At 4/3/2023 09:58 PM, Bubbles wrote:
>On 4/2/2023 8:11 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>. . . . .
>
>>I also use Toby and Dhina A, and others on flickr, to find lenses of
>>interest. I probably should be spending more time taking photos than looking
>>for glass.
>
>Not a bad idea. I admit it's fun to research and track down gear - and not so
>easy to learn the nitty gritty of how each works.
I just now realized I also have the Steinheil Munchen Culminar 135/4.5 (LTM),
purchased last November. No wonder it looked familiar. My first shots were not
encouraging so the lens was put aside. The Culminar is not as cute as my
Topcor-S 5cm 1:2 LTM though:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/5wJMTse4EyQL8AbJ8
Just goes to show I need to work with what I have. Here is the topcor at F5.6.
Quite a sharp lens for its time, and my favorite subject. 10 blades helps the
bokeh.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UMhah7qB6FpGsfwu6
This shows the Topcor at F2
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3XU19CECVihHkvuA6
And here Culminar 135mm at F4.5
https://photos.app.goo.gl/S1R5FzmHQPXdTXuQA
Maybe I just had more difficulty with 135mm focal length?
You have a frog bubbles, I have dragon's breath.
(one thing I have to remember to do is adjust the steady shot focal length
setting.)
I do use Denoise AI sharpening for most shots, unless I need the extra oomph
from sharpen ai.
>These lenses were not designed to be bubbly; it's a result of compromises in
>optical design that emphasized other qualities. As a result, the bokeh is not
>easily predictable. Take a look at these two photos:
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=_DSC0514-16cr.jpg>
>
>For the first, I used the frame around the window pane as frame. Then, I
>decided to take a straight shot, so moved closer, maybe about 18 inches. In
>both cases, the flower is fine, just as though I cropped no. 1. But the bokeh
>is very different.
I can't see a great difference other than due to the magnification. If you crop
the other one, wouldn't they be similar? But I know what you mean. For me,
getting the 135mm vs 50mm background bokeh depends on background distance
difference. Of course this is what makes it fun, unpredictable surprises
through experimentation.
>>Perhaps we should coordinate just so we don't bid against each other :-).
>
>You laugh, but MikeG and I did just that, once. Not much risk here. I think
>I'm finished buying for bubbles for the moment; time for some digestion of all
>that I've bit off.
>
>>Some lenses I need to get out more with are Cosina, Rikenon, and Porst 55mm
>>F1.2 (PK mount), not to mention many other lenses.
>
>>The weather is warming and here was a shot yesterday with the
>>Cosina:https://photos.app.goo.gl/FJY9HUr7avCyJAAg9
>
>Nice. But I'd like the clump just above the main subject to be either more or
>less in focus. I like the next one, Cosinon 50/1.8, better. Could be partly
>the colors. ð???
I was in some random persons's yard and only took a couple of shots.
self-conscious.
>>Some interesting lens notes here:
>>https://www.mike-lee.org/scripts/camera/view.pl?id=323
>
>>According to Toby Marshall the Cosina 55mm in PK mount is not the same as the
>>Cosinon 55mm in m42. And in this article, the "Revuenon, Rikenon, Cosina and
>>Vivitar Series 1 with 58mm filter thread and Pentax K mount" is implied to be
>>the same. I have not seen the VMC version of this lens? The Porst I have:
>>"This lens has no relation to the Tomioka 55/1.2 family." Which implies it is
>>different... I'll have to experiment.
>
>>I didn't realize: "Revuenon, Rikenon, Cosina and Vivitar Series 1 with 58mm
>>filter thread and Pentax K mount was manufactured until 2004."
>
>All too incestuous and complex for my brain. ð??? Besides, I have lots of
>50-ish mm lenses of all sorts. How about moving from bubbles to glow?
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=_DSC0103fp.jpg>
Yes, I don't think anyone knows for sure who made 50mm 1.2 lenses back then.
Sexy. My Canon LTM 50mm F1.2 has some glow to it, but not quite that much. You
didn't mention the lens used? Canon 50mm example:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ATduNzFrSBzci8r89
At least glows a bit as it transitions to OOF. I suspect a lot of early 50 1.2
lenses are soft wide open and could glow?
>>I was testing the OM 50/1.4 G.Zuiko, which does not quite get the same level
>>of bubbles. Here are some test shots at end of my growing vintage stuff
>>https://photos.app.goo.gl/TR5Ud27mgL5cvdoJ8
>
>Yeah, I took a quick look at that lens; best for straight photography where it
>excels
I did try, but nothing special about the bokeh compared to other 50s. Here with
the > 1.1m 50mm 1.4 at 1.4. Any of my modern lenses would look similar.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/abDWAiQidtHmPE43A
>>Sorry to say I don't have a frog to blow the bubbles.
>
>Wayning Bubbles Moose
Some interesting history on the 135mm Culminar and Steinheil, scroll down to
PeterW.
https://cameracollector.proboards.com/thread/3317/steinheil-culminar-135mm-4-ltm
I came across this wondering what the optical formula was for the Culminar.
One other thing I keep forgetting, shooting wide open and not using full
mechanical shutter.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GJSp6ZYMahrdGYrr9
EFCS bokeh ball distortion.
Lens Indigestion
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/
|
