Bokehedelic!
Aug 16, 2016 08:37:34 #
I have decided that my next step in photography will be in the out of focus parts of the image. I have discovered the wild world of projection lenses, strange industrial lenses, and old vintage lenses. I went to a local temple here in Japan and found a lovely lily, and did a series comparing the bokeh of different lenses. These are not fine art pix as much as research for me, but I am struck by the difference in the feel depending on the rendering of out of focus areas. Check them out if you are interested. I'll also post some unrelated but bokehlicious images :)
Be careful--you may get a serious case of GAS, as I did...though many of these lenses are quite cheap...(but some not)
Be careful--you may get a serious case of GAS, as I did...though many of these lenses are quite cheap...(but some not)
Meyer Primoplan 58mm f1.9
(Download)
Front element group of a Taylor and Hobson 75mm f1.8 projection lens
(Download)
Taylor and Hobson again, from a greater distance
(Download)
CRT Nikkor (oscilloscope lens) 55mm f1.2
(Download)
Wollensak Perfex Anastigmat 50mm f2.8
(Download)
Wollensak Oscillo-Raptar 75mm f1.9
(Download)
Ross 1 inch f1.9 cine lens
(Download)
Ross 1 inch f1.9 cine lens
(Download)
Meyer Trioplan 100mm f2.8
(Download)
Wollensak Oscillo-Raptar 75mm f1.9
(Download)
Aug 16, 2016 08:55:19 #
Aug 16, 2016 09:26:08 #
Wonderful effect. Now I have to ask how you attach these lens' to your camera body?
Thanks again for the wonderful images.
Thanks again for the wonderful images.
Aug 16, 2016 09:33:07 #
These are quite beautiful, Kymarto. Confess I know nothing about utilizing old lens. I have a few that belonged to my Father that look in perfect condition. Can I use these with my Canon 7d using an adaptor of some kind? Do share more with us as you continue to study and use old lens please. Thank you, Sandy
Aug 16, 2016 09:39:27 #
Fascinating comparisons, beautiful results. I can see where this would be very addictive!
Aug 16, 2016 10:00:32 #
kymarto wrote:
I have decided that my next step in photography wi... (show quote)
Those are really great. You must have a nice collection of adapter rings too. I have a few odd-ball lenses but I have no idea how to use them with a digital camera. A couple of these odd-balls might be mounted on one of my (film) view cameras or one of my two Pentax SLR/DSLR bellows units. Probably about the weirdest contraption I've rigged up is mounting two SLR/DSLR lenses front to front. It is pretty much like using a "real" lens as a high power close-up filter. But a bellows or extension tubes accomplish the same thing.
I have tried lens comparison experiments. Say comparing images of all my "normal" lenses. I do have a collection there, of Pentax lenses anyway; smcPentax-M 50mm f/1.4, -A 50mm f/2, -A 50mm f/1.7, -M Macro 50mm f/4. I also have many Pentax (Screw Mount M-42) Takumar "normal" lenses: Macro 50mm f/4, 55mm f/1.8, (second) 55mm f/1.8. And I have a smcPentax-DA Macro 35mm f/2.8 (normal for a APS-C camera) lens. Oh, and I did have a -M 50mm f/1.7 lens, my very first lens, but it was stolen.
Aug 16, 2016 10:19:41 #
kymarto wrote:
I have decided that my next step in photography will be in the out of focus parts of the image.
FANTASTIC!!! #8 is just unbelievable!
Aug 16, 2016 11:11:14 #
Wow .., I like the Ross 1" Cine ...I'm sure I speak for many here ..., we want to see more ....these are quite good as is your technique using these lenses on your camera body ....
Aug 16, 2016 11:52:06 #
kymarto wrote:
I have decided that my next step in photography wi... (show quote)
Also I think many of us would like to see photos of the lenses themselves.
Aug 16, 2016 11:58:23 #
The design of lenses has a lot to do with how they render out of focus areas. The modern idea is that lenses should be so well corrected for aberrations that the bokeh is creamy and nondescript. However many older lenses were not so well corrected, and therefore the OOF areas are not smooth, but can look like bubbles, for instance. This is a result of spherical aberration. The Oscillo lenses, for instance, were designed deliberately with negative field curvature so that the entire oscilloscope screen would be sharp even though the edge of the screen was at a different distance from the lens than the center. This makes for interesting effects, as you can see.
The Taylor Hobson projection lens, when the back lens group is removed, becomes very poorly corrected, with huge amounts of spherical aberration. This causes a glow around bright objects. It also means that OOF highlights are rendered like rings--AND, importantly, it means that depth of field is increased: it is like having contact lenses with varying corrections--for both near and far vision and in between. So all these factors can be used to create a very different look to a standard photograph.
Not all old lenses do these things: some are famous for their bokeh. Some are common and cheap, and some are rare and expensive. The Dallmeyer Super Six Anastigmat cine lenses sell for anything from $5000-$30000. The biggest is hardly bigger than a normal 50mm DSLR lens...
The Ross lens is designed for 16mm film cameras (C mount). Old C mount lenses used to be basically worthless, because you could not mount them on any camera, because the flange distance is so small--they would only work for extreme macro. But with the advent of small mirrorless cams--NEXs and micro 4/3, suddenly these lenses have a new lease on life. But of course 16mm film is very small compared to even a 4/3 sensor, let alone an APS-C sensor on a NEX. So the lenses do not cover the sensor--they vignette--but very interesting things happen as you approach the edges of the frame--like with the Ross. That part of the image was not designed to be used, but it has become a popular look. Some of those lenses, like the Ross, are a Petzval design, which looks quite normal focused at infinity, but get enormous field curvature as you focus closer.
So all these "liabilities" suddenly have become sought after.
As to mounting these lenses--sometimes it take ingenuity and/or surgery. Many (the oscillos for instance) do not have focusing mounts, but bless the Chinese--they are making all kinds of adapters and focusing helicoids, and I've managed to cobble things together, but it is not like modern lenses. I'm always adding or taking off extension rings, etc. to get to the distances I want.
Anyway, I'll post some more here now.
The Taylor Hobson projection lens, when the back lens group is removed, becomes very poorly corrected, with huge amounts of spherical aberration. This causes a glow around bright objects. It also means that OOF highlights are rendered like rings--AND, importantly, it means that depth of field is increased: it is like having contact lenses with varying corrections--for both near and far vision and in between. So all these factors can be used to create a very different look to a standard photograph.
Not all old lenses do these things: some are famous for their bokeh. Some are common and cheap, and some are rare and expensive. The Dallmeyer Super Six Anastigmat cine lenses sell for anything from $5000-$30000. The biggest is hardly bigger than a normal 50mm DSLR lens...
The Ross lens is designed for 16mm film cameras (C mount). Old C mount lenses used to be basically worthless, because you could not mount them on any camera, because the flange distance is so small--they would only work for extreme macro. But with the advent of small mirrorless cams--NEXs and micro 4/3, suddenly these lenses have a new lease on life. But of course 16mm film is very small compared to even a 4/3 sensor, let alone an APS-C sensor on a NEX. So the lenses do not cover the sensor--they vignette--but very interesting things happen as you approach the edges of the frame--like with the Ross. That part of the image was not designed to be used, but it has become a popular look. Some of those lenses, like the Ross, are a Petzval design, which looks quite normal focused at infinity, but get enormous field curvature as you focus closer.
So all these "liabilities" suddenly have become sought after.
As to mounting these lenses--sometimes it take ingenuity and/or surgery. Many (the oscillos for instance) do not have focusing mounts, but bless the Chinese--they are making all kinds of adapters and focusing helicoids, and I've managed to cobble things together, but it is not like modern lenses. I'm always adding or taking off extension rings, etc. to get to the distances I want.
Anyway, I'll post some more here now.
Now with the Oscillo-Raptar (a large format lens)
(Download)
This is with the front element group of a cheap Chinon 50mm f1.7
(Download)
Oscillo-Raptar again
(Download)
Again the Oscillo-Raptar. It's optimized for 1:0.9, so close up it is really sharp.
(Download)
With a Tamron soft-focus zoom at full soft setting
(Download)
The Ross cine lens on a Tokyo street. The lens is about and inch long and an inch in diameter, but it definitely hits above its weight...
(Download)
summer grass with a Cooke Ivotal 25mm f1.4 cine lens
(Download)
With a $30 Dallmeyer projection lens
(Download)
very close with the CRT Nikkor
(Download)
Japanese fountain with the Ross
(Download)
Aug 16, 2016 12:46:22 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Also I think many of us would like to see photos of the lenses themselves.
I'll try to post pix soon
Aug 16, 2016 12:47:44 #
Aug 16, 2016 14:17:49 #
Camerant wrote:
Unbelievable! It deserves a personal exhibition in the best galleries!
Aug 16, 2016 14:59:32 #
A while ago I experimented with self-made monocular. I made it with one glass from a old broken lens from garage sale. I got pretty interesting aureole in lights.
Aug 16, 2016 16:40:42 #
Camerant wrote:
A while ago I experimented with self-made monocular. I made it with one glass from a old broken lens from garage sale. I got pretty interesting aureole in lights.
So why are you hijacking this thread?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.