| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 1445
Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Sciolist wrote:
Subject at 60 metres distance. As usual, f/11, apsc, flat settings, no pp.
100%
An improvement on what has gone before. But unless this lens was specifically designed soft, or designed with cheap glass, then I don't think I'm getting the most out of it. I've read about some TTH lenses responding well to the rear element being screwed out until sharp. I'll try it on the rear lens block in quarter turns and see what happens. My gut feeling is not a lot. But God loves a trier as they say. Oh!... Onion rings 
Onward... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 2971
Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
If I am not mistaken enlarging and taking lenses were the same thing at the time. ie lenses were not specialized enough yet to make them better at taking versus enlarging. But I may be wrong on this account.
_________________
photos are moments frozen in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 1445
Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
| jamaeolus wrote: |
| If I am not mistaken enlarging and taking lenses were the same thing at the time. ie lenses were not specialized enough yet to make them better at taking versus enlarging. But I may be wrong on this account. |
That's my understanding too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 1445
Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
Well, that's strange. Something I tried, kind of worked. I backed the rear lens group out of the barrel a quarter turn at a time for two full turns. Three quarters of a turn out is a bit sharper than no turns. I mentioned I'd read that you could do this with a TTH lens, but I've since read that Goerz anastigmat's can be the same.
Settings as previous. No pp.
100%
I still think it should be sharper than this.
Onward... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11063
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Different angle & lighting complicate comparison with previous photo. Regardless there seems to be improvement in sharpness, though it may be better light.
Thanks for charting your progress for us...
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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-A 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 (151B), 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 |
|
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 1445
Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
Different angle & lighting complicate comparison with previous photo. Regardless there seems to be improvement in sharpness, though it may be better light.
Thanks for charting your progress for us... |
I should have said. The comparison wasn't made with the shot above it, but with a base shot that started a series of shots involving 1/4 turns. It's a little more obvious in that set. However, the lens is still not producing a definitively sharp shot in any condition, which makes comparisons difficult and marginal.
Smoke and mirrors via some pp helps, as below, but that is just masking the problem. I want to know why an apparently well made lens, fairly well corrected from what I can see (still some glow two stops down), with clear glass, cannot produce a sharp shot.
100%
Last edited by Sciolist on Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11063
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Looks plenty sharp to me...have you compared with a 135? 
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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-A 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 (151B), 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 |
|
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 1445
Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Looks plenty sharp to me...have you compared with a 135? |
The shot immediately above is the 3/4 turn, sharpened in pp, along with an increase in saturation. I've edited the post to make that more obvious. But you have a point. Recalibrating my expectations would be healthy. I'll get a Takumar out.
EDIT: It might be better to compare with the Aldis and Beck lenses I have. They are of similar vintage, if not formula (probably). |
|
| 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
