NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: PeterN on March 17, 2017, 13:13:02
-
Hi all,
I was looking for an "art lens", i.e. a lens that I can use to create a dreamy look with a "soap bubble" type of effect. I saw very promising photos of the new Meyer Optik Trioplan lenses (35, 50, 100mm). Does anyone have any experience with these new lenses? Or thoughts?
As they are pretty expensive, what might be good alternatives?
Thank you for your help.
Peter
-
Hi all,
I was looking for an "art lens", i.e. a lens that I can use to create a dreamy look with a "soap bubble" type of effect. I saw very promising photos of the new Meyer Optik Trioplan lenses (35, 50, 100mm). Does anyone have any experience with these new lenses? Or thoughts?
As they are pretty expensive, what might be good alternatives?
Thank you for your help.
Peter
I am sure folks like Klaus Schmitt and Jakov Minić may have some suggestions. I have the Trioplan 100mm ( I believe that's the one I have) and several of the Russian lenses that do the same. The Trioplan I have is made well, but darned if I can get it produce many soap bubbles for me. It just is more like (pardon me) a lousy lens. And the Russian lenses for sure are poor lenses. I need to spend more time with it, but it is not like falling off a log easy. I look forward to what others say. I probably am going to sell all of mine.
-
The soap bubbles need to be induced regardless of the lens used.
These aberrations are found in lousy lenses like Micheal Erlewine mentioned.
The lenses that I use to create these bubbles are Zenit 85/1.5 and Nikon 135/2.0 DC.
Both lenses need to be at the widest aperture stop and pointing toward a strong light source.
Of course, the 135DC is not a lousy lens but the Defocus Control feature has to be abused by setting the ring all the way to F (front focus).
That way the foreground will be nicely blurred, the in focus object dreamy and the background will provide bubbles.
The stronger the light source and fussier the backgrounds, the better the bubbles :)
Recently, I have posted nice examples here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3088.msg89456.html#msg89456
-
You may like to scan to my albums and you'll find quite a few such lenses (recently I'm using a lot of projection lenses):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums)
A well known candidate aside from those are the HELIOS 40-2 f1.5/85mm, Tele-Ennalyt f1.5/85mm and
the Biotar f1.5/75mm (I'm selling one btw ;-) )
Ennalyt:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/593/32517998854_edd6bb3f1f_o.jpg)
Biotar:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/701/33254065715_9ae4420a64_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/584/32439580303_00c1c332a0_o.jpg)
-
reading your post, you just want to go into this kind of picture taking, but have no preferences?
I personally do not see the need to spend € 1.3k on a new old lens.
You did not write which cam you use, so if it is not a Nikon, but any mirrorless,
buy an adapter and an original 50mm trioplan, together € 100.- (and already overpaid),
as these lenses 2 years ago where at € 25.-
Otherwise you could buy a new 1.5 85mm Russian Helios, which fits to you Nikon for a
very reasonable price and use it as well as portrait lens.
Btw, the proposal made by Jakov works on both Nikon DC lenses and both are much more
valuable than this 50mm Trioplan.
-
just buy a petzval :o :o :o
-
There are many lenses, but also some 'unexpected ones' like the Nikkor 35-70 / 3.5 AIS that can make the 'bubbles' ;)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2697/33055010966_8d5a083296_o.jpg)
And another example
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3706/33274037841_f38de967d5_o.jpg)
-
Thank you so much for your views! It has become clear to me that it would not be a good idea to pay 2500 US dollars for the Trioplan trio (or 650 for the 35mm). I still have to discover what can be done with such a lens by experimenting (and see what I like and do not like), spending a large sum of money is not a good idea, even when taking into account the Kickstarter discount.
Also many thanks for the links to the album, Dr. Klaus Schmitt. I do admit that I really liked seeing the many variations. The Trioplan 50mm was a standout to me. But I really liked seeing the other examples too. So I will do some further research.
John: that is indeed a fascinating effect!
I am still going back and forth which camera I would like to use: Olympus PEN-F or D750. Getting an adapter should not be a problem.
Thanks for your help and sharing your photos. Any additional info and examples are appreciated!
-
Love those bubbles
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7381/10423066843_4972256823_o.jpg)
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2849/10042098266_52def8ae35_o.jpg)
D800 35/1.4
-
Looks cool, Fons. I am getting all kind of ideas.
-
I purchased the 100 mm "Neo"-Trioplan and am still struggling with it.
I still have to manage to create soap bubble bokeh pictures, but you can be sure that middle/ far distance pictures have a very "special" rendering, too.
Two recent sample shots:
At about f/14:
(http://nikongear.net/revival/gallery/0/262-180317180338-1251990.jpeg)
Interesting: The "washed" rendering of the bush in the foreground.
Open aperture:
(http://nikongear.net/revival/gallery/0/262-180317180338-1251189.jpeg)
-
I love the soap bubble images in this thread.
@Fons, which 35mm f/1.4 lens ist this?
-
The Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI/AIS gets a lot of "dreamy" look wide open
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3932/33490528536_dd9f91ca2d_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T2rHkN)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/T2rHkN) by Jack Dahlgren (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jack-d/)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2812/32717178783_3f57cd2f3a_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RR76pn)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/RR76pn) by Jack Dahlgren (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jack-d/)
Super sharp when stopped down.
-
Oh yes, the 1,4/35 Ai (my sample) or Ais full open or at f:2 is a dreamy wild lens ! With lots of softness (coma) and some bubbles ...here a sample image from last autumn...
-
Examples of the $200 Zenit 85/1.5.
Thanks to Erik it meters properly with its dedicated CPU :)
-
I am still going back and forth which camera I would like to use: Olympus PEN-F or D750. Getting an adapter should not be a problem.
Peter,
If you want large "bubbles" then you need a larger sensor than the Olympus or you need to use long focus or telephoto lenses. The size of the blurred light objects is determined by the physical size of the aperture or the apparent size and not the aperture ratio. If a 100~105mm lens gives the size blur you like you use the same lens on both the 35.9x24mm and 17.4 x 13.0mm. My 50/1.2 AIS on DX doesn't do much at all in terms of blurring backgrounds as the physical aperture is too small. Yes it blurs them but the things in the background are still quite recognizable as the blurs are small. My 85/2.0 AIS does more but at a greater shooting distance so a different perspective. Small subjects in close are easier to get blurred backgrounds with as the distance from the camera to the subject is short and the distance to the background can easily be far so the ratio favors background blur. Anyway take the format size into consideration while considering this. I recommend that larger FX format.
There are two things to consider here: the Bokeh or quality of the blurs and your preferences and the size. There are many factors to consider.
Dave Hartman
-
Jakov, those two are just marvellous!
-
Jakov, these two are very fine.
-
Thank you Erik and Thomas, much appreciated.
These images were taken during our Black Forrest workshop in September 2015, how time flies... :)
-
A comment from the side line: the blur circles are not controlled by camera format, but by absolute aperture and magnification. Thus the same lens, focused to the same distance, set to the same aperture, will make the same background blur. An easy prediction to verify experimentally.
-
A comment from the side line: the blur circles are not controlled by camera format, but by absolute aperture and magnification. Thus the same lens, focused to the same distance, set to the same aperture, will make the same background blur. An easy prediction to verify experimentally.
I was about to say that, great that you did Bjorn!!
-
Examples of the $200 Zenit 85/1.5.
Thanks to Erik it meters properly with its dedicated CPU :)
Jakov,
I really like the second photograph in this post!
Dave
-
A comment from the side line: the blur circles are not controlled by camera format, but by absolute aperture and magnification. Thus the same lens, focused to the same distance, set to the same aperture, will make the same background blur. An easy prediction to verify experimentally.
I was also to point this out, but then I was prevented by a general laziness. :D
You formulated it as simply and elegantly as possible.
This simple realization is very powerful, since it will tell you at any time how big your blur circles are.
You want to separate a subject from its background? You want your bokeh balls to be a certain size? By invoking this principle you will know in a heartbeat (or two) which lens and aperture to pick.
-
I love the soap bubble images in this thread.
@Fons, which 35mm f/1.4 lens ist this?
Daniel, i cant remember either the 35mm f/1.4g, which i think it is or the 35mm f/1.4 ais, but concerning the bokeh they are similar, all shot wide open obviously,
-
A comment from the side line: the blur circles are not controlled by camera format, but by absolute aperture and magnification. Thus the same lens, focused to the same distance, set to the same aperture, will make the same background blur. An easy prediction to verify experimentally.
It may be worth adding that the blur circle will appear proportionally bigger when a smaller format is used, in the same way a given lens appears proportionally "longer" (narrower angle of view) on smaller formats.
-
Jakov,
I really like the second photograph in this post!
Dave
Thank you David :)
-
It may be worth adding that the blur circle will appear proportionally bigger when a smaller format is used, in the same way a given lens appears proportionally "longer" (narrower angle of view) on smaller formats.
Yes, this issue can be perceived in that manner. However, due to different physical sizes of the sensors, different pixel dimensions, and so on, making a direct comparison to show the real size of the blur circles can be quite an undertaking. Knowing they indeed are equal sized can be helpful :D
-
Big bubbles with a 300 2.8
-
A comment from the side line: the blur circles are not controlled by camera format, but by absolute aperture and magnification. Thus the same lens, focused to the same distance, set to the same aperture, will make the same background blur. An easy prediction to verify experimentally.
What will change is a longer lens will often be selected for the larger format to have a similar angle of view and perspective. For example compare the blur circles one can achieve with a 70/2.8 lens on DX with those one can achieve with a 105/2.8 or 2.5 lens on FX. If larger blur circles are wanted try a 180/4.0 lens on 6x6/6x4.5 format.
**Anyway when I got an FX Nikon I got my beloved 105/2.5 Nikkor back.
Dave
---
There are many variables here but a basic priciple here is use a longer lens on a larger format to get bigger blur circles relative to the subject.
---
**I can only imagine the joy of owning a 105mm f/1.4 lens!
-
Tom,
The leaf at the lower left looks like a double exposure - is that a characteristic of the foreground boke for this lens?
-
Tom,
The leaf at the lower left looks like a double exposure - is that a characteristic of the foreground boke for this lens?
Jack, I don't think so. The lens is the Nikon 300 2.8 VR 1, which normally exhibits very smooth bokeh. This picture was shot at 1/90th of a second, probably on a tripod, shooting west in the late afternoon with the woods as a background. It was taken last fall so most of the particulars of the shot have faded from memory. Maybe the leaf was moving in the wind as sometimes happens with leaves where one is still and another nearby is not. I never noticed the apparent double exposure until you pointed it out. I wish I knew how to reproduce it at will but I don't have that talent! :P
Tom
-
The "double exposure" leaf has at least two sources of light behind it, each in a different position. The leaf is also out of focus, and each back-light shines through the out of focus edges slightly differently, giving an apparent double image. Not sure I'm explaining it very well, hopefully you understand what I mean...
-
The "double exposure" leaf has at least two sources of light behind it, each in a different position. The leaf is also out of focus, and each back-light shines through the out of focus edges slightly differently, giving an apparent double image. Not sure I'm explaining it very well, hopefully you understand what I mean...
Roland,
Very interesting explanation that I have to give some thought to. When the late afternoon sun shines through the woods does it somehow reflect, bend or splinter the light to give multiple sources coming from slightly different angles as it hits the out of focus leaf? My explanation of what you said may be utterly stupid but I'm trying to understand.
-
Because the leaf is out of focus, each point on the leaf is rendered as a blur (circle of confusion). If the backlit illumination comes from two point sources on either side, the light forming that circle will be dominated by those two circles, and they will remain relatively well defined within the circle. Each point will therefore create a relatively focused image slightly displaced from the other, creating the impression of a double image. The attached diagram attempts to show how it works.
-
It may be worth adding that the blur circle will appear proportionally bigger when a smaller format is used, in the same way a given lens appears proportionally "longer" (narrower angle of view) on smaller formats.
If only this made up for the less blurred backgrounds of a 70/2.8 lens on a DX camera as compared to a 105/2.8 lens on an FX camera I would have been much happier with DX as a general use format.
I wanted an FX camera before Nikon made one. When I first put my AF 35-70/2.8D on my new D300s I was disappointed even thought what I saw was what I expected. When I first put my 105/2.5 AIS on my new D800 I knew I was home.
There are however some advantages to the smaller DX format such that I would love to own a D500. What I need most of all is time.
Dave
http://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/
http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-70mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-70mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)
Here is a link I'll read tomorrow if I have time. I cheated and went to the summary after a little reading...
Summary (in which I tell you what you knew already)
Generalities are nice. Once the volume of information increases beyond a certain point, we need generalities to stop our heads from exploding. Things like "increasing your focal length gives you more background blur" simplifies a much more complicated situation such that we can make intelligent decisions within a limited scope.
So what did we learn today, children?
:) A larger aperture gives you more background blur: You knew this already, but the important thing is that at any given focal length, subject, and background distance, the size of the defocus blur circle will increase in a linear way inversely proportional to f/number (or, alternatively, it'll grow linearly with the size of the aperture).
:) A longer focal length doesn't always equal more background blur if you're a nit-picking fuckwit like me: In fact, the exact opposite happens if you have the same absolute aperture and keep the framing the same by stepping back as you increase the focal length.
With the same relative aperture (f/number), it does hold true, with a background at infinity. As the background gets closer to the subject, once the focal length increases beyond a certain point, this becomes increasingly less true -- you get diminishing returns.
:) Smaller formats mean less background blur: Given any relative aperture and any given framing of a subject, a larger film format will result in more background blur. This is because given any subject distance, background distance and relative aperture, increasing the focal length results in a disproportionate growth of the defocus blur circle.
--http://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/
(http://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/)
I hope this page isn't a gag. Given one man's straight faced You Tube videos on how to double or triple your internet download speeds...
-
Put the 105/1.4 E on the D500 and you have all the blurs you would wish for - and more :D
-
Put the 105/1.4 E on the D500 and you have all the blurs you would wish for - and more :D
If only...
---
In a portrait situation a 105mm lens on DX is longer than I like and gives a flatter or more aloof perspective.
-
Because the leaf is out of focus, each point on the leaf is rendered as a blur (circle of confusion). If the backlit illumination comes from two point sources on either side, the light forming that circle will be dominated by those two circles, and they will remain relatively well defined within the circle. Each point will therefore create a relatively focused image slightly displaced from the other, creating the impression of a double image. The attached diagram attempts to show how it works.
Roland, Thank you for the further explanation and the nice diagram. I understand everything up to the point where you posit two point sources of light. The picture I took was facing woods and extended wetlands where no other light source (such as houses, streetlights etc.) save the sun was facing me and the camera. That leads me to ask again if was a reflection or the sun shining through the trees (or some other physical action) causing the sunlight to break into different streams of light. Light can do a variety things - one of the great appeals of photography - and this seems to be one of them.
Again I appreciate your thoughtful answer.
-
Hi Tom, you are on the right track. If you look at the picture, you can see multiple circles of light in the background, each one coming from the bright sky filtering through leaves in the far background. This is where the multiple sources of light is coming from.