At 4/8/2023 01:28 AM, Moose wrote:
>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:
>>https://photos.app.goo.gl/5wJMTse4EyQL8AbJ8
>
>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. ð??? 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.
I agree, Topcor is a bit busy, and maybe not the best way to show it. Stopped
down of Sookie at F5.6 I was impressed the rendering.
I have a Topcor RE 5.8cm F1.8 yet to test.
>>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
>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 nervous, but not too nervous. It seems if you want bubbles, then the lens
in other circumstances will be nervous also.
>>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. ð???
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/135mm%20Lenses>
>
>>You have a frog bubbles, I have dragon's breath.
>
>FABULOUS Dragon!
>
>>(one thing I have to remember to do is adjust the steady shot focal length
>>setting.)
>
>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.
The reason for using Denoise is that it is not so aggressive and can still
preserve that softness. Check out the last three in my vintage collection:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/TR5Ud27mgL5cvdoJ8
One Canon 50mm 1.2 LTM and two Cosina 58mm F1.2 PK mount.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Rf68cxT96tqpsPrp6
>>>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?
>
>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?
Yes and because it is an LTM, my Shoren adapter can only give me 6mm extra
extension. M42 and other mounts (PK...) can give more extension using helicoid
adapters. The Culminar only has 5 feet MFD and max F4.5 means background needs
to be further away or more extension. A lot of my shots are closer up with very
local background. With variable extension adapters 50-50mm works much better
for me.
>...
>
>>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:
>>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?
>
>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
>>>>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
>
>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
>>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.
>
>Ah, so not the same as the Hektor, which has the cemented doublet as the
>negative center element.
>
>Lens Ingestion Moose
Activated charcoal - 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/
|
