View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: Domiplan Revisited |
|
|
Sven wrote:
In another thread we discussed the qualities of the Meyer Domiplan and the general opinion was not overwhelmingly positive.
For the fun of it I combined the Domiplan with another cheap item, namely my Soligor 2x TC just to see how bad it would get.
To my surprise I think it actually improved the performance. Bokeh got much better and I even think the shots came out a bit sharper (still quite soft though).
Judge for yourselves.
The rather strange looking combination
Domiplan + TC
Domiplan by itself
Reference shot with the SMC 2/50
_________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zewrak
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1212
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
zewrak wrote:
All I can say is, stick to the SMC _________________ My homepage, all manual shots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
Yes, maybe it was a bit unfair to bring that shot into the comparison. Striking isn't it? _________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Helios
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 537 Location: East of France
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Helios wrote:
Most of "shorted" telephoto lenses (135mm) are of a similar formula relevant ... A triplet with a negative rear double element ... If you can experiment this, do it : you take off the rear element of a "shortened" 135 mm , then put the lens on an extension tube and what you get ? Almost the same 135 mm with a normal mount length ...
So the tc is like the "rear" element ... However , it is not exactly the same formula.
So triplet + tc is a theoric "not so bad" formula. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
Interesting,
Thanks for the explanation about the optics. Thought that there could be some phenomena like that when I posted the thread. _________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2190 Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
That is extremely interesting! Now the Soligor TC is just a 3 or 4 element design that serves, like you say Helios, almost like a "rear" element. Would a better quality TC such as a 7 or 8 element design serve the same function or would it almost negate the odd "phenomena" and retain the domiplan's original qualities? Obviously it is just theoretical...but this is truly one of the most fascinating ideas I've seen. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Helios
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 537 Location: East of France
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Helios wrote:
Hmmmm ...It is not really true . The tc "negative" formula is more "powerful" than the similar (not identical, the optical register is not the same !) rear group of a "short" 135 mm .The 2 elements rear group of "shorterized" telephoto lenses are calculated for the triplet which is the basic formula of these lenses.
"normal" TC's are not dedicated to a particular lens formula , but they often give better results with a simple lens formula (achromatic doublet or triplets)
A six or seven elements modified gauss (1,4/50mm) with a seven elements TC can give a 14 elements 2,8/100mm horror ... |
|
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
|