Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Mike Johnson's litany of lenses <g>
Old 09-20-2005   #1
Rick Beckrich
Registered User
 
Rick Beckrich is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland, 30 miles south of Annapolis
Posts: 101
Mike Johnson's litany of lenses <g>

(Mike is the much-missed former editor of Photo Techniques magazine.
This is an exerpt from his quarterly subscription publication 37th Frame
that was released on photo.net.

Not RF, but I thought y'all would enjoy.

Rick



USES AND APPLICATIONS OF 35mm LENSES By Mike Johnston

Fisheye: No known uses, except to illustrate fisheye effects in photo how-to books.

Ultra-wide rectilinears wider than 19mm: Occasional interiors. Also used to stump gearheads trying to find stuff to photograph with the things.

Ultra-wide-angle (19, 20, 21, or 24mm): One of the four of five essential lenses for pros, broadly useful for artists and accomplished amateurs. Used for landscapes, interiors, street shooting, crowd shots, etc. Also used by bored amateurs as the next thing to covet for purchase. Despite the ubiquity of this focal length, relatively few photographers are practiced enough or visually acute enough to use this type of lens effectively; lots more people own these than do good work with them. See Brian Bowers’ Leica books for a rare example of a scenic photographer who actually sees well with a 21mm.

Ultra-wide-angle zoom (wide end 20mm or wider): useful for when the photographer would like to carry one heavy lens instead of three light ones, or has a breezy, devil-may-care attitude towards flare effects. Secondary “CYA” lens for pros who aren’t great with wide angles in the first place. (Exceptions do exist.) Also sometimes paired with a fast 80-200mm zoom as a professional’s only two lenses.

Wide angles: Now that 24mm is more often lumped with 20mm and 35mm has become an alternative “normal” focal length, this class has contracted down to one fixed focal length, 28mm. Useful as a do-anything lens (especially for street and art photography, photojournalism, faux photojournalism, and environmental portraits) where a wide “look” is desired, and/or to complement a 50mm main lens, and/or for pressing into service in place of a super-wide when the photographer does not own same.

Shift lenses: Buildings. Used for the overcorrection of convergence caused by perspective.

Ditto, but with tilt: Ditto above, plus landscapes with tons of foreground and tables laden with food.

All-purpose 28-200mm zoom lenses: Bad snapshots. Also great for making five rolls of film last a whole year. All-purpose = no purpose.

Wide normal primes (35mm): Alternative normal. Often, the thing replaced by a zoom. Easiest focal length to shoot with. Best focal length for Leicas.

Not really "wide" by today's standards, 35mm is an alternative normal. Leica M6, 35mm pre-ASPH., Ilford XP-2.

“Pancake” Tessar-types, usually 45mm: Good for lightening the burden of photographers who would rather not carry an SLR at all.

Normal/standard (50mm): Useful for taking photographs, if you have a thick skin. When used exclusively, classic “hair shirt” lens for disciplining oneself needlessly. Strangely, when in skilled hands, can mimic moderate wide angles as well as short telephotos. According to one far Eastern expert, lower yield of usable shots than 35mm lens, but higher yield of great shots. Second best focal length for a Leica.

Standard 55–58mm: Shows you use a really, really old camera. [Like us? rb]

Macros/micros: Flowers, bugs, eyeballs, eyelashes, small products, tchotchkes. Dew-covered spider webs, frost patterns on windowpanes. Great hobby lenses, as macro photographers are among the only happy photo enthusiasts. Also much utilized by photography buffs who like to test lenses.

Superfast normals (ƒ/1, ƒ/1.2): Used for people who like limited depth of field, as well as for people who like to complain about limited depth of field. Also, especially when aspherical elements are involved, an effective way to vaporize excess cash for almost no good reason.

Standard zooms (35-70mm, 28-105mm, 35-135mm, etc.): Used for taking pictures in bright light—mainly snapshots, scenics, cars, travel pictures, semi-naked women, underexposed pictures, and pictures blasted by uncontrolled on-camera flash. Evidently very useful for clichés. Sometimes used to remove interchangeability feature from interchangeable-lens cameras.

Fast medium zooms: For pros, bread-and-butter lenses. For amateurs, often left at home rather than lugged around all day. If very expensive, big, and heavy, may be almost as good and almost as fast at any given focal length as cheap fixed primes. Good for making both hobbyists and their portrait subjects feel self-conscious.

Short teles (75, 77, 80, 85, 90, 100, or 105mm): Portraits, tight landscapes, headshots, beauty and glamor. In skilled hands, can be used for general and art photography, photojournalism. Essential.

135mm prime: Little owned, less used. Became a standard 35mm focal length when rangefinders were the main camera type because it’s the longest focal length that is feasible on a rangefinder. Now vestigial, like a male’s nipples.

Fast 180mm or 200mm prime: Longest general use lens for photojournalism. Sports, beauty, auto races, surveillance in film noire.

Slow 180mm or 200mm prime: Lightweight and easy to carry. May project a certain “image,” i.e. that you are poor or cheap.

Standard telephoto zoom (70 or 80 to 180, 200, or 210): Whether slow or fast, indispensable for most photographers, amateur or pro. Used for all kinds of action, activity, fashion, portrait, headshot, reportage, sports, wildlife, landscape, and nature photography. Covers all the telephoto range most photographers ever need, at least until they become afflicted by the terrible urge to photograph birds.

IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon) standard telephoto zoom: Same as above, but for photographers who drink lotsa coffee and/or do crank.

Fast 300mm: Fashion, catalog, runway, sports, nature, air shows. Important lens for pros, also for nature photographers. Tough for amateurs unless shooting surreptitious faces in crowds or critters. Status symbol. As fashion, looks grand when accessorizing a photo vest.

Super-telephoto zooms (to 300mm or more on long end): For adjusting FOV when standpoint is constrained. Replaces several heavy primes. Sometimes pressed into service by amateurs who have burr up ass about having all focal lengths “covered.”

400mm: Critters, sports, and birds. Landscapes, if you’re a nut. Also good for photographing football games when you don’t want the picture to show a dang thing about what’s going on.

500mm: Critters and birds. Money laundering: can be bought and sold to placate wife about questionable expenses. “But I sold one of my lenses to pay for it, honey, honest.”

600mm: Critters.

1200mm: No known uses.

- Mike Johnston
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=918'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by Rick Beckrich : 09-20-2005 at 08:13. Reason: spelling!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #2
RML
Just live it.
 
RML's Avatar
 
RML is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Holland or Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Age: 43
Posts: 4,840
Well, I'm glad we got that sorted!
__________________
My photo blog

Join the Rangefinder Blog/Site Ring.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #3
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,830
More than a grain of truth there.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #4
peter_n
~
 
peter_n's Avatar
 
peter_n is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 9,129
He can be quite acerbic but as Bob says quite accurate in some cases.

__________________
_
~Peter

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #5
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 4,023
alrighty then... so what did he say he liked again?? Just asking.

Jan
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #6
ray_g
&gt;
 
ray_g's Avatar
 
ray_g is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT & NYC
Age: 46
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan normandale
alrighty then... so what did he say he liked again?? Just asking.

Jan
His Maxxum 7D
__________________
Ray


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #7
ray_g
&gt;
 
ray_g's Avatar
 
ray_g is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT & NYC
Age: 46
Posts: 2,755
Seriously, he has described the 40mm as the perfect focal length for him (Oddly, it is not in his list). Despite this, his favorite lens is a 50mm Pentax. He also feels that the 35mm (not the 40??) is the perfect focal length for a Leica.

What was the question again?
__________________
Ray


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #8
VinceC
Registered User
 
VinceC's Avatar
 
VinceC is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,897
I've seen this list before. He's certainly got his tongue firmly in cheek, but with a hefty dose of realism tossed in as well.

My only disagreement is minor. The 135mm lens has more utility than he gives credit. I learned photography on an SLR, and I use my 135mm more than most rangefinder shooters because the long lens is one of my favorite styles. With cropping as necessary, it substitutes for the old 70-210 zoom. Also, even with an SLR, the 135 can be a great option just because it's so small and light compared to the 180mm or 200mm alternative.
__________________
Vince
My Gallery

Nikon S2, S3, S3-2000, SP, SP-2005 / Kiev 2a

Biogon 21/4.5; CV 21/4; CV 25/4; CV 85/3.5; the following Nikkors: 2.8cm/3.5; 3.5cm/1.8 (1956 and 2005 versions); 5cm/1.4; 8.5cm/2; 10.5cm/2.5; 13.5cm/3.5
Soviet lenses: Orion 28/6; Jupiter-12 35/2.8; Helios-103 50/1.8; Jupiter-8 50/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #9
bmattock
Lord of Broken Toys
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan normandale
alrighty then... so what did he say he liked again?? Just asking.

Jan
35mm, 50mm, and short tele (70-105mm) primes. I happen to agree.

I believe the piece was meant to be funny and sarcastic, and to illustrate a remarkable lack of humor among stuffed shirts with favorite/expensive 'sacred cow' lenses.

I also find that a short/normal zoom on my DSLR is quite useful for travel. 28-80, despite being gored by his wit on that topic. [shrug] So what? [/shrug]

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #10
bmattock
Lord of Broken Toys
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceC
I've seen this list before. He's certainly got his tongue firmly in cheek, but with a hefty dose of realism tossed in as well.

My only disagreement is minor. The 135mm lens has more utility than he gives credit. I learned photography on an SLR, and I use my 135mm more than most rangefinder shooters because the long lens is one of my favorite styles. With cropping as necessary, it substitutes for the old 70-210 zoom. Also, even with an SLR, the 135 can be a great option just because it's so small and light compared to the 180mm or 200mm alternative.
I also value my 135's. Got a small army of them, due to GAS attacks and the fact that everybody made 'em and few want 'em.

Funny thing to me is that even the people who 'get' the humor lose the smile when their pet lens gets gored. People are so emotionally invested in their equipment and their choices.

Whatever, I'm happy with my choices and don't care who likes 'em.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #11
VinceC
Registered User
 
VinceC's Avatar
 
VinceC is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,897
I dunno. I didn't really lose my smile with his very telling observations about the 135. One of the reasons I like it is because it's everyone else's castoff and is priced accordingly. I've always had a soft spot for orphans.
__________________
Vince
My Gallery

Nikon S2, S3, S3-2000, SP, SP-2005 / Kiev 2a

Biogon 21/4.5; CV 21/4; CV 25/4; CV 85/3.5; the following Nikkors: 2.8cm/3.5; 3.5cm/1.8 (1956 and 2005 versions); 5cm/1.4; 8.5cm/2; 10.5cm/2.5; 13.5cm/3.5
Soviet lenses: Orion 28/6; Jupiter-12 35/2.8; Helios-103 50/1.8; Jupiter-8 50/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #12
bmicklea
RF Newbie
 
bmicklea's Avatar
 
bmicklea is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 39
Posts: 177
Hilarious post, thanks for bringing it to our attention! Having lived the "I only use one camera and a 50mm lens" hair-shirt lifestyle I had a good laugh.

Speaking for myself, although I'm sure I'm not alone in this, most of my reasons for recently going from SLR to RF were covered here (unintentionally?)

1. Zooms never look as good as primes and defeat much of the purpose of an interchangeable lens mount
2. Fast lenses are smaller, cheaper and better when you leave the SLR world
3. Ultra-wide, wide, normal and short-tele are the easiest lens to take great pictures with, and generally the best of these are found for RFs

In this digital age when the body you use is of ever greater importance (the madness!) it's interesting to realize that the lenses you want/need can be enough to drive some of us to a totally different kind of camera.

Now if only I could afford a bunch of fast Leica lenses...

Brad
__________________
-Brad


My RFF Gallery

Newest Shots

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #13
bmattock
Lord of Broken Toys
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceC
I dunno. I didn't really lose my smile with his very telling observations about the 135. One of the reasons I like it is because it's everyone else's castoff and is priced accordingly. I've always had a soft spot for orphans.
Hey, I'm with you! But have you not noticed that no one seems to care to be told what others think about their choice in lenses, unless that person agrees with them and praises their choice? Go, lemmings, go.

It applies to everything photographic. Here's an example...

A few years back, Sigma started selling their SD9 DSLR with the much-maligned Foveon chip. The criticism of the Sigma was rapid and stinging. One of the 'major faults' of the camera was the fact that it only saved files in 'raw' mode. Raw was too slow. Raw was wasteful of memory space. Raw was not necessary. Raw required the use of Sigma's software to decode the proprietary format, so no downloading directly to printers or viewing on the TV.

Flash forward a couple of years. Now, people are starting to catch on that the various raw formats, although awkward and proprietary, solve a lot of problems, notably with white level setting and the absence of jpeg compression artifacting. People are starting to do a lot of their 'best' shooting in raw formats and converting later. Raw is hot, raw is great. Everybody who shoots 'serious' digital shoots raw.

But mention that just a few years ago, they ripped Sigma a new one for sticking to the raw format, and it's like someone waved a small turd under their nose. No sense of humor, no comments, just pursed lips and angry expressions and an abrupt change of subject. (Watch - someone will jump in now and mention everything ELSE that the Sigma DSLRs sucked at, like the 'raw' criticism never existed at all.)

It's the same for lenses. Like you, I make my own decisions. Hey, sometimes the 'common wisdom' is right - but more often, people buy what everyone says is great because everyone says it is great. Then they say it is great too - when chances are, they would not know the best from the worst by their usual critical method, which is mostly squinting at a fuzzy 4x6 print.

But I'll stop now - chances are, I've made someone mad again.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #14
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,689
For classic SLR's, good 28/2.8's, fast 50's (under f2) and sharp 135/2.8's seem very easy and cheap to come by. 35's & 75-105 primes are harder to come by, not very hard, but just seems less available or not cheap... thank goodness for m42 J9's.

On classic RF's, 35's, 50's & 85's seems the most common, cheap and mostly good too, of course mostly thanks to FSU glass for Kiev & LTM. I seem to notice that 135's are even _more_ ignored by RF users than SLR users, probably because of the need for aux finders, parallax etc.

I personally find his comments on wides and ultra-wides to be very true. I'm trying to learn how to use/see with 24mm and wider lenses.

500, 600 and 1200 are all good for birds. I use a DSLR w/ a 500mm, and I'm constantly cropping down to 1/4 frame or less, so I'm cropping down to a 1200mm FOV quite often. Of course, I can't possibly justify the cost. The Canon 1200/5.6 is in the $100,000 range but mind you a Russian 1000/10 is in the $100 range .
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #15
ray_g
&gt;
 
ray_g's Avatar
 
ray_g is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT & NYC
Age: 46
Posts: 2,755
MJ's articles have always been good reading. He is very opinionated, but that is a nice change from the reviews you see in most (US) photo magazines. Sadly, SMP is now gone, and my local Barnes and Noble seems to have stopped importing B/W Photography.
__________________
Ray


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #16
doubs43
Registered User
 
doubs43's Avatar
 
doubs43 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Byron, GA USA
Posts: 1,548
A witty, funny presentation, IMO. He spoofs a lot of gassy photographers who reckon they're the only ones who really "get it". Taken the right way, it's actually very funny.

I personally don't think any one needs to "defend" their choice of optics. If you want to shoot distant subjects with an 8mm fisheye lens and then explain what can't actually be seen when you show the pictures to someone, that's fine with me.

Use what you have and enjoy the experience. That's all the reason you need.

Walker
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=729'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #17
doubs43
Registered User
 
doubs43's Avatar
 
doubs43 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Byron, GA USA
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kin Lau
500, 600 and 1200 are all good for birds. I use a DSLR w/ a 500mm, and I'm constantly cropping down to 1/4 frame or less, so I'm cropping down to a 1200mm FOV quite often. Of course, I can't possibly justify the cost. The Canon 1200/5.6 is in the $100,000 range but mind you a Russian 1000/10 is in the $100 range .
I just "won" an MTO-500mm f/8 mirror lens on ebay and sent the money yesterday. It's in "excellent" condition with four filters, an M42 mount and in a fitted wooden case...... all for $77 + $15 shipping. I already have the 1000mm MTO f/10 lens and it's quite sharp. Most dealers want a whole lot more for either lens than they cost on ebay and they're actually a bargain.

Walker
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=729'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #18
VinceC
Registered User
 
VinceC's Avatar
 
VinceC is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,897
>>If you want to shoot distant subjects with an 8mm fisheye lens and then explain what can't actually be seen when you show the pictures to someone, that's fine with me.<<

One of my favorite travel pix is my "unParis" shot. I've never been to central Paris but once found myself on the ring motorway surrounding the city and, using my 50mm lens, snapped a shot of the Eiffel Tower from about seven miles away.
__________________
Vince
My Gallery

Nikon S2, S3, S3-2000, SP, SP-2005 / Kiev 2a

Biogon 21/4.5; CV 21/4; CV 25/4; CV 85/3.5; the following Nikkors: 2.8cm/3.5; 3.5cm/1.8 (1956 and 2005 versions); 5cm/1.4; 8.5cm/2; 10.5cm/2.5; 13.5cm/3.5
Soviet lenses: Orion 28/6; Jupiter-12 35/2.8; Helios-103 50/1.8; Jupiter-8 50/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #19
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubs43
I just "won" an MTO-500mm f/8 mirror lens on ebay and sent the money yesterday. It's in "excellent" condition with four filters, an M42 mount and in a fitted wooden case...... all for $77 + $15 shipping. I already have the 1000mm MTO f/10 lens and it's quite sharp. Most dealers want a whole lot more for either lens than they cost on ebay and they're actually a bargain.

Walker
I have the 500/8, and it's very sharp. Contrast is so-so, and the bokeh is an acquired taste , but it was my main birding lense until the Sigma 170-500.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #20
VinceC
Registered User
 
VinceC's Avatar
 
VinceC is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,897
In the '80s and early '90s, the 500 mirror lenses were very common with photojournalists and the awards photos were filled with "donut-ring" bokeh. I suspect the lenses fell out of favor with digital SLRs and the 1.5 crop factor.
__________________
Vince
My Gallery

Nikon S2, S3, S3-2000, SP, SP-2005 / Kiev 2a

Biogon 21/4.5; CV 21/4; CV 25/4; CV 85/3.5; the following Nikkors: 2.8cm/3.5; 3.5cm/1.8 (1956 and 2005 versions); 5cm/1.4; 8.5cm/2; 10.5cm/2.5; 13.5cm/3.5
Soviet lenses: Orion 28/6; Jupiter-12 35/2.8; Helios-103 50/1.8; Jupiter-8 50/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #21
Jeroen
Registered User
 
Jeroen is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 253
Something else I find funny is everybody's flipping about the importance of burst modes and so-and-so-many-frames-per-second on digital cameras. I never heard pros (or amateurs) complaining about the one shot per second they got with their Leica (or other film camera)...
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=537'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #22
TPPhotog
Registered User
 
TPPhotog is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 488
Good point of the fps! I find that I get better action shots with single shot RFs and SLRs as I concentrate on the movement and nailing the shot more than I do with a motor-wind camera. I think single shot focuses the brain (excuse the pun)
__________________
WEBSITE
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #23
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 43
Posts: 1,478
I've never paid any attention to the fps spec, myself. Trees, rocks, and buildings just don't normally move all that quickly and if they do, I'm certainly not going to be standing around taking pictures of them.
__________________
Doug K.

Last edited by DougK : 09-20-2005 at 14:32.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #24
Little Prince
Registered User
 
Little Prince's Avatar
 
Little Prince is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 406
I love this piece on the lenses. Thanks for bringing to my attention again. Had read it before but reading it again reinforces some viewpoints. Very sarcastic and enjoyable. This reminds me that I received the new issue of the 37th frame a couple of days back but just haven't read it. Gotta go do that today. Did I mention before I love sarcasm ?
__________________
---not all those who wander are lost---
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2005   #25
doubs43
Registered User
 
doubs43's Avatar
 
doubs43 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Byron, GA USA
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceC
In the '80s and early '90s, the 500 mirror lenses were very common with photojournalists and the awards photos were filled with "donut-ring" bokeh. I suspect the lenses fell out of favor with digital SLRs and the 1.5 crop factor.
Here's a shot I took of a water tower late one Summer evening using the MTO-1000mm f/10. The distance is over a mile. Only the bushes in the foreground show any indication of "donutting" and then very little. I need to do more experimenting but it seems to me that the more OOF something is, the greater the donut effect. Shots I've taken at 200 meters with a background filling the picture and not being far behind the subject show no donutting at all.

Walker
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=729'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by doubs43 : 09-20-2005 at 14:01.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Super Angulon vs Color Skopar wilt Leica M Film Cameras 11 08-04-2005 08:54
R3A for wide angle lenses nils Cosina Voigtlander Bessa 13 05-26-2005 01:35
The R-D1 and Lenses: Contrast Sean Reid Digital Epson R-D1 Digital RF 9 04-11-2005 08:48
Choosing the right gear? Unregistered Rangefinder Photography Discussion 13 03-06-2005 15:44
PhotoPlus Expo rover Rangefinder Photography Discussion 16 10-23-2004 05:59



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:16.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.