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

Cyclop-M1 85mm f1.2 night vision lens long thread!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Attila for these samples.

Where and how do you fix the cardboard aperture ?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice work, some of these shots are wonderful, I particularly like the pine cones on the grass and the pink/purple leaves in the first series.

The rendering is quite unique, it reminds me of Petzval type projector lenses but is not quite the same.

Isn't it fun to play with an oddity sometimes? Congrats.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
Thank you Attila for these samples.

Where and how do you fix the cardboard aperture ?


Olivier:

I made with nail scissors from cardboard and put into NEX adapter back, it was 5mm wide ring and matched with inner diameter of adapter.

Ian:

Great fun indeed, beginning was painful, but now I am happy.

Adapter with aperture available on Ebay to Canon EOS -> SONY NEX among with an M42->EOS adapter give complete and good solution.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Super shots, Attila, I have to try now!!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerris2 wrote:
Super shots, Attila, I have to try now!!

Attila has shown that details and IQ are there, and only light post processing is needed.
Details are there !


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this the version that was previously thought to be unuseable? Now useable, but on NEX only? The bokeh seems more calm than the f/1.5 Cyclop. Looks like the f/2 approach is the way to go. Please explain what I'm seeing with the blurry center pictures.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, different lens, it's not based on the Helios-40. the unusable one had a long protrusion at the back, this doesn't and has a different optical formula, although we don't know what formula it has.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Is this the version that was previously thought to be unuseable? Now useable, but on NEX only? The bokeh seems more calm than the f/1.5 Cyclop. Looks like the f/2 approach is the way to go. Please explain what I'm seeing with the blurry center pictures.


At first time I thought unusable, this is different lens than Helios-40-2 based Cyclop this is later advanced model , lighter and 1.2. It has also M42 mount and register distance is longer than M42 so adoptable even to Nikon with single adapter. Blurry center shows what lens do if de-focused I thought interesting effect.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow the bokeh of this one is quite psychedelic. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Olivier wrote:
Thank you Attila for these samples.

Where and how do you fix the cardboard aperture ?


Olivier:

I made with nail scissors from cardboard and put into NEX adapter back, it was 5mm wide ring and matched with inner diameter of adapter.

Ian:

Great fun indeed, beginning was painful, but now I am happy.

Adapter with aperture available on Ebay to Canon EOS -> SONY NEX among with an M42->EOS adapter give complete and good solution.


I think correct place for cardboard aperture is at front of lens Wink Placed at rear "aperture" operates as vignette producer without any effect on DOF. Same with NEX adapter having diaphragm.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Attila wrote:
Olivier wrote:
Thank you Attila for these samples.

Where and how do you fix the cardboard aperture ?


Olivier:

I made with nail scissors from cardboard and put into NEX adapter back, it was 5mm wide ring and matched with inner diameter of adapter.

Ian:

Great fun indeed, beginning was painful, but now I am happy.

Adapter with aperture available on Ebay to Canon EOS -> SONY NEX among with an M42->EOS adapter give complete and good solution.


I think correct place for cardboard aperture is at front of lens Wink Placed at rear "aperture" operates as vignette producer without any effect on DOF. Same with NEX adapter having diaphragm.


No, it worked on rare and wasn't vignetted at all, Olympic Sonnar 180mm 1954 has aperture as last element covered with a thin glass only.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The edited images look quite good, but I'm not liking the unedited ones at all. I'm still not convinced by this `lens' as a photographic tool.

The foot shot would make a great B&W methinks.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have used cardboard apertures with two or three Petzval type projector lenses and can confirm that there was no vignette issue and I got increased dof and sharpness.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the non-edited ones better.
In the edited ones, the local contrast is too pushed for my personal taste.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I like the non-edited ones better.
In the edited ones, the local contrast is too pushed for my personal taste.


This would be a good time to start the 'editing photos feedback' gallery methinks Wink

I'm sure Attila is fine with seeing your interpretation of how to PP these shots Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think it's best to leave these photos as they are. This will never be a high contrast lens.
So better to accept it for what it is, and use it in situations that suit it best.
An example is photo #6, the flowers.
That is a good subject for this lens.

Using a collar on a chicken doesn't make a dog of it Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
#6 is my fave too.

Nice saying Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PP is mater of taste I am glad you all tell your opinion , I love harsh colors not muted one. I think this lens has special place on photography tool palette, but it has place for sure. A wedding photographer can use it very well in my opinion.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wedding photogs that I have seen use only modern kit. I'd be surprised to see one using a Helios, let alone an unwieldy beast such as this.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not an unweildy beast, it's smaller and lighter than a Helios-40. Modern zooms are hardly small either.

Attila has it right, for dreamy pictures of brides and wedding couples this would be ideal, wedding photographers are fond of this type of shot but tend to accomplish it using filters, that's what all those expensive Cromatek filters were used for.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Wedding photogs that I have seen use only modern kit. I'd be surprised to see one using a Helios, let alone an unwieldy beast such as this.


Here there use modern kit too , but some of them who are smarter than others use some unique lens like this to make some extra. Plus what I know use Hasselblad with b&w film etc. Modern kit is essential to make shoots what customers want, but some extra picture not harm maximum customer not take it , but photographer still love it. Wedding photography not the top of photography anyways need to be a very tolerant person to accept all sh* what dear customers can figure out. Friend of mine who did work to National Geographic to 7 yrs said last thing what he will do that is wedding photography, he is rather die than listen what woman can say about his pictures. He did try I think Laughing Laughing from fat cow make an angle etc not easy...


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the outcome of this lens.
Original is ok, may be too low contrast. The PP version might have to much color.

The results look like field curvature - sharp in the center. The lens can be difficult to use. I am not sure if I would bring this lens to a wedding. If that's the case, it would be the last lens for few more artistic shots to increase wow factor.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
If that's the case, it would be the last lens for few more artistic shots to increase wow factor.


Exactly.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's not an unweildy beast, it's smaller and lighter than a Helios-40.

Attila has it right, for dreamy pictures of brides and wedding couples this would be ideal, wedding photographers are fond of this type of shot but tend to accomplish it using filters, that's what all those expensive Cromatek filters were used for.


Unweildy in that there is no AF (like the Helios) and no aperture control (unlike the Helios). Fine in still life, but fiddling with bits of cardboard is not an option in event photography.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Modern zooms are hardly small either.
That depends on the zoom in question. Size is subjective; small in relation to what?

Attila wrote:
Here there use modern kit too , but some of them who are smarter than others use some unique lens like this to make some extra. Plus what I know use Hasselblad with b&w film etc. Modern kit is essential to make shoots what customers want, but some extra picture not harm maximum customer not take it , but photographer still love it. Wedding photography not the top of photography anyways need to be a very tolerant person to accept all sh* what dear customers can figure out. Friend of mine who did work to National Geographic to 7 yrs said last thing what he will do that is wedding photography, he is rather die than listen what woman can say about his pictures. He did try I think Laughing Laughing from fat cow make an angle etc not easy...

I'm sorry, I don't understand this?

I can only speak about the wedding photogs I encountered, which are probably about a dozen (ages from 20s to 70s). Their work is very good and they only shoot using DSLRs and AF lenses. Any dreamy images are made using the modern tendency of using Photoshop.

I think, what we have to remember, is we are all passionate about using old lenses, whereas a majority, just want to see a good image with the least amount of faffing about. Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Come on guys don't loose credibility claiming this is any better then cheapest lens-baby with two plastic elements. Or even one. If there is good, there has to be bad.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2