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

Favourite 135mm lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Orio, thanks for those images. You always provide a fine bunch of examples. I know that takes time for you, so it is doubly appreciated. GREAT work involved in doing this for us.


No problem, Larry. I just had these lying around. a 5 min. thing.

-


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:

patrickh


A Nikkor 2.0/135! Wow!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By reading the differents posts of this topic, I realized that I owned the Vivitar 135/2,8 "28xxxxx" in K mount , never tested ! So I tested it this afternoon (quick and "dirty") , and results are effectively at the level of my bests ! It won the second or third place in my current preferred 135mm list ...
(Smc-Takumar 3,5/135,J-37, Taďr, Jena Sonnar, Schneider Tele-Xenar etc ...)
I took these pictures 1 hour before the sunset , and this gave very warm tones ...
Village near Vittel, east of France , 30 km from my home ...







On the second picture , I erased a couple of TV Aerials ...
Recently , I took some portraits with the Meyer Orestor 2,8/135 and I placed this lens in the first position ... Followed by the smc-takumar 3,5/135 , the Taďr-11, the Jupiter-37 (For contrast's sake), Jena Sonnar , Steinheil Cassarit 4,5, and then Vivitar-Komine just beetween the S-tak and the Taďr . Really , these appreciations are very subjective ! In this list , some are unusable for portraits ....


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios
Those Viv Ser 1's are frequently very very good lenses. I must admit to a weak spot for them. I can see no serious flaw in your evaluation of favourites. although I dont own many of them. Lovely picture of a beautiful town.

Carsten
The second one to the left of the 135/2 is my real favourite in this group - the 105/1,8. Like the 2,5 in overdrive. Smile Smile


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios,
I like both pictures very much. In this case, the warm tones fit the rural subject very well, making it look like old landscape paintings.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio , I appreciated your comments about 135mm lenses . Full frame or Aps formats doesn't matter , since the DOF rendition is exactly the same ... It is my preferred focal length for portraits and landscape , in addition with 85 /90 mm, and 200mm for landscape. Yes , it was not necessary to choose "old paint" filter in PSP to get this tone . However , these pics were a bit under-exposed ...
135mm are not only lenses of seventie's era , they came from the 9x12 cm plate cameras era : 1900 and after ... No need to redesign 135mm Tessar, Triotar, Cassar, Xenar ... Just adapt them in the convenient mount (Contax,Leica,Exakta ...) .


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios,
Does your Vivitar 135 say "close focusing" on the front of the lens?...There were quite a few different Vivitar 135mm F2.8 lenses..The close focusing model was not a Series One model, that was the 135mm F2.3, it has 62mm filter threads & goes to 1:2 @ 20 inches...Your samples pictures are quite nice...I love all of my Vivitar lenses (well most of them anyway)...


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios wrote:
Full frame or Aps formats doesn't matter , since the DOF rendition is exactly the same ...


Are you sure of this?
I always read everywhere that the smaller the frame, the deeper the DOF.
So, APS-C film cameras have deeper DOF than normal 135, and medium format 6x6 cameras have shallower DOF than normal 135.
Or maybe I understood it wrong.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I always read everywhere that the smaller the frame, the deeper the DOF.
So, APS-C film cameras have deeper DOF than normal 135, and medium format 6x6 cameras have shallower DOF than normal 135.


For a given lens, the depth of field is the same on the image plane, whatever the format of the image frame. Many people say that APS-C (or crop format digital) cameras have deeper DOF than full frame 35mm cameras, because one has to use a shorter focal length lens on the smaller format camera to get the same field of view than on the larger format camera.

It also applies to medium or large format photography. A 150mm lens has the same depth of field on a 24x36, a 6x6 or a 4x5in. camera, but it's a long telephoto on 24x36, a portrait lens on 6x6 and a normal lens on 4x5. To get the same field of view than a 150mm on 4x5, one would have to use a 75mm lens on 6x6 and a 45mm on 24x36 and of course the depth of field would then be different.

For nitpickers, the depth of field also depends on the final magnification of the image, because the more an image is enlarged, the smaller circle of confusion it needs to retain sufficient sharpness. As a full frame 35mm image requires less enlargement than an APS-C image when printed to the same size, then the enlarged 35mm image will appear sharp enough over a slightly wider focus range than the APS-C image. So, yes, when you consider the final image, APS-C has a slightly narrower DOF.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, in other words, that of the medium format as having narrower DOF than 135 format is just bull crap.

It all boils down to the fact that to obtain the same angle of field, you need to use a longer focal on the medium format camera, and this means narrower DOF.

And the size of the frame has nothing to do with it (except for indirectly being the cause of the need of a longer focal lens as much as you elarge the film frame).


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
So, in other words, that of the medium format as having narrower DOF than 135 format is just bull crap.


Yes, roughly speaking.

Orio wrote:
It all boils down to the fact that to obtain the same angle of field, you need to use a longer focal on the medium format camera, and this means narrower DOF.


Exactly.

Orio wrote:
And the size of the frame has nothing to do with it (except for indirectly being the cause of the need of a longer focal lens as much as you elarge the film frame).


Mathematically speaking, the depth of field is function of:
- the focal length of the lens
- the f-number
- the circle of confusion (blur circle)
- the camera to subject distance.

No trace of the format of the camera. But the admissible blur circle depends on the magnification that is to be applied to the negative (or digital image) when viewed or printed. Roughly, a large format negative can be slightly more blurry than a small format negative, because the former is barely enlarged to be viewed, while the latter needs to be enlarged 5 or 10 times. But that's also true for images originating from the same camera: an image destined to be used for a wall poster needs a smaller blur circle than an image destined to end up as a 10x15cm print in an album.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:50 am    Post subject: DOF on different sensor sizes Reply with quote
DOF on different sensor sizes:
I really have to think this through to understand all this, which I have not yet.. Embarassed
but from what I remember having understood overlooking this interesting article on DOF I also had thought that e.g. a 4/3 sensor would render deeper DOF than APS-C sensor.
Anyway, I hope that the linked article is of interest ( and if somebody cares to elaborate I also may stand a chance to understand )

cheers,
Andreas


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice link, kuuan, thanks!

The one thing I seem to understand is, that photographers who are keen on thin DOF effects, should try to get a full frame camera instead of spending much money in lenses to use with crop cameras. Because, if I understand this correctly, let's take a 4/3 camera for ease of calculation, a 50mm f/1.4 lens mounted on a 3/4 camera, will give only the DOF of a 100mm f/2.8 lens on a normal camera, is this calculation correct?
Which means that the bokeh will never be comparable, for instance, to that of 85mm f/1.4 lenses on full frame cameras.
I don't know if I really understood it correctly though. I am quite confused.
-


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Nice link, kuuan, thanks!

The one thing I seem to understand is, that photographers who are keen on thin DOF effects, should try to get a full frame camera instead of spending much money in lenses to use with crop cameras. Because, if I understand this correctly, let's take a 4/3 camera for ease of calculation, a 50mm f/1.4 lens mounted on a 3/4 camera, will give only the DOF of a 100mm f/2.8 lens on a normal camera, is this calculation correct?
Which means that the bokeh will never be comparable, for instance, to that of 85mm f/1.4 lenses on full frame cameras.
I don't know if I really understood it correctly though. I am quite confused.
-


Now, let's simplify a little bit and use the same aperture in different cameras. Then

- for a given FOV, the camera with the larger frame size needs a longer lens and has a shallower DOF

- for a given FL, the camera with the smaller frame size has both a narrower FOV and a shallower DOF

- two cameras with different frame sizes can never simultaneously have both the same FOV and the the same DOF using the same aperture

However, using a larger aperture in the camera with the smaller sensor will allow achieving both an equal FOV and an equal DOF, e.g. a 400D with a 50 mm lens at f/3.5 has roughly both the same FOV and the same DOF as a 5D with an 80 mm lens at f/5.6. An Olympus E-400 would have a 40 mm lens at f/2.8, i.e. the f-value ratio is the inverse of the crop factor.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Veijo

Thanks for that explanation - the light bulb finally went on. I understood the FOV, but not the DOF. Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed


patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just got my Steinheil 135mm and wow. What throws one off is its so petite and seems to be built backwards - with the iris out at the business end and plenty of space between the lens and the apeture. I love the concept that this lens doesn't seem to have predetermined Fstops Confused - so you can tweak the fstop for better exposure. I'm guess these are "manual" with no linkage to the camera so as you adjust the FStop - what you see is what you get. I like it much more on my Minolta with the adapter, works well looks kinda edgey with the juxtaposition of the slim bright metal lens on the black modern camera.
Playing with it got me to go out and take a couple winter garden shots.
This one may become a favourite, but when my wife asks and what is this one supposed to do am I just supposed to reply Rolling Eyes "takes great pictures" Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nobody lists CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 as it's top one or two choice? why? Too slow? How does it compare to it's 2.8 brethren?

I just acquired (few days ago) mint, probably unused CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 with a 5 digit serial number, even with papers and all (but I had to clean a finger smudge on the front element though). How does it compare to Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnar 135/2.8? Bokeh, sharpness, contrast? I was so happy when I got it, now it seems I'll have to bug a friend of mine to sell me his CZ Sonnar (for which by the way, I have yet to find a camera system to mount it on).
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4