NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on January 01, 2016, 18:41:16
-
This is the beginning of a thread on what I call “Impressionistic” or “mood” lenses, many of them old styles of lenses being revived and manufactured. Some of our posters here have an interest in lenses like these, including Jakov Minić, Akira, myself, and others.
Not an historian, but it looks like interest in this type of lens came from the Carl Zeis Jena Biotar 58mm f/2 lens from the 1920s. This lens became famous for its sharpness and its extreme bokeh, when shot wide open. Often used on the micro 4/3 systems, it was available mainly in M42 mounts, but apparently also in Exacta and Paktina mounts. It has 6 lens elements and a minimum focusing distance of 60 cm (23.6 inches). The original Biotar had a black finish, but subsequently silver and other finishes were offered.
The Biotar is an example of what is called a Double-Gauss Lens, which involves:
“… two back-to-back Gauss lenses (a design with a positive meniscus lens of the object side and a negative meniscus lens on the image side) making two positive meniscus lenses on the outside with two negative meniscus lenses inside them. The symmetry of the system and the splitting of the optical power into many elements reduces the optical aberrations within the system.” --’ Wikipedia.
The Biotar has been systematically copied by other manufacturers, most notably the Russians, who mass-produced this style lens with copies like the Helios 44 58mm f/1 and others, most often with the M42 mount, or with a M39 thread, especially for the Zenit cameras.
These lenses have become legendary for what is called their “swirling bokeh. The lenses are very flare prone, quite heavy, and must be stopped down for normal photography. However, that is not how it is generally used these days. Instead, it is most often used wide open under sunny conditions, which does wild things with specular highlights and light, in general.
Perhaps the most common forms of these lenses are copies of the Zeiss Boitar 58mm f/2 made in Russia by KMZ, MMZ, and Jupiter from 1958 until the late 1990s, in particular the Helios M44-2 and the Helios-44M, both with 8 aperture blades, and a range of f/2 – f/16. Both models function similarly, although the 44M is heavier and more solidly built. To reduce flare, a hood of some type is usually required.
The Zenit MC Helios 40-2 85mm lens with M42 mount, also Russian Made, is also a popular lens that displays similar light effects to those noted above. It takes a 67mm filter and lens hood.
The recent reissue by Lomography of the New Petzval Art Lens, a copy of a Viennese lens from 1840, is currently interesting filmmakers and photographers because of its sharpness and the swirly bokeh effect mentioned above. The Petzval has a focal length of 85mm, f/2.2 – f/16 and a 44mm image circle. It weighs 0.68 kg (24 ounces). A Nikon mount is available.
Another lens with similar characteristics is the FUJINON 55mm f/1.8 lens with a 42mm Screw Mount, often available on Ebay for a reasonable price.
And Lensbaby has recently released the Lens Baby Velvet 56mm f/1.6 for Nikon and Canon mounts, which is a sturdy lens, again, exhibiting the special bokeh, etc. we are looking at here.
Another lens worth considering is the CRT-Nikkor (Nikkor-O) 55mm f/1.2, which also can do wonderful things with light and focus.
I am not an expert on these lenses, but I have all except the Petzval (which I am resisting), and am gradually learning how to use them as I find the time. .
I thought this trend deserves its own general thread, so here it is.
Here is a sample photo on the Nikon D810 and the Lensbaby 56mm f/1.6 giving (not the best) example (I am just learning!) of what we might be after. Since I am a sharpness freak, I have to kind of hold my nose and shoot. I am also VERY interested in photographic impressionism, so I would like to learn this, if I can.
-
I thought this trend deserves its own general thread, so here it is.
I agree. This is a great idea as many of us like these ''impressionistic'' lenses.
The 44/2 helios 58mm f/2 is one of them and there are many different versions.
Mine is silver with 13 blades' iris (most of them have 8 blades) . However, it's not heavy at all, only 234g with both caps on my scale.
I got it from Ukraine, in great condition from a 100% rated Ebay seller.
Its original thread is M39, and it was delivered with a m39/m42 adapter which is stranded on it, so i use a m42/Nikon adapter and it's fine.
I don't really matter about sharpness, at least in this kind of photography. Bokeh is the main factor. :)
Few images :
-
Here is a pic made with few stacked shots just for sharpness wise.
-
The Bluebonnet grows prolifically in Texas and is the state flower.
-
Rosko, that lens has some interesting bokeh (shot 4262). Ron, I don't think those are bluebonnets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupinus_texensis#/media/File:Bluebonnet-8100.jpg), which are in the pea family and have flowers typical of that family.
-
There will be the reissue of the Meyer trioplans
http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com/ (http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com/)
Muscari are the bleu flowering bulbs
-
Thanks, Bill.
These flowers are Grape hyacinth (Muscaris), from bulbous family, its taxonomy is quite complicated.
What I am sure is that it's not from the bean family (Papilionacea). :)
-
Muscari is correct. This genus is now considered to belong to the Asparagus Family (Asperagaceae). As already stated, their taxonomy is quite convoluted so identification to species level might not always be possible.
-
I have posted many photos with lenses that have cavities but character in many threads.
There's a dedicated one on the Rodenstock Heligon 100/1.6 and I have posted many photos made with the Helios Zenit 85/1.5 on various threads.
A bit more words on the Helios can be found here: http://jakov.nl/wp/2015/10/20/zenit-85-mm-f1-5-helios-40-2/
It goes without saying that these lenses don't produce images of character just by pointing them in the right direction They take getting used to, and if you don't like to use a lens that gives you less than a small number of keepers, these lense usually aren't for you. In time the number of keepers becomes greater, simply because you don't experiment with something that you know doesn't work from all the non keepers of the past.
Then again it all depends on the type of photography that you are into.
For me, it's all about enjoying the process of achieving the desired result.
That's what I love about photography!
-
Muscari is correct. This genus is now considered to belong to the Asparagus Family (Asperagaceae). As already stated, their taxonomy is quite convoluted so identification to species level might not always be possible.
I am taking quite a leap of faith but since I'm already jumping off the "fat girl", so-to-speak, might the erstwhile "stomach" in fact be a new species? (re: Kings Play Chess On Fat Girls Stomachs)
And Michael, thanks for starting this thread!
-
? afraid the depth of this is beyond my imagination ??
-
Even the 35/1.4ais is a good candidate to achieve soapbubbles like bokeh and more lenses not yet mentioned here.
The choice of background is important and in post-processing one may accentuate a bokeh structure.
for instance
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2849/10042098266_52def8ae35_o.jpg)
-
? afraid the depth of this is beyond my imagination ??
I guess it's the mnemonic for the taxonomy order:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
Its relevance to this particular discussion escapes me completely though.
-
I guess it's the mnemonic for the taxonomy order:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
Its relevance to this particular discussion escapes me completely though.
It may be a bit cryptic but relevant.
It refers to the species of bluebonnet, which was said to be difficult, if I understand correctly.
-
The hierarchic scheme used for taxonomy has its relevance in that field, but for most real life situations, family + species (the latter implies genus) is all that is required. Wordplays might be fine to show you are a native speaker, but again, not relevant.
Putting this as relevant in the context of "impressionistic" lenses is far fetched though and I suggest the thread is put back on tracks.
-
? afraid the depth of this is beyond my imagination ??
Yes. That's why we are sending you flowers. <G>
-
I have experimented quite a bit with those type of lenses and their, well, interesting bokeh and drawing.
Indeed the HELIOS 40-2 and the Biotar 58mm and 75mm are well known candidates for such and seeked
upon especially in Asia, where such bokeh is in high demand and also the reason for the price explosion
of the Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100mm.
But "impressionistic" to me is rather a "stroke brush like painting" type like this:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/521/19693677719_a84f414e2d_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8122/8769867956_ea75cd7e15_o.jpg)
(both are not the mentioned but two very different lenses, used wide open)
-
But "impressionistic" to me is rather a "stroke brush like painting" type like this:
We can come up with t better word. I am not referring here to French Impressionism, but to capturing an "impression." We could use "Mood," but the nature of these lenses deserve something better than that term. Suggest one please.
-
We can come up with t better word. I am not referring here to French Impressionism, but to capturing an "impression." We could use "Mood," but the nature of these lenses deserve something better than that term. Suggest one please.
hmm, I see your point Michael, "mood" describes it in a way, "emotional" would be my take. There has been the term "subjective" years ago, which kind of nails it. The very personal view of the photographer.
-
hmm, I see your point Michael, "mood" describes it in a way, "emotional" would be my take. There has been the term "subjective" years ago, which kind of nails it. The very personal view of the photographer.
All photography is personal IMO. Actually, all photography is impressionistic, by definition of there being a subject and an object.
The word "Mood," as I mentioned, cheapens the idea. This is not elevator-photography. The word "emotional" does not do it for me, either, because many of the kind of shots I like are not emotional, but more ethereal in looks. So do we want to call this "Ethereal Photography?" I don't think so. Nor do I want to call it "Swirly Bokeh" photography.
And Klaus, I recognize that you probably know more about this genre than anyone I have ever met and have proved it by testing probably scores of lenses and concepts over the years.
I am just transitioning from my style of photography, where I get some of these effects with great lenses, but with very hard work, to considering these relatively inexpensive lenses for what they, in themselves, can do.
When it comes to this type of photography, you have always been my guide and mentor.
So, anyone have any other names for this style?
Some ideas might be:
Ethereal
Mystic
Spiritual
New Age
Airy
Intangible
Filmy
Gossamer
Diaphanous
Transparent
-
I read it as a difference like in drawing and painting.
Drawing in terms of a more precise, technical rendition,
Painting like making use of purposeful imperfections to receive an extra in rendition,
which is not necessarily part of an 'objective' image presentation.
-
I read it as a difference like in drawing and painting.
Drawing in terms of a more precise, technical rendition,
Painting like making use of purposeful imperfections to receive an extra in rendition,
which is not necessarily part of an 'objective' image presentation.
Good point, but what shall we call this "Ethereal Painting" or "Lens Painting." The idea of painting with lenses is a good one.
-
OK, changed the name of the thread to "Painting with Lenses." This is a term I can accept and that describes the technique we are using. Thanks to Thomas G. for the suggestion. I hope this is OK with everyone.
-
The Nikkors 50mm F/1.2 and the F/2.0 also qualify for 'painting' ;) But very close to painting are the Heligons as Jakov mentioned earlier.
-
OK, here is a photo with the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6-16 with 1:2 Macro, focuses from 5". This is a much more (regular?) and sturdy offering from Lensbaby than usual. Like all of these "painterly" lenses, wide open (f/1.6), everything is pretty soft, so it takes some work to get both bokeh and something in focus to catch your attention. If I wanted all bokeh, I could just take my glasses off and be in heaven.
I always want a lot of bokeh, but also something very much (or pretty much) in focus to prove to myself this is real life, and not just some dream or other.
So, what had to happen here is to stack focus, with a shot wide-open, and then a shot or two at a smaller aperture so that something is in focus. Then I combine the stack to have what we see here, a whole lot of bokeh, but some sign (in focus) that shows this is real.
Not making any claims here, other than proof of concept.
-
Here is another proof-of-concept photo using the Nikon D810 and the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6.
Again, trying to have something in decent focus against all that bokeh.
-
If I want to render something soft or in a impressionistic way I always grab my Lensbaby. Just the "right" amount of shabby optics for a fresh new "look" without to much PP.
-
Børge, the lensbaby looks like a promising tool!
Given that you know how to use it as you certainly do. Great images!
-
The key is trial and error. A lot of it :)
-
Even the 35/1.4ais is a good candidate to achieve soapbubbles like bokeh and more lenses not yet mentioned here.
The choice of background is important and in post-processing one may accentuate a bokeh structure.
for instance
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2849/10042098266_52def8ae35_o.jpg)
I feel Fons is a master in the impressionistic style and he has got quite a collection of old Nikkors which do the trick.
One of them not yet mentioned is the rare 2.0/24Ai which acts like an effect filter wide open.
-
I can live with "painting with lenses" as a thread title. Would you call it "painting with lenses photography" then? Bit clumsy IMHO.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3853/15348978011_0362a6427c_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2947/15165466840_a33d785d16_o.jpg)
Btw. I would postulate that this type of photography may be done with about ANY type of lens, considering the placement of
the object versus its foreground/background. Here an example using the very same tulip flower ...
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7278/13890944782_02f11d4988_o.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3682/13890949306_d843af72de_o.jpg)
-
I can live with "painting with lenses" as a thread title. Would you call it "painting with lenses photography" then? Bit clumsy IMHO.
Something like "Lens Painting" or "Lens Painting Photography" or "The Photography of Lens Painting" would be good enough. There needs to be some umbrella concept to collect these methods. They are coming back or coming into their own, right?
-
Something like "Lens Painting" or "Lens Painting Photography" or "The Photography of Lens Painting" would be good enough. There needs to be some umbrella concept to collect these methods. They are coming back or coming into their own, right?
OK, "Lens Painting" or "Lens Painting Photography" shoudl do. I have added a few examples to my post above and a postulation. Would you agree?
-
Børge, your #3 made me reach out to the screen to wipe out the mosquito ;)
-
Try the "mosquito repellent tool" in Photoshop ;D
-
Here's one with nothing in focus... ???
Nikkor 55mm f1.2 AI.
-
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5803/23290990961_01f72f2201_b.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/Bu9qaF)Puristisch (https://flic.kr/p/Bu9qaF) by Harry M. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/granuba/), auf Flickr
Is this picture "painted"? Let me unterstand your definition.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7303/12287282455_6e4a87d8be_o.jpg)
Oxalis
D700 50mm/1.2
May 15, 2010
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5576/15206129215_af7d5c2dca_o.jpg)
Rosa hybr. 'Gertrude Jeckyll'
Df 135mm/f2 ai
-
A couple of my first images with CRT-Nikkor 55/1.2.
-
A couple of my first images with CRT-Nikkor 55/1.2.
Akira, you inspire me to post one with the same lens... ;)
D700 + CRT 55mm f/1.2
-
Another bokeh with Micro-Nikkor 104mm f/4.
# @f/5.6
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3743/10075051094_82c6359be0_o.jpg)
d800 35mm/1.4ais
-
I feel Fons is a master in the impressionistic style and he has got quite a collection of old Nikkors which do the trick.
Yes, I would have to agree :)
-
That 35 1.4 looks great! Probably has something to with the man behind the camera as well ;)
-
... nice
hexagons septagons (thanks Akari).
Df, Nikon SE 36-72mm 1:3.5, reversed as follows: 36-72, regular mountet 4 T, 21mm length metal lenshoud used as an extension (52mm lens side, 58 mm filter side), 58-52mm downstep ring, BR2
@ f/9.5 and t=1/250s
(notes may be not completely accurate here)
This combinations allows for brilliant close ups and macros. It has a strong tendency to produce septagons on any light source in picture or any stronly illuminacted contrast edge.
Working distance is on the short side but longer than with the 60mm AF-S G.
-
a soft one, the TV Heligon 19mm with Nikon V1
-
Akira, you inspire me to post one with the same lens... ;)
D700 + CRT 55mm f/1.2
Francis, nice response!
... nice hexagons
Thomas, sorry to nit-pick, but these are septagons...
-
Another one with CRT.
Orange alert.
-
Akira, your fruit's on fire :)
-
Akira, your fruit's on fire :)
Haha...hence the title! :)
-
Børge Wahl: Your three entries in #26 are really amazing. Thank you for sharing your inspiring work.
Akira: The first one in #39 is totally amazing.
Trouble with most of the others is I have seen them before.
-
Here are some of last summer. I feel the 1.8/50G is able to perform some nice dreamy effects if used wide open in the near field in the right light:
-
Akira: The first one in #39 is totally amazing.
Thanks, Frank. It has been used as my desktop image for years.
Love the second one in the latest series: looks like a fairy tale illustration.
-
Df, 28mm 1:2.8 AI-s, @ f/2.8, t=1/500s
Background can get a bit harsh, needs sufficient distance to background if there are edges and geometric elements.
-
another great one, where Degas took care of the background
-
Allow me to offer an image that I believe is kind of painted.
Taken with 28/2 and a K1 extension ring :)
-
painterly enough? :)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1572/23800658029_bc9ced7310_b.jpg)
-
CRT-Nikkor 55 mm f/1.2 apparently is popular in this thread. Thus I'll throw in a few of my own.
-
Another with the CRT-Nikkor.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7764/17357456639_34d81ac76e_o.jpg)
Df 58mm f/1.4g @ f2
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5465/17820381621_b752978c6c_o.jpg)
Df 35mm f/1.4g at full aperture
-
I support and respect all of what has been posted here, but still have (like all of us) my own direction and what satisfies me.
And I APPRECIATE posting which which lens, camera, etc. on our posts, so that we can take that under consideration.
Personally speaking, and I hope we can be frank with one another, I like all of the wild bokeh, but in my images I always want one (perhaps small) something or other in focus, and acute focus at that. Those airy photos that are all bokeh I respect, but they don’t satisfy me. All blur is just that. I want some kind of differential, a point where (as we say) the “rubber meets the road.” Everything a little out-of-focus is just that IMO. Here is one I took with the CRT-Nikkor.
-
There is an interesting video, worth watching, on the use of the Venus 15mm Macro by Thomas Shahan.
w.youtube.com/watch?v=PZcYXUMkhek
The Venus/Laowa 15mm 1:1 Macro WA lens is worth playing with. I am just getting used to it. Shot this one this morning, in that effort. Nikon D810.
-
Michael, I am not certain whether this is sharp enough, but I am afraid I cannot do any better when painting. It seems that my brush is too thick :)
The excessively enthusiastic approach of 45P and PN-11 on a Df.
I'd like to share my observation/taste on the 15 mm stacked photo you just posted.
For me the transition from sharp to unsharp is too sudden. Perhaps both flowers didn't need to be sharp?
I do however like those blues in the lower right hand side of the out of focus areas.
(edit: i added another photo with the same combination)
-
Well, the point is that we each are different, and we allow that in others. Yes, for me, this one you just posted has no area sharp enough to let me feel grounded. Too much spaciness for me. If I were shooting that, I would stack one to three frames of the stamens, so they were tack sharp and then stack those with what you have now. merge them together, but, again, that is just me. We are not shooting a field-guide photo here, but trying to scratch whatever itch we have. For me, I always want to express the reality we have (sharp focus) with the fact that our life is also like a dream.... so some unreality or dreaminess.
I consider all these we post here, tests, trials to push the envelope this way and that to see how it works out. Unless you ask me, I am not going to comment on anything you (or anyone) posts, unless I just really like it, and then you might get a "nice." What you post is you and your right to be what you are; same for me.
What would be good (for me) in this thread is for all of us to specify exactly the lens and camera we use, and to talk about the behavior of the lens, and how we get whatever we get out of it. That is what I try to do.
This idea that you are going to "like" my view or me "yours" just is not important, although it happens. I do like this or that. But what I really want is to learn how to use new lenses to get what I like, not what others like. Capiche?
With that note, here is a photo with just a bit of focus; I had a LR crash that lost the info on which lens this is, since I don't normally use lenses that Nikon cameras can read EXIF from.
-
I completely agree with you Michael; we all have our own taste and it is not for discussion.
We are all here to learn from the experiences of others and their camera + lens combinations.
The photos I posted were made with 45P and the PN-11 which gives a really high magnification hence the extremely narrow depth of field.
It doesn't matter whether anybody likes them or not, they get an idea of the results that can be achieved with the given combination, right :)
-
I completely agree with you Michael; we all have our own taste and it is not for discussion.
We are all here to learn from the experiences of others and their camera + lens combinations.
The photos I posted were made with 45P and the PN-11 which gives a really high magnification hence the extremely narrow depth of field.
It doesn't matter whether anybody likes them or not, they get an idea of the results that can be achieved with the given combination, right :)
I will have to try the Nikon 45 P lens myself. Have you tried shorter and longer extension than the PN-11 and what were the results. How did you arrive at the PN-11?
-
I will have to try the Nikon 45 P lens myself. Have you tried shorter and longer extension than the PN-11 and what were the results. How did you arrive at the PN-11?
It was the only extension ring I had at the time :)
I didn't try it with shorter rings yet. The Heligon 100/1.6 simply took over...
-
It was the only extension ring I had at the time :)
I didn't try it with shorter rings yet. The Heligon 100/1.6 simply took over...
If you have time, tell us about how you use the Zenit lens. I see that it has some odd rings on it. What I have done is just setit to wide open, but I imagine you might say a few words for us about how to set the rings, which is not intuitive and can be confusing. Is there a clear an simple way to set that lens up for optimum images?
-
Michael,
I understand the concept of connecting the image to perceived reality through at least getting one recognizable pinpoint in focus and sharp.
That's an idea I try to follow in my own work as well.
I like the idea of learning about the different lenses and add lens information and comment as far back as I still can modify my posts.
Here is an example pushed to just that last pinpoint limit - a crocus sprout.
Df, Tokina Macro AT-x 90mm 1:2.5 + original 1:1 extender (exif is not set right) @ f/4 and t/320s
This lens allows for very (very) smooth transition from very sharp to not sharp at all.
It does not play in the league of rendering abstract artifacts, it's just incredibly smooth in off focus rendition.
It's very versatile and useable for different tasks like close ups, portraits, light tele, as long as the object does not move fast - it has a very long focus throw and extends a lot when focussing close.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5516/12287358924_3866cb3df2_b.jpg)
D700, 35/1.4
May 2010
-
Michael,
I understand the concept of connecting the image to perceived reality through at least getting one recognizable pinpoint in focus and sharp.
That's an idea I try to follow in my own work as well.
I too have that Tokina lens, which is quite sharp. I should revisit it myself. From this post I see that I am probably "spacier" than you, for I would need a strong single point to feel grounded. It is interesting how we all differ in what grounds us or makes of fly. The photo by Fons is closer to what I need, but I would paint even that a little sharper.
Another way to ground is like this image in with wider in-focus areas like here, probably done with the VOitlander 125mm f/1.5 APO-Lanthar and the D800E
-
The sprout example was the result of testing my own imagination, which I do from time to time.
I usually have a faible for getting back lighting or transmission light effects involved, and/or geometric elements.
I usually hesitate on extreme sharpness in PP for which I also might miss the lenses or technique for.
The following examples: D700; AF-S 60mm Micro Nikkor, free hand.
The first inspired by your last post @ f/5.6 t/320s (https://www.flickr.com/photos/114702672@N04/15746257731/in/dateposted-public/), the second one a favorite of mine for transmitted light, @ f/5.6 t/800s (https://www.flickr.com/photos/114702672@N04/13495546305/in/dateposted-public/).
Following your consideration: both get me soundly grounded.
-
If you have time, tell us about how you use the Zenit lens. I see that it has some odd rings on it. What I have done is just setit to wide open, but I imagine you might say a few words for us about how to set the rings, which is not intuitive and can be confusing. Is there a clear an simple way to set that lens up for optimum images?
I couldn't figure out the aperture rings either until Erik explained them to me. Why is it so confusing? Yes there are two rings but how come it's so non intuitive? Well it's rather simple. We all know what aperture rings are and how they behave on most if not all of the lenses that we have ever used. It is that ring that has numbers on it and clicks in place when you rotate it, right?
Well, with the Zenit that is not the case. Once you get that it's rather easy to operate it. 8)
So there are two rings:
1. The one that clicks and has numbers, and that is the 'stopper' and is situated at the front;
2. The other one is smooth and is the aperture ring and is situated in between the stopper and the focussing ring.
How it works:
I keep the stopper at 1.5 becuase I have no intentions to use the lens at any other aperture stop, as you have it set, Michael.
If you move the stopper to 2, you will be able to move the aperture ring between 1.5 and 2.
If you move the stopper to 2.8, you will be able to move the aperture ring between 1.5 and 2.8.
If you move the stopper to 4, you will be able to move the aperture ring between 1.5 and 4.
And so on...
I use the Zenit wide open because of its rendering at f/1.5 of the out of focus areas.
That doesn't mean that the lens isn't sharp at other aperture stops though...
Any questions :)
-
Thanks Jakov,
That's my understanding and how I have it setup. I just got a 67mm flexible hood for the lens, which really needs to have a lens.
-
Apologies if this appears twice, I thought I had posted it earlier but no sign of it when I last looked.
Nikon D800e Nikon 58 1.4g f1.8 @ 1/8000th hand held iso 200
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5588/18655817669_c3c2eb3842_h.jpg)
-
Jimi Hendrix - Fire 8)
-
Folks: without the name of the lens/camera or something, showing the picture does not help me at all. Please give that information for this thread.
-
Apologies Michael, I have added the technical details to my post, it was there originally when I posted honest 8)
-
Apologies Michael, I have added the technical details to my post, it was there originally when I posted honest 8)
No problem, but unlike a gallery, here we need to know what we are looking at. I really want to learn more about these many special lenses. Thanks for the note.
-
Here's one shot with an enigmatic lens based on AF-D 50/1.4. Apparently it is specially corrected for closeups.
-
This is the lens used for the Oncidium image above. It doesn't have either the aperture or the focusing mechanism. When it is directly attached to the Nikon body, the focus is fixed at infinity.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8671/16605189640_85fcdbbef7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rikWn7)_DSC0397a (https://flic.kr/p/rikWn7) by Akira (https://www.flickr.com/photos/akiraphoto/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8708/16792545075_370c404c9f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rzUbBe)_DSC0405a (https://flic.kr/p/rzUbBe) by Akira (https://www.flickr.com/photos/akiraphoto/), on Flickr
-
This is the lens used for the Oncidium image above. It doesn't have either the aperture or the focusing mechanism. When it is directly attached to the Nikon body, the focus is fixed at infinity.
Just for clarity's sake, how would we identify this lens, say on Ebay. How do you use it? How often?
We should assemble a list of "painterly" lenses for our group interest here. i will work on that, but this would depend on each of us clearly identify these specialty lenses, what there formal definition is, where to find them, how much they tend to cost, and how to use them.
-
Sorry Michael.
I bought this lens at a camera shop in Ginza, Tokyo. It is specialized for Nikon and has been around for several decades, so there you can find rarities of Nikon products. I bought it for 5,000 JPY. Even though its barrel is apparently made of high quality brass, and is a specially ordered by someone for some specific use, it was dirt cheap because it is too rare to be a collector's item. Even CRT-Nikkor was like that in the past...
-
I see. So this does not really have a name, nor will it show up on Ebay, right? In that case, it is nice to know about it, but not very practical for the rest of us because we could never find one. Is that the case?
-
Probably a lens from a Nikon repair facility. I have seen them there. They are used for testing camera mount alignment etc.
-
I see. So this does not really have a name, nor will it show up on Ebay, right? In that case, it is nice to know about it, but not very practical for the rest of us because we could never find one. Is that the case?
Michael, sorry to say, you are right maybe...
Probably a lens from a Nikon repair facility. I have seen them there. They are used for testing camera mount alignment etc.
Bjørn, thanks for the hint of the origin of the lens. Would it be then intended for projecting a laser beam or a test chart?
-
Honestly, I don't know as I never asked the techs. But will try to take a picture of it next time I drop by the shop.
-
Honestly, I don't know as I never asked the techs. But will try to take a picture of it next time I drop by the shop.
Wow, that's great! Thanks for your kind offer!
-
No problem, Akira. I'm on very good standing with the techs. Several I have known personally for many years.
-
The photos I posted were made with 45P and the PN-11 which gives a really high magnification hence the extremely narrow depth of field.
Picked up a Nikon 45 P f/2.8 from Japan. With the PN-11, as you mentioned, it is too much magnification. Using shorter extension gives you a much better context-view. However, mounting it directly on the camera makes for hard focusing with the teeny-weeny focus barrel. I found it best to mount the lenes directly on the camera and the camera on a good focus rail. The camera was the Nikon D810 at ISO 64, but with various extensions, all stacked. In addition, a 2-layer stack with the Zeiss Otus 55mm, just for comparison.
I tried it on the PB-4 Bellows, but it is too much extension. I will try it on my forthcoming technical camera with a bag bellows when all the parts arrive.
I did not shoot a single frame, as wide open the results did not interest me for the work I do.
I tried the PN-11, the PK-12, and the PK-11a.
What do I think? Well, things are OK, but not sure why I would use this lens over many others. Time will tell.
Is this kind of post helpful at all?
-
The PN-11 whose extension of 52.5mm offers the magnification factor past 1:1 to a 45mm lens. Reversing the lens might offer better image quality. I'm not sure if the difference is noticeable, though.
-
The 45P is a Tessar design and not really suited for close-up photography. If one really wants to push that kind of lens into doing close-ups, getting suboptimal results shouldn't come as a surprise and adequate stopping down is mandatory. On the other hand, playing with it at wider apertures and/or combined with overly long extension might yield visually interesting expressions.
Michael, you have been doing these kind of close-ups with the Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 for a long time - why change to another lens? The Otus is as we all know by now a superb quality optic.
-
Michael, you have been doing these kind of close-ups with the Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 for a long time - why change to another lens? The Otus is as we all know by now a superb quality optic.
What you say makes great sense. If I were only that sensible. What happens is that it would seem that I have to "see for myself" every last lens that is interesting, even if it is not all THAT interesting. That, coupled with the fact that we are in a Michigan winter, which means it is mostly too cold to take equipment outside or very far, so here I am, in a tiny studio, waiting for spring... and monkeying with lenses. It must be like Scrooge McDuck counting his money bin, but I don't have that much money, so I am playing endless musical chairs with the lenses I have, selling off this or that lens to try this or that other lens. It may not make sense, but it should at least be understandable to most of our readers. And yes, I have come back around the circle and am staring at the Otus-type lenses, and have the new 28mm on order.
Aside from the sheer photography, I am (not surprisingly) a gear-head. I am also waiting for parts to arrive to complete my technical camera, being a Rollei bellows tilt, shift, and swing system, at which time I will tilt, shift, and swing my way toward spring. At least the Sun is finally moving northward!
-
The Otus is as we all know by now a superb quality optic.
OK. Here is a stacked image with the D810 and the Zeiss 55mm APO, just to keep my foot in the door, while I search for new lenses. This is a fairly large sized image.
-
That last one is awesome Michael!
OK, another "gear head" then, now I understand you much better ;-)
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1470/23624034414_d43ebb4236_o.jpg)
Df lensbaby velvet 56/1.6
-
Df, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 @ 50mm, macro function turned on, distance 60cm (closest), f/3.5, t/125s
The pronounced effect is especially available wide open and on short distances in the macro settings.
Using a 5 T or such expands the capabilities but makes the vignette more prominent.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/267/18963713654_cb913c5b0a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uTKZof)
lens dance (https://flic.kr/p/uTKZof) by lumofisk (https://www.flickr.com/photos/114702672@N04/), on Flickr
-
Thomas, a nice Lychnis (coronaria?).
I often use the 50-135 Nikkor with 5T or 6T but then usually not combined with the zoom's "macro" setting.
-
It feels like painting using the 105/1.8 on the Df ;)
-
Thomas, a nice Lychnis (coronaria?).
I often use the 50-135 Nikkor with 5T or 6T but then usually not combined with the zoom's "macro" setting.
Bjørn, I knew them as 'Pechnelken', some googling told me that they are indeed Lychnis coronaria,
more precisely that is a 'Kronen Lichtnelke' in German.
German Wikipedia says that since 1995 they are listet under the genus Silene as 'Silene coronaria'.
-
The Voigtländer 58/1.4 is less common (am I the only user here ?). Wide open and at close range, its otherwise outstanding sharpness drops seriously. That was maybe the price to pay for it getting to 1:4 magnification without close-up lens.
However, it is to me a "little 50/1.2", in that it exhibits a dual personality : very sharp and clean from f/2.8, dreamy at 1.4. And the bokeh is among the best. In the attached "painting" (heavily cropped", you won't therefore see brushstrokes, because the aerograph was at work :
-
The Voigtländer 58/1.4 is less common (am I the only user here ?).
No, I have one, but have not used it for awhile.
-
And is the 200mm F/4 Micro Nikkor already mentioned?
Here with D800E at F/8
-
I cannot swear to it but this is in a downpoar lit by street lamps quite possibly the D70 with a 2.0/24mm @2.0
-
ISCO-Optic f2 90mm projection lens
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1451/24292906301_0c2bd3700f_o.jpg)
-
Df, 50mm f/1.2, step up ring, 6T @ f/1.2, t/80s
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1648/23797144053_c17693406b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CfSzR8)
decay painted right (https://flic.kr/p/CfSzR8) by lumofisk (https://www.flickr.com/photos/114702672@N04/), on Flickr
-
Klaus: that projection lens draws surprisingly sharp, at least in the centre of the frame.
Thomas: A Physalis fruit lights up. Nice.
-
Klaus: that projection lens draws surprisingly sharp, at least in the centre of the frame.
Thomas: A Physalis fruit lights up. Nice.
Yes indeed, many of those Double Gauss projection lenses do, but so far the best I have found are the Zeiss Jena VISIONAR lenses, the last ones ever designed by Zeiss Jena.
fully open
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/523/19456182334_cd166c518b_o.jpg)
and slightly stopped down for f2.8 (this is a f1.6 100mm one with surgically implanted iris)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/258/19890817760_67a919a59d_o.jpg)
very nice (for me that is) smooth bokeh they have (there is a whole series of focal lengths), again the f1.6 100mm here:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7603/16579100937_62a746ae68_o.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7627/16968257819_c30c4846fb_o.jpg)
However, they are not apochromatic, so show some CA at times (which can easily be hidden in the BG)
-
Klaus wonderful images
-
Klaus wonderful images
Thanks, I remember, we talked about that lens Fons ;)
One of my currently most often used lenses.
Just in case that would be of interest, here are two albums with images I took using this lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157656458555811 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157656458555811) and https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157648961220894 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157648961220894)
Prices on ebay for those are about 10x by now as they were before ;)
Just one CAVEAT: they were designed for projecting 35mm film (18x23mm format, 30mm diagonal), so are not designed for FF sensors, they do fill the frame of course even at infinity, but with loss of IQ towards the outer parts; an effect which can be used very well for centered motives like flowers. The degradation of IQ is very smooth though. That lens resolves less than 20 micron in its corners, 10 micron center which is equivalent to a resolution of 50 lppm center / 25 lppm corner (lppm = line pairs per mm; Zeiss Jena data).
Shorter focal lengths cannot be adapted due to a too short BFL and from 119mm onwards speed is decreased to f1.9, 109mm and below are all f1.6. They all work very well up to infinity of course.
(http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20153/big_455_Visionar_100mm_converted_c_1.jpg)
Three professionally converted ones, rightmost is mine. Leftmost has Canon EF and Nikon mount (exchangeable custom mounts with focus correction)
-
Klaus: What would we need to convert one of these to a Nikon mount?
-
Voigtländer 58/1.4 at f/2. I do not like the framing (all my fault, needless to say), but that's to illustrate the effect (brushstrokes).
-
Klaus projector lenses seem to work best at mirrorless cameras.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1635/24336942972_e3dc8596de_o.jpg)
Df lensbaby 56/1.6 velvet
-
Klaus: What would we need to convert one of these to a Nikon mount?
It has been done already by a guy in Poland (leftmost image of those three in a row), took three months to complete
and will PM you the price, wasn't cheap as it is lots of very precise work needed. He has doen two such conversions,
my friend owns one and might be willing to let it go...
But be reminded again, that it is NOT apochromatic, there is magenta / green CA visible in OOF (out of focus) areas.
-
Motivated by this thread I just bought a Biotar 2/25 (38,10€ incl shipping).
I will now dive into adapting it to my nikon an be ready for springtime...
Any opinions on that lens for "painting light"
-
Motivated by this thread I just bought a Biotar 2/25 (38,10€ incl shipping).
I will now dive into adapting it to my nikon an be ready for springtime...
Any opinions on that lens for "painting light"
I will most likely show quite some vignetting. I assume it is the one for the HK8 movie camera for 8mm format.
Not even sure the back focal length will be sufficient. I barely got the 40mm Sonnar of that series converted to
my mirrorless (!!) camera.
What was your decision based upon??
-
I will most likely show quite some vignetting. I assume it is the one for the HK8 movie camera for 8mm format.
Not even sure the back focal length will be sufficient. I barely got the 40mm Sonnar of that series converted to
my mirrorless (!!) camera.
What was your decision based upon??
just a feeling I read something somewhere about the and the idea to see how far a little bricolage might
get me. If decision proofs to be wrong I might resell it without loss.
-
just a feeling I read something somewhere about the and the idea to see how far a little bricolage might
get me. If decision proofs to be wrong I might resell it without loss.
OK, wish you luck then! :-)
-
Frank, I wish the lens is of a retro focus type and the focal point is still outside the lens. A 25mm lens put on a camera whose flange back is 46.5mm is already a significant extension. You might have to reverse-mount the lens in order to be able to focus something in the first place.
-
Thank you Akira. I just dive into the topic. Might be some mistakes made first....
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1446/23911184094_06f42e1f53_b.jpg)
Tair 11-A, 135mm f/2.8 mounted on a nikon 1 V1
-
Helios 40-2 (85/1.5) on A7
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5726/21543109478_cd8523bb56_b.jpg)
-
Helios 40-2 (85/1.5) on A7
Very nice. Tells a story.
-
Helios 40-2 (85/1.5) on A7(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5726/21543109478_cd8523bb56_b.jpg)
Gorgeous, moody, well defined, great color scape, nearly duo chrome.
-
Helios 40-2 (85/1.5) on A7
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5726/21543109478_cd8523bb56_b.jpg)
I like the stained glass impression of the background, which appears like been seen through patterned glas.
-
Again, Nikkor-O 55/1.2, possibly at f2.0 or 2.8 on D7000.
-
AF-S 50/1.8G is not all that bad wide open...
-
The Biotar works. I just held it in front of the bayonet because I do not have the right diameter of reverse mount yet.
These are all at f=2. With proper mount and tripod I dare to close the aperture more:
-
Duh, of course with such close object distance ;-)
At 1:1 the image circle is double of the one at infinity...
-
Helios 40-2 (85/1.5) on A7
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5726/21543109478_cd8523bb56_b.jpg)
Typical lens for "painting with light", very bubbly bokeh, even swirly BG.
-
The Biotar works. I just held it in front of the bayonet because I do not have the right diameter of reverse mount yet.
These are all at f=2. With proper mount and tripod I dare to close the aperture more:
Good for you, Frank!
By the way, the "technique" you used seems to be called "Lens Whacking". :D
https://www.cinema5d.com/lens-whacking-how-to-create-stunning-in-camera-effects-part-1/
-
Good for you, Frank!
By the way, the "technique" you used seems to be called "Lens Whacking". :D
https://www.cinema5d.com/lens-whacking-how-to-create-stunning-in-camera-effects-part-1/
more like "freelensing" I guess ;)
-
more like "freelensing" I guess ;)
That would be a more elegant term. :)
-
Nikkor-O 55mm/f1.2@f1.2. The central part of Oncidium under 365nm UV torch. Shot in total darkness.
-
Zeiss 50/2 MP, wide open