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

Ultra fast m42 lenses?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pulatom wrote:
Looks like it's best to go for some very fast 85 to get the compromise between the focal length (subject distance) and max. aperture Very Happy.


Sounds about right...A 90mm f1.2 has the same DOF as a 135mm f1.8 but I dont think anyone ever made a 90mm f1.2 though so an 85mm f1.2 probably the closest equivalent...Fortunately, I have both! Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I recently bought a really clean 135mm soligar f/2 and took some test shots the day before it snowed

http://picasaweb.google.com/csvp07/Soligar?authkey=Gv1sRgCOzs0Z_vsKOjYw#

I was quite taken by the tight DOF, but did not understand just how tight it really is unitll i read this thread.

Next summer I want to drag it up to the high elevations and try some brenzier shots of large old trees.

have to use the wheelchair, hehe



PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
Sounds about right...A 90mm f1.2 has the same DOF as a 135mm f1.8


And it will allow the shorter photographing distance, so the out-of-focusness of the BG will be greater Razz. I don't think I could afford any standard 85/1.2 or 135/2 in the nearest future (besides some X-Ray or IR devices lenses Smile), so I'll try with the 6x6 format, maybe P-Six system.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The DOF and perspective of the pic of a subject at 1,2 m using 85 mm lens

at F/1,6, need 1,9 m at F/ 2,5 with the 135 mm lens. (canon, takumar,

fujinon)

If the distance with the 85 mm lens at F/1,6 is 2,5 m with the 135 is needed 4

m at F/2,5


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
When I saw this thread I immediately thought of suggesting medium format.

I have extensive experience with Bronica (6x7 GS-1), many Hasselblads, Mamiya RZ, and my favorite the Rolleiflex SL-66 (the real Rolls Royce of medium format).

Here's my SL-66 images:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/majorblack/tags/sl66/

If you go medium format your choice of 6x7, 6x6 or 6x4.5 would determine camera.

If you are shooting black and white, medium format film is very cheap. It's easy to develop in a light tight bathroom (with practice) and builds character. Wink

I think the experience of shooting medium format will transform your work, once you've mastered it.

If you're willing to rob a bank, here's a nice lens to get you started:
http://kr.am/aH


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kram wrote:

I think the experience of shooting medium format will transform your work, once you've mastered it.



Er, you do realise that this is the 21st century now? Medium format was what they used back in the 20th century before decent DSLR's came along
Very Happy

Kram wrote:

If you're willing to rob a bank, here's a nice lens to get you started:
http://kr.am/aH


Oh blast, they only have one and I wanted two, not worth getting it now Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
Kram wrote:

I think the experience of shooting medium format will transform your work, once you've mastered it.



Er, you do realise that this is the 21st century now? Medium format was what they used back in the 20th century before decent DSLR's came along
Very Happy


I was thinking about buying a DSLR, but I realized that lt'll be very expensive to obtain such a low DOF with it (Canon 85/1.2 for example ain't exactly a cheapie, nor is the 135/2 Razz). I can get similar effect with an 6x6 camera with 180/2.8 lens, without the problems with very tight field of view. The medium format IQ and resolution is also something you cannot achieve on a 36x24 or APS-C frame Very Happy.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joosep wrote:
Eugen Mezei wrote:
You always can increase the recording medium format to get less DOF. I'm shure for the price of a 1.4/85 CZJ or even the 1.8 Porst you can get a P6 or Kiev with a 120 or 150 mm lens. Not luminous, but DOF should be the same.

I own and use a P6 lens (Vega) almost every day and its not how it works.

In a sense that... On a 6x6, a 50 mm equivalent lens is about 80-90mm. But if you take that 80-90mm lens and use it with an adapter (to get the registry distance right) on your fullframe, you will still end up with a 80-90mm regular lens.


Yes, that is why I haven't recommended this method.
(Althought from a financial point of view a 80 or 90 mm 6X6 2.8 is still cheaper than a 80-90/2.8 dedicated for Leica format. Even if you add the price of the adapter.)
But DOF would be ofcourse the same. 80 mm 2.8 on Leica wil have the same DOF no mather where the lens comes from. (The only difference will be that the lens coming from a 6x6 body will shine a bigger circle around the Leica frame, but DOF, luminosity and angle of view will be the same.)

Quote:

So that 150mm lens (if you are not mega rich enough for a the Astro, then most likely youll buy a 2.8 ) will behave just like any 150 mm 2.8 lens ever made for any fullframe


On Leica format yes.

Quote:

(almost the same as 135mm 2.8 then).
85 / 1.4 = 60.71
150 / 2.8 = 53,1


So you just mathematically demonstrated what I said is correct. Very Happy 85/1.4 on Leica film is almost the same as 150/2.8 on 6x6 rollfilm. As long as DOF goes, ofcourse luminosity is 2.8 and not 1.4.

Based on the frame diagonal the equivalencies (to get the aprox. same angle of view) are:
120 mm (6x6) = 78.1mm (Leica) (round this to 80)
150 mm (6x6) = 97.7mm (Leica) (round this to 90 or to 100)

Leica: 80/1,4 .... 100/1,4 = 57,14 .... 71,42
6x6: 120/2,8 .... 150/2,8 = 42,85 .... 53,57
Leica: 80/2,8 .... 100/2,8 = 28, 57 ... 35,71

The middle row is nearer to the upper row than to the last row in therms of DOF coefficent. The 150/2,8 on 6x6 almost reach the 80/1,4 on Leica.
On the other hand I am shure that in therms of price the middle row is a lot nearer the last row and a lot far away from the upper.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pulatom wrote:


1. Pentacon 50/1.8, the standard focal length is enough for the scenes like this Smile.





How did you got that swirly buket out of the Pentacon? I never managed that. Are you shure they haven't sold you a Helios with a Pentacon front ring?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
pulatom wrote:


1. Pentacon 50/1.8, the standard focal length is enough for the scenes like this Smile.





How did you got that swirly buket out of the Pentacon? I never managed that. Are you shure they haven't sold you a Helios with a Pentacon front ring?


It was obviously an original Penatacon. It always gives me a swirly bokeh like this:





I don't know why it doesn't in your case. To obtain a swirl you must be sure to keep the BG busy with high local contrasts, and the aperture must be always wide open. It's also the matter of sensor size. If your camera has an APS-C sensor, it doesn't catch the borders of the image (the swirl is most intensive there).


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pulatom wrote:


It was obviously an original Penatacon.



I was just joking.

Quote:

I don't know why it doesn't in your case. To obtain a swirl you must be sure to keep the BG busy with high local contrasts, and the aperture must be always wide open.


I don't like the swirly buke (it simply doesn't correspond to that how the eye sees) but I will try to reproduce this deliberately. It is the reason I don't like the Helios.
So apperture was 1,8.
[/quote]

Quote:

It's also the matter of sensor size. If your camera has an APS-C sensor, it doesn't catch the borders of the image (the swirl is most intensive there).


I have no digital camera.

Eugen


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
I don't like the swirly buke (it simply doesn't correspond to that how the eye sees) but I will try to reproduce this deliberately. It is the reason I don't like the Helios.
So apperture was 1,8.


Well, it's all about the taste Very Happy. My opinion is that a camera doesn't have to "see" like our eyes and a photo doesn't have to show a particular "real" image. I prefer a kind of surrealistic and dreamy look of my portraits Razz.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2