[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (Fwd) Re: [cml-glass] Advice on lens sets

Subject: Re: [OM] (Fwd) Re: [cml-glass] Advice on lens sets
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:59:01 -0800
On 12/17/2021 7:00 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
At 12/16/2021 03:46 PM, Loose Grasp Moose wrote:

Interesting lens, the Canon RF 100mm macro with SA control. Some samples at 
this other link.
Can't say I'm in love.

Beyond macro, all that impressed me were the bustier, lacy, minimal bra and its 
contents — and thoose have nothing to do with the lens. The differences in 
bokeh in the nails examples didn't impress me as uniquely useful. Wouldn't just 
changing aperture do something similar?
I should have clarified that the only point of interest in that article were 
the sample images of the plant at 0, +2, -2 on the SA dial. They are best 
viewed full screen.  I didn't pay any attention to the rest of the article. My 
main interest in this lens is the effect of the SA control.

Mine, as well. Although it looks to be an exceptional macro lens.

Perhaps a more descriptive review 
Which explains the SA control . Maybe common knowledge, for me educational, 
view #6 explains how the spherical aberration effect varies with subject 
distance and magnification.

More sample images of SA control here:

I find both sets of examples frustrating. In both cases, the zero setting establishes a focal plane. Then, as the dpreview link shows, changing the SA setting changes the focal plane. AND, they don't refocus. So, the SA effect is mixed with a different FP and associated DoF; hard to separate the effects.

I found it confusing to view the examples in a browser, so I copied them into layers in PS. That way, I can get clear, overlaid views

In the first set, +2 SA, focus moves from the primary blooms out to a bud almost in the center, that is very soft in the zero example. That bud, which logically should have different bokeh, actually becomes much clearer, and the focus, and thus viewer focus of attention, of the image. -2 SA moves focus toward the camera so far than it may even be forward of all blooms. -2 also moves into swirly bokeh territory.

Although changes in size are inevitable, they seem extreme in this set, greater than in set 2 and greater than with the Minolta Varisoft. Reading dpreview #6, that may be because the different focal distances of subjects resulted in different SA effects..

The flowers are probably in the "from a focus distance of 0.38m to 1m, you'll have the maximum amount of SA control: that is, turning the SA control ring will dramatically vary the spherical aberration properties of the lens." and the glasses further away.

The second set are marked from Canon, but still make the same mistake. In -4, focus has moved from farther glass to front one. In +4, it has moved into no man's land, past the back glass.

If they had used human models, perhaps they would have seen the problem, as focus on the eyes becomes focus on the ears, for example.

I am interested in the "bubble bokeh" effect of the + settings. My Canon and Minolta soft focus lenses go only in the other direction, from zero into what is labeled minus settings on this lens.

If the lens were for Sony E, I might be tempted. Fortunately, I'm not tempted to buy 
into a whole new mount. 😁

Besides the fiddly nature of vintage lenses,

Most are not "fiddly" except in the sense of no Auto functions and no EXIF. And I do find the lack of EXIF an insurmountable problem in the field.

many have a MFD that is generally not close enough for my interest. It seems 
range finder cameras set 1m as a standard MFD. If a modern lens can create the 
effect, it has my interest. Vintage lenses are too much of a crap shoot for me.

Well, there are, of course, extension tubes. With the vintage lenses all adapted to Sony E, only the one set is needed. Not my choice, but certainly available and cheap.

The truth is, I don't carry a fixed FL macro lens in the field. My M.Z 60/2.8 has been used very little in years, and that almost all at home, like the vintage lenses. Two reasons:

One, I hate changing lenses in the field. Time, handling, dust, missed shots, 

Two, limited focal working distance. Like other internal focus macro lenses, such as the Canon 100/2.8, close focus is achieved by shortening focal length, and thus shortening focal distance. Working in the 1:1 to 1:2 range, the front of the lens gets very close to the subject.

Using achromatic C-U lenses gives excellent MFDs and good IQ. With magnetic filter holders, they are as close to un-fussy as it is possible to be. 😁

So . . . even if I had a body for it, I imagine this new Canon would languish 
on the shelf

Fiddly Moose

What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz