Silly quiz: what's this Trioplan alternative?
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:48 pm Post subject: Silly quiz: what's this Trioplan alternative?
In the last days i've been pleasantly surprised by the wonderful rendition of an humble, not so expensive alternative to the much hyped (and ridicously expensive) Meyer Trioplan.
I'm linking 3 casual shots, which unfortunately don't show the forte of this lens: OOF redition (bokeh) and smooth, plastic transition between the areas which are in-focus and those which are not.
Other cameras: Leica CL, Leica M5, Rolleiflex, Mamiya Super 23, Horizont, and many bellows cameras from 4x5" to 8x10"
What's really amazing about this lens is the very forgiving rendition when the right focus is missed.
There are lenses that are exactly the opposite: if focusing is slightly off, the picture goes straight to the recycling bin!
In the picture of the female singer, focusing is clearly off, but at a reasonable enlargement the picture is still half decent.
With my K-01 i have to enlarge the image in the monitor, cause at default magnification it always looks in focus, unless it's way, way off!
I use the lens wide open, or stopped down half a stop.
I'm amazed by the results, but it's still too early to nail all the pros and cons of this objective.
the beauty ring looks very much Meyer-style. It even has the red "V" that used to mean "coated" in Meyer lenses.
Either made by Meyer for Feinmess, or just a copycat. Anybody's got a clue?
I don't see how it is like the Triotar at all.
Images I can find taken wide open don't show much resemblance to the Triotar's signature boke' effect.
Every Triplet not equal Meyer Trioplan 100mm , not even other Meyer Trioplans are equal with it.
Try this Bonotar on same way how Trioplan pros handle lens and cross your fingers to have same effect.
I doubt really it will perform on same way, but who knows let we see it.
I have this lens and it does NOT give Trioplan bubble bokeh - perhaps if it opened to f2.8 it might. It is though, surprisingly sharp and can produce quite pleasant smooth bokeh.
I didn't mention the bubble bokeh, cause i shot few pictures, and none in a condition that would allow to evidence such behavior.
Now i learn that it is not possible. I'm happy with the results, though. Surprisingly sharp, smooth bokeh, and plastic transition between OOF and in-focus planes.
The observation that other Trioplans might behave differently from the 100mm one caught my attention.
I have two 50mm f/2,9 set in #00 leaf shutter, for which i still have to find a suitable focusing helicoid (i will experiment with them soon!), but i own all the Trioplan for large format from 210mm to 360mm, excluding the super expensive soft focus one. I don't remember much bubble bokeh... Maybe i never tried to go after that kind of optical signature, i used them for portraits, mainly with a backdrop not far behind.
For some reason i'm led to believe that they are different animals, though.
I'd love to know more from those who had the time, and the chance, to experiment.
- how is the Trioplan 50mm f/2,9?
- if the Bonotar is uncorked, with iris removed and max aperture brought to f/2,8, would the aberrations start to kick in, making it more similar to the 100mm Trioplan?
if the Bonotar is uncorked, with iris removed and max aperture brought to f/2,8, would the aberrations start to kick in, making it more similar to the 100mm Trioplan?
The optics determine the max aperture, so fiddling with the iris would not increase it - if you look through the lens at wide open, the iris is completely retracted.
I think the 100mm f2.8 Trioplan was rather ambitious, speed wise, and the currently desirable abberations were probably ignored.
The very cheap and available Domiplan 50mm is a triplet design and shows the same bubbles - just smaller because of the focal length. I have one being delivered shortly and wonder if a 2x teleconverter would make it more Trioplan like in the size of the bubbles.
I have never convinced myself that there is anything inherent in the triplet design that causes this bubble effect. There are lots of references to "over-corrected spherical abberation" on the internet, without any argument or evidence. I have a Fujinon 55mm f2.2 that produces bubbles, but it is an odd Unar design.
Now that is interesting............cheap lens and cheap teleconverter giving results people pay $$$$ for.
I didn't yet try it myself. The effective lensopening is reduced to 5.6.
I wanted to try with a AF 1.4x TC, but the Domiplan doesn't fit properly on that one.
The teleconverter used is not a very cheap model, but the Vivitar 2x macro teleconverter.
That one means a better MFD too for the Domiplan!
So I have to find my Vivitar TC, somewhere in a box.
I have an M42 TC somewhere I think. The Vivitar MC are cheap enough on Ebay so I might get one anyway so I can try with my Fujinon 55 at the same time.
Maybe, maybe not. That picture could be a strong crop. I can test this.
Any lenses from a box camera are likely to give different bokeh results from their SLR versions. I do have Altix mount 2.9/50 and it produces wonderful bokeh, but of course smaller than the 100mm. I have 3.5/75 box camera lens that I have yet to properly test for bokeh, but is reasonably sharp. I also have Domiplan and while it can give bubbles, minimum focus distance is longer, which interferes, and getting a good copy is a crap shoot. 2.8/50 Tessar can do it too, but in my opinion 50mm Trioplan does the bubbles better. So does Primoplan, but for much more money.
Probably you mean "under-corrected spherical aberration"!
Before writing my post i didn't take a close look at the Bonotar.
Probably you're right, there isn't much to gain removing the iris and milling as wide as possible the plane where the diaphragm blades are sitting.
This is NOT a rule, though.
I've seen countless lenses that allowed "uncorking", gaining as much as two stops.
One very famous example is how early 20th century japanese pictorialists made use of the meniscus lens of the Kodak Vest Pocket Autographic.
The stop was placed in front of the optic, greatly reducing the lens speed. Removing that "cap" the aberrations kicked on, and the results, with such a primitive lens, where pretty amazing!
All the old lenses with "waterhouse" stops were on average one stop slower than the speed allowed by the geometry of the optic, leaving the lens with no stop inserted.
Even some modern lenses have a "restriction" at the diaphragm's plane, thus allowing to gain some speed removing the blades and milling the aperture as wide as possible. Even a half stop increase in speed would lead to a visible increase in spherical aberration.
Non achromatic lenses would also show chromatic aberration. Back in the days of big analog negatives, the difference between "optical" and "chemical" focus required a lot of experience (focusing, then moving the back standard the right amount).
Now, with live view, what you see is what you get.
That's why i'm impatient to build a contraption to mount my Capi Amateur Plasticca 150mm soft-focus meniscus lens on my K-01.
I find the Pentacon 80mm 2.8 projection does it easier and better.
As most of things in this world, the huge market price difference has a reason. Bonotar 105 is not Trioplan 100 and I am eager to see the world's first really good creative Bonotar photo (that is certainly not present in this thread), not just normal, or above average, I mean truly asskicking!
A high number of creative experienced bokeh wise photographers using Trioplan 100 is not a coincidence, there is just something little bit extra on Trioplan, something that many people does not see or recognize but type of photographers that Attila spoke about does. Just see Trioplan photos at Juzaphoto, or Flickr Hive Mind, to name a few good sources. Even a rough Flickr comparison of these two does speak for itself. There is just something creatively "over the TOP" that Trioplan 100 offers that pushes it so far from mediocre vintage lenses affordable for average prices, capable of average, decent (often good or very good depending on the author) results. And this "Trioplans' extra 10%" are exactly what does make a price tag difference.
There is just something creatively "over the TOP" that Trioplan 100 offers that pushes it so far from mediocre vintage lenses affordable for average prices, capable of average, decent (often good or very good depending on the author) results. And this "Trioplans' extra 10%" are exactly what does make a price tag difference.
In hindsight, i should have used the word "Triplet with smooth bokeh" instead of "Trioplan".
By the way, not all the pictures shot with a "real" Trioplan show it. You must have highlights in the background, and they should be completely out of focus.
I saw the silly quiz as a funny way to start the thread, but what made eager to share my experience was the result of a quick and dirty comparation between a few lenses i've recently acquired.
I have been deeply surprised by what i found.
I liked the Bonotar more than all the others!
One of the lenses was a like new CZJ Sonnar MC auto 200mm f/2,8, in M42 mount (made for 35mm and probably way better than the 180mm for Pentacon Six).
The Sonnar is sharp, really sharp, but the purple fringing is terrible. One of the worst fringing i've ever seen!
It's a lens that commands a high price, in as new condition and complete of everything.
All in all, taking into account all the variables, the Bonotar was the lens that surprised me the most, in a very positive way. It has no weak spots whatsoever. Only a rather uninpressive max aperture.
It was also the second cheapest, which explains my enthusiasm.
I hope i've made my original post easier to understand.
Btw, owning a 210mm, 240mm, 270mm, 300mm and 360mm Trioplan for large format, what i remember of them is the smooth, pleasant transition between in-focus and OOF planes. No bubble bokeh with a backdrop, but with a 360mm you focus for the closest pupil, and you get the ear out of focus... that's why i still remember how they rendered the OOF areas.
The pictures i posted are casual snapshots, taken to test the lenses (still better than photographing a newspaper, IMHO).
Two were especially chosen because faulty. One is out of focus, and the B&W was badly overexposed (i forgot to set flash compensation).
Why choose faulty pictures? I wanted to show how forgiving the Bonotar is. Impressive.
If anybody got curious about the impressions i had from my quick & dirty comparative, some lenses were a true disappointment. Being mostly rather long teles, i won't name names until i've shot some more pics with a good tripod.
On the positive side, i name two lenses.
One is a Steinheil-made Sonnar type (Auto-D-Tele-Quinar f/3,5 135mm). Superbly made, super easy to clean without tools, very sharp.
The other is a Soligor f/3,5 35mm made by Kyoei Acall. Maybe the best single-coated 35mm i ever tried.
As most of things in this world, the huge market price difference has a reason.
Lots of hype on internet forums, usually. The trioplan does one thing well, it makes bubble bokeh. That is the only reason I brought it up. If one wants that, then that's the lens to have. If one just wants a good short tele, they'd be better off buying a T mount Soligor, or any number of other lenses that are better in most every respect compared to the Trioplan. In fact, in most instances, the distracting bokeh of the trioplan hinders the composition of photos.
What is that? I'm not familiar.
All leaf shutters have a back thread, for the retaining flange.
Long time ago, i found from a chinese Ebay vendor a cheap adapter ring that allows to adapt the back thread of a #00 shutter to Leica M39 screw mount.
With the addition of a thin M39 to M42 ring you can fit a #00 shutter on a M42 bellows/tubes.
I'm afraid i won't get infinity using a conventional bellows. All my bellows should be too thick, even fully retracted.
That's why i need a very small focusing helicoid.
Maybe a mini-bellows, one of those which fold almost flat, would do the trick, but i don't have one.
If you plan use the lens on a SLR, it may reach infinity if you you attach it to the camera with the adapter only(there is flange-less M25 to M42 adapter like this one Click here to see on Ebay).
M25 is the folding camera lens thread?
The threads is located under the shutter. You can see it when you remove the shutter from the camera.
ok, inspired by this thread i tested both today.