trioplan100/f2.8 revival

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The 'qualities' are due to uncorrected aberrations. I doubt that Meyer used glass any different to that being supplied to the other GDR lensmakers.

Stephen, mine was an aluminium preset with a red V coating symbol.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Ian - thanks for that. Mine was an auto-iris in Exakta mount and used with film it never seemed to give the sort of 'hysterical' results we see these days. I've been wondering whether the design was changed at some time late in its life.

As for 'uncorrected aberrations' I suppose we ought to remember that lens designers choose how they balance the various corrections, so the Trioplan might have been deliberately designed to give the effects it does. And thinking about optical glass, Meyer would have had a very wide range to chose from, so that they might well have used one or more types not adopted by other lens makers, perhaps to attain some particular goal in design. Given the lack of reliable archive sources, I fear we can only make 'educated guesses' about what was intended and what changes took place over the Trioplan's lifetime. Which is good in one sense, as it keeps us talking Wink

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Indeed, uncorrected aberrations can be desirable. Portrait lenses, for example, often have controls to adjust element spacing and introduce higher or lower levels of spherical aberration.

With triplets and tessars, the distance between the front two elements can be varied in order to increase or decrease spherical aberration. If the spacing is too great, then you get more spherical aberration. It occurs to me that if Trioplans weren't manufactured to the highest QC standards, then there would be some variation in this spacing and therefore some lenses would have more SA than others, and as SA makes a diffuse soft glow, that would effect the rendering greatly.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

The Meyer Trioplan 100 and some other lenses have over corrected spherical aberration. More correction than needed for the lens system.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Well, I've been able to make a normally sharp triplet soft and glowy by unscrewing the front element a bit, this was on an old Kodak Anastigmat mounted in a shutter. This was because I introduced more SA by increasing the element spacing.

As for over correction of SA, that doesn't make any sense to me.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

But....

Almost ALL lenses produce this 'bubble' nonsense at some combination of subject distance and focus setting.

I'm sure I know what is causing this phenomena and I'm going to do a little experiment one day to prove or disprove it.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

Spherical aberration depends on distance.
So a lens can be good corrected for one distance, and can be overcorrected for different distance.
Floating elements or other macro correction is at least partly for spherical aberration - this is the reason why I searched for lenses that have a seperate ring for macro focussing to get a cheap Nikon Defocus Control alternative.
Front element focussing Triplet and Tessar lenses are sometimes designed the way that they are over corrected (wideopen) for spherical aberration at infinity, and get undercorrected for near focussing.
This can be DIY used with seperate focussing helicoid, and use of the front element focussing for bokeh control.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

Trioplan is the most overrated lens ever, period Exclamation

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Thanks for the explanation.

The spacing of the front two elements of a Tessar or Triplet can indeed be varied to control SA - increase the spacing from it's designed position and you get more SA. This was a commonly known and used trick in the olden days among portrait shooters. Not everyone could afford a dedicated portrait lens so they used a general purpose lens - a triplet or tessar. Then unscrew the front element as much as it can without falling out and you have a lens with that soft, diffuse glow of too much SA that makes lovely portraits.

However, I don't think the outline ring of the 'bubble' is anything to do with aberrations, I think I know what causes it, and as it can be seen in almost all lenses, to some degree, it is most likely a simple physical property.

I'm working on a little experiment to prove/disprove my theory, if I'm right then it will be possible to make a little modification to just about any lens to get a stronger outline effect.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

About Trioplan 100 prices:
It gets me better images than the Zeiss Contax 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. From that I would judge a price higher than the Distagon OK. Furthermore up to today there are new 35mm/1.4 lenses with nearly the same qualitys, but no 100mm/2.8 with the same qualitys - therefore a higher price than the Zeiss Distagon would still be reasonable.
Yes, it is a simple construction, and back then cheap. But today it is a very special tool - and still only few know the cheaper ways to get such a tool.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

That's just the thing - I don't think it's a very special tool at all.

It's just a triplet, which is probably the most common lens design to be found.

I really fail to see what about the Trioplan is special - the design is hardly unique, there's no unique special glass types, what's so out of the ordinary?

What can the Trioplan do that other lenses can't? The answer has to be nothing, because it's more about technique than lens.

Here's a crop from a shot I made the other night with a lens that could hardly be more different from the Trioplan - a Computar 1.2/12mm CCTV lens on my Pentax Q7 and it has 'bubbles' - these outlines to oof highlights are to be found in most lenses in the right circumstances, in this case a street scene and the lens was focussed at close to it's mfd.

People should invest time in exploring the techniques rather than thinking they have to have this one special lens.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

Sorry, for me your image bokeh is far away from the Trioplan buble bokeh:

anktonio · Expire: 2017-02-22

I think almost any lens is valid to get bubble circles and other effects

Jupiter-3 50/1.5

Hexanon AR 50/1.7

Planar 50/1.8

Vivitar 24/2

And more...
Happy shots!

AMDBill · Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 109

anktonio · Expire: 2017-02-22

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

Well, I'm on the brink of proposing to rename the forum from "mflenses" to Trioplan bubble forum" Twisted Evil

As it seems that those Tripolan bubbles is everything paople here care about. And even more importantly,
how to get those as cheap as possible...

Lord have Mercy.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

"Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble" said Mr Wm. Shakespeare in one of his plays . . . weren't we all fascinated by blowing bubbles as kids? Seems some of us still are - even though bubbles are ephemeral. Bubbles, swirley-bokey, pin sharp images, we all pays out our own money to indulge our own preferences and can change our choices whenever we want.

Maybe we can have a sticky Bubbles Thread? (not that bubbles could ever really be sticky . . .)

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

I can't believe having fun with a lens and enjoying the image made,can cause so much angst. If we were all the same the forum would be boring,if we all collected the same lenses the prices would be unaffordable ( perhaps this is the case)...bring on the differences in images taken, in lenses discussed, in bubbles in smooth and sharp images. Very Happy

...oops I forgot the soft images as well.