fed 100/6.3-an interesting little lens

[rbelyell]

i bought this lens a while ago--a tiny fellow in m39 mount--to use on my ep1. since it is very old and very slow, i think it is somewhat overlooked/and/or seldom used. nonetheless, i think it brings a certain character that is worth knowing about, so i thought i would share some images. hope you enjoy. PLEASE CLICK ON EACH PHOTO FOR BEST RESOLUTION!!! if you dont you will see low contrast/washed out colors!

[Minolfan]

Never seen this lens. Do you have a picture?
Sharpness is not bad at all, contrast and colour just might be not top.
Nice dog!

[djmike]

f6.3? interesting.... and they supposely be sharp if taken at f6.3 or higher.

[rbelyell]

i find the lens quite sharp, even wide open. as i recall most if not all of these were taken at 6.3; none more than f9. if you click on the photos i think you will find the colors most vibrant and pleasing (without clicking colors are very washed out) i did very little, if any, pp on these--maybe taking out some luminance on the yellows. this lens is very kind to greens, so maybe i toned them down a little, that's about it.

here is a very quickly taken picture--the lens is very small and light and a nice 200mm on the ep1, but i think nice for film rf's as well.

[AhamB]

Sharpness seems ok, but... very prominent VEILING GLARE. Worse than I have ever seen, which is why I capitalize it.
It looks like the shadows are being completely filled in by light from internal reflections (false light).

Why don't you try to do some contrast enhancement, to see if the images can be salvaged somewhat?

[rbelyell]

aham, again i ask that people CLICK ON EACH PHOTO in order to obtain best contrast/color/sharpness, which is why i capitalize it! if you do not do this you will see what seems to be light haze, but in reality is just a constant problem many of us have uploading photos to this site.

if you have the same issue when you click on the photos let me know; i dont see the same effect present at all when the higher rez photos are viewed.

[martyn_bannister]

Excellent shots (yes I clicked ) Is it me, or is the DOF quite small, even at F6.3?

[rbelyell]

thank you martin, both for your kind words and for clicking!!

i agree with you, the dof is quite narrow for that aperture setting. i have not done much experimenting with the dof at various apertures. the lens has a stopless aperture ring that goes up to f32, so i would imagine the dof improves around 9-12. as the old cameras were made to shoot at higher apertures, shooting between f9-16 was probably not considered at all unusual for this kind of lens. also, at 100mm it was probably considered a portrait lens--the bokeh in the pink flower shot is pretty cool i think--so the dof probably wasnt such a concern...

i have to say that i am really stunned by the sharpness of this lens for its age and lack of coating...

[martyn_bannister]

Yes, the last shot of the dog (cute!) is great. Sharpness if very good and colours excellent. Very nice lens well shot. Thanks.

[AhamB]

[rbelyell]

that's very interesting aham, and thank you for the feedback. when i click on them here, and as i see them in my photo editing program, the colors are quite different, much deeper; as is the contrast, much more striking. i find the shots of the violet flower (especially the surrounding leaves) and the dog have much increased contrast and much more vibrant color when i click on them. sorry that didnt come through for you when you do same...

tbh, this is a source of great frustration for me and why i do not post pictures on this site more often. what i see in my editing program (aperture) is NEVER even close to what i see when uploaded on this site. clicking comes much closer, but still not the same...

[AhamB]

I see, you're on a Mac. Maybe it's the 1.8 (Mac) vs 2.2 (rest of the world) gamma value problem. I guess your image is just displaying too bright for all users that are not on a Mac.

I don't understand how people deal with this these days. I'd think that by now Apple would have done something about it. I thought I read about (many?) Mac users starting to use a gamma of 2.2 in the past years... that would be the solution.

[no-X]

This lens has really pleasant bokeh and colors. I searched for its optical design and - surprise - it's quite uncommon optical formula a bit similar to Petzval's lens.

It consists of 2 cemented optical groups, so it has only 2 inner air-glass surfaces(!). The lens should be contrasty even without coating. I'd recommend using a deep lens-hood and careful cleaning of the inner optical surfaces (some condensation could be there).

[scsambrook]

This is all really interesting - a great little lens for rebelyell and a Big Thank You to no-x for the optical diagramme. I had assumed it was simply a copy of the Leitz 'Mountain Elmar'. Shows the dangers of making assumptions.

[Fretless Pete]

I think i agree with the slight lack of contrast and washed out appearance, but i think they're maybe some camera shake or something too, but in saying that, i think the lens is remarkable, and careful technique would reward.
I guess it doesnt help having the PC / Mac thing either.

But if you dont mind rbelyell , i ran 3 of your pics through PP and i think the shots are mostly pretty good, especially your beautiful dog. That one is excellent. You have a good little lens there

I resized them from the huge 1600 pix of the originals to 1024

[rbelyell]

hey pete, that's very interesting. the water scene looks about the same as how i see mine on my monitor; your flower came out better than mine; and my dog came out better than yours (IMHO)--a little too much contrast for me.

what program do you use? do you think i would get better uploading results if i upload at 1024 vs 1600?

thanks

[Fretless Pete]

Hi Pal - yes, post process is always down to personal prefs a lot of the time, but i'm happy you like them.

To be honest, i dont think changing from 1600 to 1024 will see much benefit, as the only reason i did that was to make viewing them on the forums easier.

My own photos on my PC are kept at similar size to yours ( 1500 + ) and thats after processing, so i'm not sure this will help at all.

I think, opinions will vary, that perhaps you might need to try a different technique with this lens - possibly stopping down more, as it maybe that its not baffled enough, and too much reflected light inside the tubes can wash out photos and dilute contrast.

On the other hand, you have this thing with the monitors showing differing amounts of contrast and such, so to see whats going, can you load these photos onto a flash memory stick, and take them to a friends PC ( not a Mac ! ) and see whether you can notice any difference in your originals from your Mac, to a friends PC.

[rbelyell]

well, i am very happy with the results of the lens. i am always unhappy with posting pictures on this site as they never look as they do on my monitor. i do think it is the gamma difference between macs and pc's, though i noticed much less of a difference when i used lightroom for pp and exporting. now i use aperture and the difference is frightening. if viewed as they appear on this site, without 'clicking' on them, all my pictures look like garbage! i might try uploading pictures through firefox next, as opposed to safari....

[Fretless Pete]

I did the clicking thing as you requested, and they didnt change much for me.

AS long as you're happy, thats all that counts, so have fun with that baby !

[trifox]

where is the CA!!!???

poor APO-LANTHAR hehe

NICE PICTURES and superb lens!!

tf

[AhamB]

[no-X]

The pictures are displayed slightly different in MSIE nad Firefox (firefox shows slightly more contrast and colors).

trifox: I think for f/6.3 lens even 4 lens elements in 2 groups are enough to correct CA to the level of good APO lens. A už by to rejpání stačilo

[martinsmith99]

I think it looks a good lens. The contrast is similar to my I26M. A lens hood may help a bit.

Can nobody post without SHOUTING the odd word these days?

[spleenone]

[rbelyell]

trifox: thanks stan, glad you liked them. not an expensive lens, got it for around $60....

martinsmith: thanks martin. looking at the lens, i dont think there is a way to get a lens hood onto it....will just have to make do....

aham: i just put in a copy of the flower picture uploaded through firefox and located just after that originally uploaded through safari. there is a definite difference, with firefox being improved color and contrast, but still not what i see when i click on photo here or on my monitor at home.