At 2/24/2023 02:58 AM, Moose wrote:
>On 2/23/2023 9:38 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>At 2/21/2023 01:17 PM, Moose wrote:
>>>On 2/21/2023 8:59 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>>>Some initial shots with Wollensak 3" F1.9 Oscillo-Raptor (1:0.7X) (75mm),
>>>>mostly bokehish stuff.
>>>The first is a winner; I'd have it on a wall. Second is good abstract. Third
>>>and last are nice.
>>Thanks Moose. I almost deleted the first one and my interest was more in how
>>the lens renders bokeh.
>So,Â by accident you created a good image?? ð??? ð???
Well, I guess I liked it enough to post it. It was fun exploring with the lens,
but the single focus depth was a bit limiting. It's the case where it is hard
to know exactly how things will look before hand, so a lot of experimenting.
>>I have too many lenses now that need adapting, and not sure how much my
>>interest will hold. This Oscillo Raptor adapts reasonably well I may ditch
>And there is the reason I have leaned toward LenBaby and been selective about
>On 2/21/2023 12:48 PM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>I have yet to purchase a Lensbaby. Still hoping to find interesting older
>Interesting older lenses, to me, is limited to those that are fully functional
>and have mounts easily adapted to Sony E mount with commercial adapters.
The new Meyer-Optik lenses are expensive also and not sure I want to pay that
much. But I would like new lenses with the old designs, they just seem a bit
expensive. I also like easy to adapt lenses. It seems the swirly bokeh is in
vogue but not my interest. I like to see more complex bokeh.
>Even then . . . my Canon 58/1.2 diaphragm starting acting up. It's now in
>pieces in a little box, while I use another one. The interest of my younger
>years in deep dismantling, futzing with diaphragm mechanisms, etc. is either
>past or in remission. Today, I need to replace the supply hose for the
>dishwasher that's started leaking - that's enough for now.
>The LensBabies are new, clean, have good mounts, work as intended and do
>interesting things none of the old lenses can do. Whether you like it
>artistically or not, this illustrates some of the differences.
>The original LBs use a unique Waterhouse stop system. The stops are held in a
>magnetic spot just in front of the glass. So there's none of the problem of
>dust, damp incursion of the Lomo designs. There are also creative shaped
>aperture disks and"sink strainer" softening disks.
>Most later Optic Swap System Optics went to conventional, 12 blade diaphragms.
>There are now two updates to the old designs, Soft Focus II and Double Glass
>II, with both the magnetic disks, for special effects, and the conventional
>Another feature from the beginning has been tilt. My first LB had their Spark
>body, a corrugated tube that focused, tilted, even shifts a tiny bit, under
>finger pressure. More common are the Composer series of bodies that allow tilt
>in any direction.
>The above pic uses tilt to put the sweet focus spot far off center combined
>with a heart shape aperture disk.
>Another thing that may not be obvious, what with Lomo making such a big deal
>about how beautiful and solid their lenses are, is that LBs are solid, well
>made devices. The stand alone lenses are real metal, hefty and impressive for
>fit, finish, etc.
I was tempted by the Burnside but one review complained of the low quality and
it wobbles on the camera. That turned me off. I also have an old bias from a
photography workshop leader (20 years ago) who was full of himself and used
Lensbabies. I guess I have not seen a Lensbaby lens that strikes my fancy yet.
Still interested in the cult Tamron 70-150 (51A) soft focus. The Lensbaby sharp
center and soft edges effect is not of interest either.
Some of the older lenses with 12+ blades were probably before auto-diaphragm.
I'm not too interested in disassembly of a lens either unless there is some
clear examples online. But so far I have had good luck. Some lighter fluid can
loosen up things followed by 99% alcohol. The Helios 44-2 aperture ring click
is really tight, but I think by design. Nothing like losing the small aperture
ring ball bearing on the floor during disassembly. For the bokehish stuff, as
long as the aperture is stuck wide open, the lens is usable for me.
>>For most of my photography, though, nice sharp lenses win.
>Same here. Around home, I futz with all sorts of lenses, mostly on Sony A7
>bodies. Even, as with you, get just a few miles from home, and the straight
>stuff comes out.
>>For instance, a recent local hike (5 miles up the road) I took several
>>lenses, but ended up only using the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton classic on
>>A7Riii. I now have a few OM lenses and was thinking this might be a great
>>hike for the OM-4T and some Provia.
>These are nice.
>I would go crazy with just one field of view. Here are two sequential shots,
>taken a couple of seconds apart:
>Pretty typical of my wandering eye. ð???
I like your wandering eye. I stuck with one focal length because I was lazy.
Just glad I could get out hiking post prostate surgery. I wouldn't want a crazy
Moose running loose.
The Vultures actually has some interesting background bokeh. I know modern
lenses go for that "perfect" smooth background bokeh, but sometimes a bit of
structure to it can enhance the subject and make the overall image more
interesting. Great shots both.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/