View of the Vega-22UTs lens and sample photos from it, especially for Radozhiva, prepared Rodion Eshmakov.
Appearance of Vega-22
For the gratuitous Vega-22TC I thank Vladimir Deyev.
Characteristics of Vega-22UTs
Optical design: 5 lenses in 4 groups (Biometar / Vega), no design drawing
Resolution (obviously for F / 5.6, center / edge): 65/20 lines / mm
Field of view angle (in native format): 52 deg.
Format: 6 * 9 cm (?)
Aperture Limits (Factory Option): F / 5.6-F / 16
Diaphragm design: six-petal, rounded, without presetting mechanisms, with ratchet on the feet
Diameter under filters: not provided
Mount: M42, working distance of about 80 mm (did not measure exactly)
Focuser: None
Features: built-in subtractive filters, the lens is artificially apertured to F / 5.6.
Vega-22UTs - an infrequent example of domestic optics for photo enlargers, as indicated by the letter "U" in the title. The letter "C" indicates that it was intended for color photographs.
The design and key features of the adaptation of Vega-22UTs
Like Vega-5U, Vega-22UTs was produced at the Minsk Mechanical Plant and existed in a single version of the frame - in the form of a sort of box with lenses.
Appearance of Vega-22UTs
The lens has an absurd appearance due to the presence of built-in filters, which are used for color correction in color printing.
And, although there are no complaints about the quality of the lens assembly, in this form it is simply impossible to use it normally.
In general, this is perhaps the most inconvenient photo-magnification lens for adaptation, because:
- The lens block is inseparable from the inconvenient body;
- The native diaphragm has a hole much smaller than the pupil of the lens;
- Built-in filters are not needed for photography.
For these reasons, it was decided from scratch to develop a housing for the lenses of this lens, which will allow using a diaphragm of such a size that it is the size of the pupil (or larger, which is not important). Naturally, the lens also needed a focusing mechanism (the G-44M case would do, but I had my own version).
The lenses of the lens are pressed into brass washers, which is very convenient. Therefore, the only lens distance to be found was the distance between the front and rear lens units.
I could not determine it with great accuracy, but, because Double-Gaussian lenses are quite insensitive to the distance between the lens blocks, I think there was enough accuracy. So, this distance between the seats of the lens blocks is 21 + -0.5 mm.
Also, at the beginning it was indicated that the lens is artificially diaphragmed to F / 5.6. Counting aperture Using comparisons of pupil diameters and aperture diameters, a value of ~ F / 2.5 was obtained.
It is very big aperture for a lens of a similar design; we can say that with such a relative aperture, the circuit operates “at the limit of possibilities” (it suffices to recall other Vega lenses that were not brighter than F / 2.8).
To fully use the lens aperture, the diaphragm from Industar-55U was chosen (I managed to find it separately), which has a diameter even larger than necessary.
Here link with lens lens adaptation description.
Appearance of the nine-petal diaphragm in Vega-22
Ultimately, a completely different lens was obtained, having only the optical part from Vega-22.
Optical properties (modified sample)
Now the lens has become 103 / 2.5 instead of 103 / 5.6, its resolution at open aperture I estimated as ~ 30/15 lines / mm (center / edge) - the lens has very average sharpness at F / 2.5.
The main reason for the low sharpness is the soft effect, which increases closer to the edges of the picture, even on crop 1.6. Those. the lens suffers from spherical aberrations and coma, which was expected.
However, at F / 2.5, the picture of the lens looks very unusual - soft, with a very unusual blurring of the background, it is great for portrait shooting.
With aperture, the sharpness of the lens increases - at F / 2.8, excessive software disappears, although the picture remains generally the same; on F / 4, good sharpness appears while maintaining a recognizable pattern (9 aperture blades are responsible for this), and on F / 5.6 and beyond, the lens is technically sharp. Therefore, in the aperture enlarger up to F / 5.6 were not used.
Hole shape on F / 5.6
Hence the conclusion - the picture of the lens is very plastic, which is a big plus. The blend of aberrations creates a very unusual, almost psychedelic bokeh. For the picture, my peers called the lens "alien" - in my arsenal there was nothing like it yet.
With regards to bokeh - it is peculiar both in the prefocal and the out of focus, but not ugly. Rather - for an amateur. The lens is not very fond of a colorful background - there is a risk of turning it into a mess.
Zofocal blur at F / 2.5
Vega-22 suffers from chromatism on open diaphragms, but most often it is masked by software.
The contrast of the lens is low - all the photos have been revised by contrast. This is due to the insufficiently thought-out design (until the rear light cutters are installed - they are required for medium format optics in a small format) and the fact that the lens has single-layer enlightenment. Still, Vega doesn’t hurt and a good lens hood.
But the color rendition of the lens is very correct, neutral - because lens and was designed for color printing. I could not find such familiar shades of yellow and green in the lenses to the lumen.
However, enough words. Just look at the photos (most of it was shot at 2.5-2.8)!
Hack and predictor Aviator
Vega-22 is a very unusual and infrequent lens. In its factory form, it is practically useless, but, having acquired a completely new mechanics, the lens has changed - from a boring box it has become an unusual portrait lens with an original picture. My summary - the lens was worth the effort.
Thank you for your attention, Eshmakov Rodion.
"She's great for portraits."
- does not fit at all.
There is no trace of airiness and plasticity with volume, but all skin defects - well, perhaps not with a marker.
1. Subjectively
2. Where?
1. Well Duc what the conversation is about - your conclusions are extremely subjective.
2. in portraits.
Yours too)
And conclusions are conclusions. These are just my impressions, this is my conclusion. The reader who read the review, looked at the photo - there may be a different conclusion. Also subjective)
And again, this is all very subjective. "Airiness", "volume" - these words are so beautiful.
In fact, there is a depth of field, resolution, aberration.
Once you can control aberrations by aperture, the picture is plastic, i.e. able to change.
Since there is no distortion, perspective distortion, and the depth of field is small enough, the lens is automatically applicable for portrait photography. Which conditions are better for this is another matter.
As for skin defects, I'll write "Where?" - just in case) I saw these people with my eyes, I can know about skin defects a little better than you.
And it makes no sense even to talk to you about this topic - in ordinary photos you can easily notice a soft effect that hides small details. This just removes minor skin imperfections and smoothes it.
Before such garbage as cutting an object from a photographic enlarger in terms of issuing as a “megaportretnik”, none of the sane was involved.
But now too.
Because they did not know how, did not want, did not know.
In general, calling names insane is simply very bad of you. And you are also the editor of Razhozhiva after that ...
and nobody called you insane.
and before that you won’t believe either ..
There is such a word, I would not say that it is unprintable, even somewhere derivative of what even flowers grow from, nevertheless, the Lynx actually embodied it in itself, became, as it were, a standard. Ends on a nook. And as persistent as the smell of that very one. There are people with such a mmmm charming character.
Oh, what a cruel insult.
Crying just
Lynx wrote: before such garbage as cutting an object from a photo enlarger ...
I've done it before! Last time in 1982 ... Didn't like it ...
Believe it or not, they used to shoot portraits and didn't wash the skin into the trash; it is now dominated by photo-stereotypes. Volume and notorious "airiness" are drawn in most cases due to composition, lighting, and much less due to optics.
In general, this is a technician’s dispute with the humanities - different views, approaches and types of thinking.
The author of further creative success! it’s good when the arms are straight and from the right place :)
Thank you for understanding!
and who is even a techie and who is a humanitarian? )))
I read all the reviews of this site from the very beginnings of its existence, and I am a fan of this project from the very beginning. In Radozhiv, initially and still there is a huge number of tolerant forum users who may not like the alterations of cheap glasses, but I think people still read and find out for themselves something new, I don’t have much money for expensive glasses, for example, and I like it I have manual glasses, and I only have enough money for them, and therefore I am happy to read reviews of alterations and factory manuals, and some lenses after these reviews have already appeared in my park of personal glasses, thanks to Arkady for this project))) to what am I starting this l write))) I APPEAL TO A PASSENGER BY THE NAME “LYNX” after each review you try to crap any glass, if everything irritates you here, get out of here, sit on the forums of pseudo majors and show off your 1000 dollar lenses, although I think in yours Park iPhone and film SKINA)))))
The lens is good for creating the "Alice in Wonderland" effect. Something similar is produced by the Helios 40-2 with its twisted bokeh. Therefore, it may not be worth chasing an expensive helicopter, and the vega22utz will do. Rodion is great.
"The effect of" Alice in Wonderland "" - gorgeous, I'll take it into service: D
I borrowed this expression from D. Yevtifeyev, here is his brother on the side: http://evtifeev.com/8897-gelios-40-2-85-1-5-vs-carl-zeiss-planar-85-1-4-c-y.html/3
This is a common effect. It is called AVSCh :))))
such a rework could cost more than the G-40
I got about 3500. Considering that you can save on a focuser by taking Helios - draw your own conclusions ...
Don't judge strictly, but for that kind of money, you need to be able to steam up and get g) I, by comparison, bought for 3000 minolt 50 1.4 of the latest version for the old bayonet in excellent condition, it is more needed in a photo backpack :) But honestly, what software is bokeh bust trash ... indulge in and on the shelf ..
Minolta in the open)
Are you going to shove your minolta everywhere now?
Why are you so stuck with this minolut that a sea of excellent glasses can be bought for 3500 rubles. almost all manual fifty dollars 1.8 fit here (even the pancolar zeisses). for this bag we can take Zeiss zonar 135 3.5, the same veg 12 you can dial 4 pieces. I mean, it's just incredible to spend so much money for the sake of interest, then after receiving mediocre characteristics to praise it. Let’s then let the Soviet periscopes from slide projectors (where the second lens is plastic) start poking for the sake of a highly artistic effect and greater softness in portrait shooting :)
Here is the duel girl in the first picture ... But tell me, just honestly, at least a step to the right can't be done? That the wall, that the face, are the same ... There is only a cat, but the Minolts hold a picture ...
And the Lynx, yes, it has become evil lately! Maybe he, like Pechkin the postman, doesn’t have a bicycle?
Anonymous, because this is not a staged shot. I caught the moments as best I could, no one especially was going to pose there. And no one would just wait for my “step to the right”, “step to the left”.
And you, "Felix", do not count my money) I earned it myself - I myself know what to spend it on)
No 50 / 1.8, no zonar will give such an effect as this lens.
I see that it is not staging ... A healthy person takes a step in 0,3 seconds. approximately ... This is done automatically during framing and focusing ... I see, you are annoyed by everything that disagrees with you ... For focusing, by the way, I recommend trying fur. With such a back section (you indicated 80mm) it is quite possible, and you can change the optics without changing the focuser ...
3500 hryvnia?
rubles ...
It cost you 3500 because almost everyone did it themselves, but how much will the hand-to-hand man in the street cost?
Why - the details of the lens unit and focuser were made by a turner according to my drawings. Where did the schoolboy get a turner at home?)
I will try to prepare more detailed material on adaptation, because not everyone even wants to bother with notions, people hawk the ready-made ... But this is no longer for Radozhiva, because here this is not needed by anyone, but for a lens-club.
And there are many such lenses lying around on shelves and closets, I just feel sorry that they are not used. Well, there is no desire to cling to this ugly box. The same little thing in its metal case looks very interesting.
You are mistaken. Many are interested
There is still a purely photographic community, few techies. Detailed material is best posted on technical sites. And here there will simply be a link to it, as I did with the Vega-5U review.
Rodion. A techie is not an education or a way of life. I have a medical education, but I redid it with a nickle of lenses, and not only from M42 to Nikon /
The hand-handler doesn’t need this, he will take it off with the same hands!
I must say that the lens lacks sharpness at all. Photos look just like a technical marriage, it's hard to look at them.
Thanks for the review, Rodion, I saw such a lens at a flea market somehow - I wondered what kind of animal it was.
Ivan, wipe the monitor from dust :) every hair is visible in portraits - is this bad sharpness for 2.5-2.8?
And spherical aberration of adjacent bokeh is superimposed on each hair, as a result, we have the effect of both shooting with a slow shutter speed (half a second, for example) and a flash about the second curtain.
Perhaps the sharpness could be seen in the picture from the edge of the frame to another - in sharpness, without bokeh, that is. And so - soap soap.
This is the point that the spherical does not hide large details, but removes small ones. This is exactly the essence of the soft effect.
I had similar feelings. After pixel-by-pixel examination, I determined the cause.
It's not that something has fallen out of the depth of field. Everything is in order there. The thing is a psychedelic that is going on outside the depth of field. Such variegation is often very distracting, it is very sharp and, at times, as if it diminishes the sharpness of the lens itself.
No! No! Just not fifty dollars 50 / 1.8!) I was waiting for this little thing, I wanted this blur!)
Good lens, good rework! I especially liked the bokeh, it is very unusual. Thanks for the interesting article, Rodion.
Thank you for your feedback! Soon there will be something else interesting)
maybe better not? well, or immediately to those resource ?! Each person will quarrel, but you are tied to your brainchild and it’s hard to read your lens protections from anyone who does not agree or who doesn’t like it. Some fanaticism seems
It seems to be the key word.
I am not attached - I like it simply and that's it. I'm not even the only one.
If the lens is really bad and inapplicable, as, for example, happened to me with Triplet-5M 100 / 2.8, then I will not even publish anything; and if it is absolutely nothing in its field of application, it surprises me when they say that “the lens is shit,” while being guided by the fact that they did not like the circle of confusion.
Perhaps, such inadequate comments really annoy me, because such an idea can be expressed in a more neutral way (because, sorry, but it doesn’t depend on me what kind of drawing it will be there), and there are such examples too.
So the whole photo can be brought to three lenses: 16-35 / 2.8, 70-200 / 2.8 and let's say 135 / 2.0. Why are reviews of other lenses needed at all? It’s quite a triumph for itself. Generally correctly written, this is like a dispute between Shishkin and Van Gogh, for example. I would take off some small ones in some makeup, I would love to have such a cup
So I think that under this lens it is necessary to think over the scenario, taking into account the background, makeup, light / color, etc., etc.
Thanks. The creative process has different sides. In my opinion, the game was worth the candle. Thanks Rodion. Sorry I can not do. Hands do not work well. I follow your work. Wrote first
I have read all the reviews of this site from the very beginning of its existence, and I am a fan of this project from the very beginning. Initially and to this day, there is a huge number of tolerant members of the forum on Radozhiv, who may not like the alterations of cheap glass, but I think people still read and learn something new for themselves, for example, I don’t have a lot of money for expensive glasses, and they like it I have manual glasses, and I only have enough money for them, and therefore I am happy to read reviews of alterations and factory manuals, and some lenses after these reviews have already appeared in my park of personal glasses, thanks to Arkady for this project))) to why did I start writing this at all))) I APPLY TO A PASSENGER NAME "LYNX" after each review you try to crap any glass, if everything here annoys you, get out of here, sit on the forums of pseudo majors and show off your $ 1000 lenses, although I think in your park there is an iPhone and a film SKINA)))))
I support you dear about this passenger !!! already lit up this bot-troll !! what is not a review, then this skunk will surely have some kind of, excuse me, gov ... but comets, and the goal is not an answer in essence, but to crap everyone and everything ... hear, body, pour feces in other places, people tried by the way on the resource, and you, skunk, prepared at least one review? !!! lay out the information, let's walk on you and on your scribble !!! got it! and what kind of major glass are we talking about? he has soak and gov ... but skin. what can we talk about - if it’s not a topic for him - a comparative test of the forties helicopters old and remake ?? !! or just a review of the new gelik 40-2-N ... which I was going to provide for review, send from another city, despite the fact that the thing is not cheap, but now my interest has disappeared ... and then suddenly this body will clog him. the topic is closed. I lost the resource in this. moderators, think about it! not good at it. he spoils your resource ... I'm certainly not a pro, but if you are not sure that the option offered by Monu would be useful to the resource, then you can conduct an elementary poll to collect votes about the interestingness of the topic. and if the poll gains a borderline number of votes (% of attendance), then people can go to a meeting, for the benefit of the resource, similar to voting for the best portrait portrait ... otherwise, if it goes on like this longer, then plans to make Radozhiv the BEST and ONLY in 10 years become very illusory. Best regards, Anon, who is always right!
oh you braggart!
In words, you are Leo Tolstoy ...
look, 2 minutes, and already fart into a puddle! where do you see the bragging? in the proposal to send a lens? So here's to your evil, if Arkady shows interest, I'll send him for review. but about Leo Tolstoy, it's you, dear, x ... simple. I will now ban you everywhere until they lock you up. and if they lock the ip, I'll find another one, you angered me.
Lord, what a schoolboy ...
Anonymous is always right :)
ah soooo !!!! )))
If the people support, Ray will ban the stuffing on the fan :)
Reptile pirates!
By the way, there are 2.211 comments on Radozhiv.
and when it will be 3333 it will be…. half to 6666!
will be bored
No sharpness, no color, no contrast, no luminosity, one software and chromatics. And a bunch of hemorrhoids with alteration. In general, when the cat has nothing to do ...
Dmitry, and you probably watch these photos on the screen of a shower laptop? I’m looking at the NEC LCD2470WVX monitor, and everything has colors and contrast, and sharpness is a very subjective parameter, as I understand it, you don’t evaluate the setting of the frame, you download the photos and let's watch them 100 percent right away. crope, look for chromaticity, look for nuts)))
No, I'm looking at a normal monitor. And it's not about staging a shot, but about the fact that photographs are entirely technical defects. The software is such that the sharpness is completely lost, the chromatics is terrifying. What else is needed? Bokeh is also sickening, but this is already subjective. And how your Nek makes candy out of shit - I don’t know, probably a special “shYdevr” mode on the monitor is on.
No, it's pointless to consider 100% crop here. A resolution of 2.5 with a maximum of 6 megapixel crop 1.6 is enough, then there are already problems. But that's 2.5. no one bothers not to use such an extreme value, and to shoot at 3.5-4 - the picture will be no worse, but the sharpness is a cut higher. “The permit has arrived,” “the permit has arrived,” as they say.
50 / 1.8 will be too predictable for Rodion. Rodion is not looking for easy ways
So 50 1.8 has tremendous potential for improvement!
oh yes it’s possible, for example, to put glass from a gel there and there will be an autofocus gel
Rodion, thanks!
Commentators-critics - think how much work, skills, knowledge is needed to cut this down, adapt it to the camera and shoot something more or less intelligible. And then, how much desire and energy is required to write a review and be ready to listen to the negative from people who do nothing of the kind themselves.
Before criticizing something - try at least to imagine that you did what you are going to criticize. Itchy fingers may go away.
god….
here we are - the work that the children of 5-9 grades used to do in the physics / optics circle, or just for fun, is now extolled as a great achievement of progress and human development.
Get on. Well, the guy did for fun. Well, garbage came out, but funny garbage.
Of course, this horrific horror has nothing to do with the normal soft-effect or portrait, but it’s good that a person seeks himself, so to speak, knows the world, and is not shy about telling people about it.
It even does this in a fairly coherent language, except for a few missing comma edits almost did not have to be done.
.........
And most importantly, for some reason people manage to confuse criticism of the objective and criticism of the review itself and the work.
Like that woman in the trolleybus “my fish - hand over the ticket. Comrades! he called me a bitch !! "
drink yadu
what a cut
Shit you are on a stick, not a lynx! And it is true that someone noticed that the nickname SKUNS would suit you more! Stink from you more than creatures!
it has been said more than once - anonymous is worse than piderast!
I do not say that this is "the top of optical thought" and "a great achievement of something there." You got me hooked with someone
Bubbles are somewhat reminiscent of meyer-optik-görlitz trioplan 100mm f2.8, but there they are sharper and rounder.
http://www.4photos.de/test/Meyer-Goerlitz-Trioplan-100mm-2.8.html
There are no bad lenses, each can be used for a specific purpose. In any case, adapted for work if there are no crooked hands :)
Try to shoot dew, or light bulbs, garlands, lights in the dark. The whole point of such lenses is precisely in bubbles (I think so).
I will definitely try it. The lens did the other day literally.
Yes, I have a half meyer-optik with a similar pattern, although it is open and soft, it has a very festive pattern.
Thank you for your review and work on cutting.
But such a nervous, flickering bokeh just strains the eye and creates the opposite effect - the foreground object simply begins to clog with this background - for example, https://radojuva.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/sg/vega-22uc/vega-22-uc-15.jpg - here I stop seeing the “flowers”, they are lost, and the background begins to prevail. The soft effect is good, especially for soft erotica, but when working with such a lens, the background is critical, or rather the absence of point light sources.
I completely agree - a very colorful background is contraindicated. A shot with a brush of flowers against the sky demonstrates just that.
"Especially for soft eroticism"
In the review, only hard pornography with elements of masturbation.
It's five, Doc !! Well said! The game was not worth the candle.
It is interesting to read about the lens that I have. In general, I must say that the author seems to have thought of something with an inter-lens distance, because my copy is very sharp. My modification so far has been limited to removing the filters and all the mechanics associated with them (the main thing is from that transparent insert, which, with magnifying use, apparently illuminated the scales on the twists. In photo application, the light from the side of the lens transfers it inside, which leads to a hard white veil flooding)
If you removed only the mechanics of the filters, you still have F / 5.6, and at 5.6 the lens is very sharp.
If you slammed the diaphragm and the sharpness turned out to be higher - I ask for a photo with a fully open pupil and the inter-lens distance between the front and rear lens units, if possible ...
Sorry, when typing, I pressed a certain key combination and sent it without completing it - continued below. I don’t have a lens at hand, my parents have it in another city, next weekend, if I don’t forget, I’ll take examples of photos.
Here I took pictures on the missing diaphragm. Sharpness can be said to exist, but there is no contrast, any kind of flare is contraindicated. These are pictures from Donkey omdem5mk2 - crop factor 2, developed by RawTherapee. Sharpening off, contrast at zero, exposure compensation, lanczos resize:
https://pp.vk.me/c631829/v631829225/2d662/sUbFRf8qgWA.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c631829/v631829225/2d64e/1u8jnIlXjvI.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c631829/v631829225/2d658/E1LIFG_RV3A.jpg
Well, I must say that if you tighten the contrast and sharpness, it will be quite tolerable. But this lens is not worth investing, to be honest.
* flooding the frame). I also removed the diaphragm, but my "count" fluctuates between 2.8 and 3.5 open. I will put the diaphragm from PO2-2, which is against fungus, to the greatest regret. The focuser has not yet invented, and has not yet decided whether it is necessary at all. The lens is afraid of flare, but is generally sharp. On an open aperture with a remote block of the aperture, the softness, yes, but as if not as in the review. On the covered ones it is very sharp.
With regards to “before such garbage as cutting an object from a photographic enlarger in terms of issuing as a“ megaportretnik ”, none of the sane was involved” - but people were engaged in all kinds of garbage at all times. Another thing is that professionals will not do this because it is not so convenient when there are good tools at hand for reasonable money, which are pleasant to work with and which give the expected result. Professionals have no time to tinker with old junk, they have to work.
From the point of view of amateurs, many are engaged in this. Now this is interesting because almost everyone can afford a technically high-quality photo, now you can’t stand out for it, now to stand out you need to make a technically low-quality photo and call it artistically high-quality. Although it must be admitted that in all these old lenses there is some spirit of the times. Especially in bw, because with colors, the revelry of old lenses is not weak.
Uh, not nuado here on PO2-2 ... The fungus is treated with an enzyme: buy chymotrypsin, dissolve in a soda solution with pH = 8-9 and go! And your fungus is gone!
Alas, you can kill the fungus (trypsin is unlikely, it affects something else), but not traces of its vital activity, like destroyed enlightenment. And if it has grown into the gluing of the lenses, then prayer will not help either.
I found my RO in a container that my father brought from work a long time ago in oil with a bunch of mechanical glands. His front lens was worn out and the rear lens was worn out, the fungus ate the gluing 2/3 in front and a third in the back, the diaphragm ring was adhered tightly to the body, and the diaphragm itself was rusted in places. The picture is wadded if there is at least some brightly lit object in the frame. Even if the fungus is stopped, the cobweb that it has formed cannot be removed by anything - but it is it that scatters the backlight. In general, getting something intelligible from it is very problematic, almost like a monocle turns out. But judging by the examples of the photo, the lens is fire, especially the PO2-2M with some kind of cool enlightenment. I just want it. And focal 75 is good for crop and 4/3.
take mikra better than ro3-3m, with this crop an excellent portraiture will be.
I just have a RO3-3M and it’s very good, only in the open it’s very cottony! RO2-2M for crop 1.5-1.6 is best as a portrait, well, it’ll go to mikru. But they have a native 75 1.8 portrait. Many only ask for him.
In any case, such reviews are more catchy than, for example, my lengthy review SMC Pentax-DA L 1: 4-5.6 18-50mm DC WR RE.
Rodion, thanks for the review! A manual lens, and even more so a hand-made one, is a lens with a soul. Native glasses are, of course, wonderful and convenient. But no, no, and you will shake off the dust from the same helios over which you conjured, fighting for infinity!
Hmm, opinions are very divided. I would not want to participate in the squabbles, I just want to thank Rodion for the material, it was very interesting to read. I myself had to pick old lenses, for the most part unsuccessfully, but those that worked out were still lying around idle. And all because it is more pleasant to use normal glasses, especially native ones, especially if they are. Alterations, as a rule, are forgotten after cooling off from first impressions.
In short, I liked the article, I hope Rodion will continue to please with interesting material, but the result was not impressive. This does not mean that it is bad, just one likes borsch, and the other is a pig cartilage. You will not please everyone
Glory to the crazy hands! Not everyone is allowed to kulibnichat on his knees.
Bokeh is very spectacular, but sometimes it attracts attention. Involuntarily, the look slides precisely on the bokeh.
You need to look at such glass and try to work.
Photo docs, sorry for the expression. The next step will be to take out the diffuser of the headlights of the VAZ 2101 and cut out the soft filter from it for this craft. But what, but there is something to do instead of photography
I will throw an idea, try to shoot through the fresnel lens.
Canon 75-300 DO is already a button accordion. There is just a diffractive element - the same Fresnel.
No, I'm not talking about this, but about that garbage that is glued to the rear window of the car.
Fish from the peephole, why not. It will be very extraordinary
There is a good proverb: "If you don't like it, don't eat it!"
No one here wanted to surprise anyone. The man told how he made real glass for photographing with his own hands. At the same time, he does not extol him as a legendary and super-duper.
And shit - you don't need a lot of mind. Enough PMS at the wrong time.
Your comments are thoughtful like a toilet.
And your literate, dear friend
It happened before -)
This is on iPhones now door eyes catch on clothespins)))
The lens is nice, but not practical)))
The picture, indeed, is interesting - like they were filming through the water. Thanks for the review
Thanks to Rodion for the review! Personally, I was interested to read and see what happened in the end result :)
You should not criticize a person for trying to make something out of junk absolutely unsuitable for photography, he himself does not even know what the result will be at the “exit”.
It's time to create a subsection on Radozhiv: “Crazy Hands” xDDD
Thanks again!
One reader of Radozhivy sent me a bunch of photo-enlarging medium formatters free of charge, because they were idle. Well, I don't have them lying around. Once I took it, it means I have to do it.
An interesting lens came out. It's a pity, my hands are growing out of the wrong place, and I don't have time at all to finish the old glass. Thank you for the people who do this and share information with colleagues in misfortune :) The box is quite interesting, so sharp, ragged, just unusual. I already have a lot of glasses with normal bokeh, but not enough with unusual ones. Well, there are stars, there are saws because of the diaphragm, bagels on the mirror lens. And such an unusual bokeshka would come in handy for the collection. It is clear that the lens is far from modern lenses, but still an interesting job. I would like to see such alterations more often on joy - I'm sure many people sitting here make all sorts of such unusual things. So share, friends, readers will be interested!
Those who wish may exist, BUT they still do not sell umbrellas from slippers (and you can’t do it yourself). Ryska comes with the company and spit out.
Well, on the one hand, singers sing not for everyone, but for those who like it. Many people hate Timati and nevertheless he sings and gathers stadiums :) So here, there are those who are interested, there are those who do not care, but you need to write for the first. Well, on the other hand, the Lynx spoke about the lens itself, expressed only its personal opinion. To the author of the review or the text of the questions especially and no one has. And about the fact that the lens by most of the formal parameters was not written by the owner himself.
I agree with the Pastor. I respect such caring people. Rodion, thanks.
test cat)))
there is something in the glass, its own character or something, I think it's just not a very successful specimen ...
the cat is from Lynx ...
Rodion - thanks for the interesting work!
I myself am also interested in altering old "glasses" for modern cameras.
Thanks to the author for the work - it's interesting to read.
As for the lens, the game was not worth the candle in terms of both usability and the end result. But until you do it and test it - do you know about it? As they say: a negative result is also a result.
That's how it is - you can't do it, you don't know.
However, I liked the lens because of its unusualness, it was adopted for service)
Amen!