For the opportunity to review interesting lens Triplet Triplet 2.8 / 78 many thanks to Ivan http://mcphoto.com.ua/.
Review Triplet Triplet 2.8 / 78
It is strange why the name of the lens contains two times Triplet Triplet, Cyrillic and Latin. The lens has already come to me in a converted state, with the possibility of using it on Nikon cameras. In this case, there is the possibility of focusing to infinity. How the lens looked in the beginning and how to convert it for use - you can read here.
Enlightenment of the front and rear lenses of the Triplet lens Triplet 2.8 / 78
The lens of the lens is brightened, and the lens itself has a rigidly fixed lens hood. By the logo of the lens, you can determine that my Triplet 2.8 / 78 was manufactured at the Minsk Mechanical Plant. S.I. Vavilova.
View on a modern Triplet camera Triplet 2.8 / 78
Sample Photos
The copy from the review is most likely broken, as it creates an image that is not characteristic of a triplet.
More unusual pictures from a broken triplet:
Bokeh lens. Strong coma on face
Rough bokeh, my eyes are climbing on my forehead from this.
Macro.
Bokeh lens. White balance lied and it turned out something unusual and virtuoso.
Lens drawing
Lens drawing. Guess which objects are out of focus
Photo in b / w
Another photo in b / w
An overview of a better instance can be found here.
↓↓↓ Like the review and share the link in social networks ↓↓↓. Thanks for attention. Arkady Shapoval
Such a Beast)
with pigeons, of course, it's interesting, but "it's better to shoot with a tin can"
Yeah, do not compare with Glavuchtehprom. I support ANONYMO.
On the Internet I met more pictures from it, they seemed to me better than from my copy, maybe I got a not entirely successful one, or maybe after my “surgical” intervention something went wrong, although there seemed to be nothing - three lenses and partitions.
But the figure with Triplet 2,8 / 100 seemed to me more interesting, although the bokeh is as dirty as this one.
the average negative lens is on the wrong side after assembly.
Arkady, you did not highlight the words “spherical aberration” and “coma” as references. What kind of animals are these….
And the photos are somewhat similar to a monocle. Maybe just a rework failed?
I remember I had a Viliya-Auto device with a triplet, so I liked everything about it ...
Triplet triplet discord. This lens is from a slide projector, and there were still for cameras, there the aperture began at 4.
Trioplan 2,8 / 100 also has a triplet scheme, but its cost is 150 bucks. Apparently there is something to pay for, plus there is an iris diaphragm.
In my childhood I had a scale camera "Orion EE". It was equipped with a fixed Triplet lens, albeit with a different focal length, 40 mm. And something in this article tells me why I didn't manage to “make friends” with my camera down, everything was indistinct and blurred in the pictures :-)
Although, of course, it's not a fact that that lens was the same, um, unusual ...
A relative of that triplet, T-43 from Change-8M on Sony NEX: http://nukemall.livejournal.com/41060.html
Examples of shots: http://nukemall.livejournal.com/41284.html
As you can see, the sharpness is excellent.
I researched the topic of Triplets on the network, and I can’t resist not to quote one comment that explains a lot:
“Actually, the triplet entered the world of photography as“ Cook's portrait lens ”. And the triplets cost just fantastic money before the First World War. And rightly so. The point is that the triplet has very few correction parameters. Therefore, the unfortunate choice of one of them cannot be compensated for by the selection of the other. hence. it must be designed with the utmost care, and for the same reason it must be assembled just as carefully. It is hard to imagine how conscientiously old German triplets were made - for example, each lens was provided with a separate eccentric frame, allowing this lens to be centered independently of the others ... A well-designed and carefully assembled triplet is a first-class lens. ”
From this it can be understood that the quality of the design and assembly of such a circuit has a critical role.
The review is simply incorrect, because the lens is technically defective. He has a misalignment of the lenses, and they are located, it seems, in the wrong order or the spacers are confused.
You see in circles that are in the bokeh, lighter squiggles? This is a sign of strong bias and / or tilt of the lenses.
In the review, I added information that the lens is most likely damaged. If you have the opportunity to provide the same well-working instance, please do so.
I liked the review, I even wanted myself such a lens
Interesting bokeh))
And why no one guesses what is in the picture with the caption “Lens drawing. Guess which objects are out of focus ”? Will I make my guess that these are luminous garlands, or white flowers on the ground?
No. This is asphalt, but what's on the asphalt?
Are those pigeons on the pavement?
no
Maybe dew drops?
A simple diaphragm would have greatly helped this Triplet. Few lenses at 2,8 show good sharpness. So I would use the adapter EOS-NEX with a diaphragm which. Or cut rings with holes 4, 5,6 8 and attach to the back of the Triplet.
On my Viliya, diaphragms 8 and 11 did not greatly improve the situation.
It is screwed in instead of the filter (by pre-cutting the lens body and cutting the thread into 52) into the Helios 44M or 44M-4 body gutted from the lenses using the Helius diaphragm. Set to infinity. Everything works great!
Maybe Nukemall will take this Triplet apart, blacken the ends of the lenses and align the troches. Then it would be to look at what the lens is capable of. Is it really much worse than the T-43 and T-22?
Yes, apparently, such an image is the calling card of the Triplets. My scaled camera "Viliya" with a "Triplet" lens takes about the same thing :)
It would be interesting to know about a fellow triplet 5 2.8 \ 100. I have such a one and I suppose to turn it into a monocle.
If the lens is initially not damaged, then it works like a normal "normal" without special effects)) minimum distance 70cm. Here's everything except the lens itself, shot with a 78 triplet. http://yadi.sk/d/zlGRpSODJQ3me
The lens is clearly incorrectly assembled ..! Perhaps one of the lenses inside is upside down. Plus violation of the optical axis of the entire system after assembly by someone else's curved handles. (This is not about you, Arkady ...) This is clearly confirmed by the last two pictures ...
Here are normal photos from a normal Triplet
http://proofbook.livejournal.com/198853.html
The lens is definitely faulty .. I planted exactly the same on the body of Helios 44M. I cut a thread on the body before cutting it off .. It is screwed in instead of a filter. Perfectly tuned to infinity. You can shoot both landscape and portraits. Aperture is used from Helius. Good sharpness and good bokeh ( for an amateur of course). In the same way, I remade Triplet 5 2,8 100 and I constantly use them, although in bulk and other lenses ...
I have the impression that the rear component is reversed. During my time I had a Zeiss Ikon 9x12 with interchangeable native optics, there is a 160 mm triplet in Compura. So when I had a desire to build something interesting with a portrait (at that time - the end of the 60s), I just turned its rear component over and got exactly this type of drawing. True, then I returned everything back to the tags :)
I observed the same effect when I put the middle (negative) lens on the wrong side.
The first test photo is the most typical, textbook example of one of the lenses being installed incorrectly, turned upside down. Most often it is either front or back.
Triplets 69-3 4/40 from “Viliya” and from “Viliya-Auto” on Sony NEX
show good results.
Yes, I forgot to sign - the flange of the T-69 = 28,8 mm.
How did you measure the working distance? After all, it is not removable, there is no bayonet mount. 28,8mm from the lens in the infinity position, or from the end of the shot lens?
The lens is really incorrectly assembled (as it was correctly indicated, most likely the middle lens was placed on the wrong side (I myself faced such a problem). It cannot give a bad image, if only due to the fact that it gives a good image when projected. the absence of a helicoid, aperture and, most likely, a color picture (I can't say anything here, since I'm just an amateur photographer and haven't tested this device).