[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] How did this happen? [was Bokehlicious [was New entry in Bubble Sta

Subject: [OM] How did this happen? [was Bokehlicious [was New entry in Bubble Stakes]]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 01:28:47 -0700
On 4/4/2023 10:38 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:

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:

Chacun à son goût. The Topcor physical design seems a bit busy to me. I wouldn't call the Culminar cute, but I like the simple elegance. 😉 Cute is reserved for the short mount version on mini bellows. The first camera I really liked using was a Topcon RE Super (Super D in the US) my dad bought. Topcor 58/1.4, if I recall correctly. I have a UV Topcor 53/2, but no adapter. I have the 3D printer file, but no printer.

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 
This shows the Topcor at F2
And here Culminar 135mm at F4.5
On 9/5/2022 9:09 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:

I'm interested in the look as well, more so than the lens. I'm most interested in the 
"nervous" bokeh effect

We are looking for somewhat different aspects of these lenses. I sometimes like big soap bubble bokeh as an artistic artifact. I also like the subtler effect of large, soft textures in backgrounds. Don't like nervous business.

Maybe I just had more difficulty with 135mm focal length?

How did I end up with so many of these? 135 mm was never even a favorite FL. I 
was more likely to go out with 85 and 200 mm.

Still, here they are, for you amusement and any cuteness rating. 😁 <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/135mm%20Lenses>

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 

I too don't always remember. Fortunately, for the recent wide open bokeh shots 
outdoors, shutter speeds have been high.

I do use Denoise AI sharpening for most shots, unless I need the extra oomph 
from sharpen ai.

That's interesting. I almost never do so for vintage and LB shots in good light. I'm interested in the sort of slight softness they give and in smooth, subtle transitions from in to out of focus.

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 

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?

Not to my eye. I didn't quite match mag, as the angles aren't identical, so I would have lost the lower bokeh on one. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/135mmLensBokeh/CulminarBokeh2.htm>

Not to say one is good and the other not. At the original sizes, I like both, with the OoF window frame in the first. At this, almost matched size, I prefer the softer, smoother bokeh, simply because it doesn't pull my eye away from the subject.

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.

Yes, I suspect part of your problem with the Culminar is that longer FLs require longer subject-background distances to get the bubbles?

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 
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. 😁
I was in some random persons's yard and only took a couple of shots. 

Some interesting lens notes here:
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. 😉 Besides, I have lots of 50-ish mm 
lenses of all sorts. How about moving from bubbles to 
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?

It's in the EXIF, but I never got around to adding code to the gallery to show lens name. There are three EXIF entries for that, and different sources fill different ones. It's a LB Velvet 85/1.8. The Velvet 56/1.6 would be about the same.

Canon 50mm example:
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?

None will glow like the LB Velvets. Designed from the start for it. Some visual info here. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/LB%20Velvet%20&%20OMZ50-14/Velvet&OMZ.htm>

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
Yeah, I took a quick look at that lens; best for straight photography where it 
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.

Given your liking for nervous bokeh, the fifties make sense for you. Double Gauss based designs are the masters of busy, edgy bokeh. This one actually managed donuts! Again I think the trick is a long subject to background distance.

Some interesting history on the 135mm Culminar and Steinheil, scroll down to 
I came across this wondering what the optical formula was for the Culminar.

Ah, so not the same as the Hektor, which has the cemented doublet as the 
negative center element.

One other thing I keep forgetting, shooting wide open and not using full 
mechanical shutter.
EFCS bokeh ball distortion.

Oops! I have yet to experience that. Shooting unmoving subjects, to get 
comparable photos 'tween lenses, i 'spose.

Lens Ingestion 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