At 8/19/2022 08:43 PM, Moose wrote:
>On 8/17/2022 4:24 AM, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 12:21 PM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>I'm continuing my project of making sample shots with various perfectly
>>>imperfect lenses.
>>>The last batch were 50-ish mm lenses. This is 28 and 35 mm.
>>Next 75-90?
>
>I wish - sorta. I have an abundance problem. This may give you some clue.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Soft%20Focus/MinoltaVarisoft/MinoltaVarisoft.htm>
I would think this would not be a worthwhile, using targets, effort as you
point out below...
>One lens, six apertures, seven softness settings, = 42 photos. Add one
>conventional lens and two diffusion filters = 60.
>
>I took all these shots 3.5+ years ago. While informative, they are also
>incomplete. They don't say much about what a more photogenic subject might
>look like. The also don't show the DoF differences of a lens where softness
>decreases with increased DoF vs. softness that is consistent across DoF.
>
>One of the characteristics of many great old, LF lenses was the combination of
>deep DoF with soft edges, detail without edginess. That's why I include the
>Nikon Soft filters in my comparisons. According to Nikon history, that's why
>they were designed and Nikon didn't go ahead with production of their own soft
>focus lens.
>
>Now, multiply by more lenses. The Canon Soft Focus 85/2.8 has a different
>mechanical design that makes consistent intermediate softness settings
>difficult, so maybe only 24 shots. The LB Velvet 85/1.8, Sweet 80 and
>Spiratone YS add 13.
>
>Go down to 58 mm and add 19. Go up to 135, and add 17. I have to go to at
>least 100 mm to include an old favorite.
>
>These are classic portrait FLs, so a complete test would include those. I'm
>not a formal portraitist, and wouldn't do that. Still, as WayneS pointed out,
>close focus performance is of interest, as well as medium distance, and
>landscape, particularly close-ish/medium distance subject with various
>background distances, as this is a lot about bokeh.
>
>It feels like an unwieldy effort..
Indeed. Always interesting points you make and you have put a lot of thought
into it which I value a lot. To me, might be better for one to play around with
a lens in the field, where background distance varies, subject distance
varies,... as you point out. It also might be more fun.
>>I wonder about the Jupiter 9 85mm 2. A friend shot some good portraits
>>with it years ago & it sounds good in theory. Russian copy of a pre-WW
>>II Zeiss design & with 15 aperture blades.
>
>Pre SLR lenses do tend to have multi blade, close to circular apertures, as do
>the contemporary LensBabies. That's a big plus for bokeh.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Soft%20Focus/LensBaby_Soft_Focus_Bokeh/LensBaby_SF.htm>
>
>Not sure why I chose those apertures back in 2015. Interesting nonetheless. In
>addition to the differences in OoF pinpoints, it shows the difference in stars
>and that the OMZ has better front bokeh than the soft focus lens.
>
>Roundly Octagonal Moose
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|