, say minimal. And my better half just liked that.. How can some one change after that Embarassed Razz

But the changes are very small..


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:14 pm    Post subject: (Changed Link) Reply with quote
(I just found out that Picasa compressed the files to 1600x1200... I didnt know about that...
Just uploaded few direct from camera JPEG files to Flickr account)

Veijo, and others,
I have uploaded few pics on Picasa web, direct from camera, JPEG. No change. You can see the low contrast.

(Picasa link is deleted, as files were compressed, new flickr link is added)

New link is,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asbalyan/sets/72157600492161731/

(The pictures can be viewed full size too... no touch)

I am little confused, sometimes it looks like there is a light leak (can be possible at the lens-cap mount. But sometimes, it looks like a haze or some internal reflection (I saw some results how belows internally reflects the light and the final results gets the haze). To test the light leak, I used flash in some pics, and surprisingly, with flash, the results are tak sharp.. minimum haze...

Last edited by Ballu on Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:47 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:
Orio, Veijo: First I am feeling pity of not putting one critical detail about the first colored pic. Yes, the color cast is there, and by picture window pro software. The initial picture was more natural. The picture window pro has function to to choose white in original, and it try to take all the cast in the final one.
I was just playing with that (clicking on the white part of my wife's top), and the software increased the green cast and reduced the blue (without impacting red channel). In the final, I just reduced blue very little and enhanced green, say minimal. And my better half just liked that.. How can some one change after that Embarassed Razz
But the changes are very small..


If the picasa pictures are the original, the change is evident. The picasa pictures are desaturated but balanced, the first picture you posted here is obviously unbalanced.
I am used to trust my photographic eye for things like colour and I am happy to read that there's actually been a software induced cast that unbalanced the photograph, it means that I can still see very well Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:
To test the light leak, I used flash in some pics, and surprisingly, with flash, the results are tak sharp.. minimum haze...


This is not surprising at all. With flash, either you don't have external lights to point towards your lens, or, if you have, the aperture and times necessary for exposing correctly with the flash are able to limit the internal flare to a minimum.

It's clear that the flare is caused by the lack of coating on the lens surface. Always shoot with a lens hood and try if possible to have as little direct light coming to your lens as possible. This will improve the rendering of non-flash pictures.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
This is not surprising at all. With flash, either you don't have external lights to point towards your lens, or, if you have, the aperture and times necessary for exposing correctly with the flash are able to limit the internal flare to a minimum.


Making a hood for these lenses is really tricky affair.
This is the lens,


Yes, I will avoid direct light...

Orio wrote:
If the picasa pictures are the original, the change is evident. The picasa pictures are desaturated but balanced, the first picture you posted here is obviously unbalanced.
I am used to trust my photographic eye for things like colour and I am happy to read that there's actually been a software induced cast that unbalanced the photograph, it means that I can still see very well Smile


yes, Picasa pics are original.. direct from camera..
and yes, I have to say.. you have really good eyes for finding the minute details of colors/saturations.. you critiques, esp about colors, are always indepth, different and helpful...


Just for curiosity (to other members too), which lens/optics you will select.. saturated but little unbalanced, or desaturated but natural.. esp for portrait....


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu, I'd like to see a pic of this mounted to your camera, thanks!

Bill


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Ballu, I'd like to see a pic of this mounted to your camera, thanks!

Bill

Sure Bill..
I didnt take the picture of this particular setup, but earlier one is here. In this one (posted), the lens had 39mm mount, so M42 bellows to lens adapter was available.
But this lens (kodak 1A) has smaller thread mount. So I bought screw mount camera lens caps (with 42mm thread). These caps can be fitted on bellows. I just made the hole in a cap.


Once I will find my P&S camera, I will post the pics of this (Kodak) set up too...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That is way cool, Ballu! I'm adding an M42 bellows to my list of things
to watch for on ebay! Wink

Bill


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
(I just found out that Picasa compressed the files to 1600x1200... I didnt know about that...
Just uploaded few direct from camera JPEG files to Flickr account)

New link is,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asbalyan/sets/72157600492161731/

(The pictures can be viewed full size too... no touch)

(yes, the pics are of low contrast... but check the details... although lens is little slow f5.6..... and Veijo predicted.. no CA)


PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu, I really like the results you got with this!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu,
I had to join JPG for my vote to stick, but that is one great photo!

Bill


PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Ballu,
I had to join JPG for my vote to stick, but that is one great photo!

Bill


Thanks Bill....
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1