p.1 #1 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
Hi All,
I have been collecting a bunch of lenses that were used for TV projection and other applications and been modifying them to fit both my Canon 5D and also my Leica R8. These lenses can make some pretty wonderful, soft macro images and work well with flowers, etc. In the past I have both posted and seen a few other references to these on the Alternative forum, but not a bunch all put together at once for easy comparison. I have more than 8 of these but only 5 fit the canon. I'm going to put the data first and then a link to a web gallery of about 70 photos taken with the lenses with the hope that this is useful to someone out there. So I have decided to keep only one of these guys...If you were me which one would you keep?
Here's the list:
Kowa 65mm f/.75 focal distance on Canon 5D body about 5 inches
Rodenstock 83mm f/2 focal distance on Canon 5D about 35 inches
Rodenstock TV Heligon 50mm f/.75 focal distance on Canon 5D 4 inches
Rodenstock XR Heligon 75mm f/1.1 focal distance on Canon 5D 8 inches
Rodenstock XR Heligon 68mm f na focal distance on Canon 5D 9.5 inches
I shot a few different subjects with each of the lenses that were conveniently located in my kitchen. Peony flowers and buds, brass faucet knobs, frying pan screen, block of cheese...well basic stuff and nothing fancy but you can get an idea of what these lenses are capable of. The turn banal objects into mysterious beautiful objects d'art! Hope this is informative. Oh and since someone might wonder, its easy to fit these things to the Canon bodies by just cutting the right size hole in a canon body cap and sticking the lens in there. You have to make the hole tight enough that it will hold the lens.
p.1 #2 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
I think the effect you're seeing might be the lens axis not being oriented at 90 degrees to the plane of the sensor. Any lens could achieve this effect if tilted.
p.1 #3 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
The effect is caused by very shallow depth of field and has nothing to do with tilt. I like the effect for certain types of images. I have been exploring which of these types of lenses produces the nicest image.
p.1 #5 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
I agree.. they are pretty dang fuzzy..
Why go through all the trouble when you can the same effect in a couple clicks in PS.?
Hope you had fun in any case
Snook
p.1 #6 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
Daniel,
With some of the lenses you can move them in or out a few mm...more for me as I have cut the mirror on my 5D. Moving them in will put the focal distance out some, but its a small amount. You can achieve a few degrees of tilt which is sometimes more useful.
Snook,
If you are really good you might be able to do this in PS but I really doubt it. There's more going on than just blur. And I have did have fun. These are only samples to give people an idea of what's possible - I have some really nice images from several of these optics. I never post my good images here or elsewhere. I tried to take a look at what you are shooting but your www link is broken.
In general, I have been really surprised by the lack of interest in these optics. However, on reflection of what I mostly read here it makes sense since so much of the posts in the alternative thread are only concerned with sharpness and technical stuff rather than what makes a beautiful composition or what sells prints. These lenses show that there are many ways to achieve a beautiful image and trust me, images made from these optics do sell prints - way more than a sharp picture of the same subject. Outside of the Alternative forum where MTFs and pixel peeping are unknown concepts, the soft blurry images are considered beautiful and the sharp technical images taken with the priority to show off the technical qualities of an optic are often found pointless.
p.1 #7 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
EricH wrote:
In general, I have been really surprised by the lack of interest in these optics. However, on reflection of what I mostly read here it makes sense since so much of the posts in the alternative thread are only concerned with sharpness and technical stuff rather than what makes a beautiful composition or what sells prints.
Guilty as charged! I've about zero interest in selling prints and could care less about what other people like compositionally. It only matters if I like it. ....maybe that's why I don't sell anything. You're pictures are quite nice though, and it's always fun to experiment as long as it doesn't cost a mint.
p.1 #8 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
These lenses are probably the cheapest I have bought. You can get any of them for les than $100 with the exception of the rodenstock 75mm f/1.1 which commands slightly higher prices like $150. Sometimes you can find them on ebay for a song. And the body caps are like $4 so its really not expensive.
p.1 #9 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
EricH wrote:
In general, I have been really surprised by the lack of interest in these optics. However, on reflection of what I mostly read here it makes sense since so much of the posts in the alternative thread are only concerned with sharpness and technical stuff rather than what makes a beautiful composition or what sells prints. These lenses show that there are many ways to achieve a beautiful image and trust me, images made from these optics do sell prints - way more than a sharp picture of the same subject. Outside of the Alternative forum where MTFs and pixel peeping are unknown concepts, the soft blurry images are considered beautiful and the sharp technical images taken with the priority to show off the technical qualities of an optic are often found pointless....Show more →
eh, I don't think that's true. To me, I don't really like macro type shooting, and that's all these lenses seem to do, so it doesn't interest me. There isn't really a lot of discussion around here about macro stuff, so my guess is that most folks are like me, and don't really have an interest in close focusing! Hence, the reason I asked you if it could be rigged to focus farther out! If it could focus like 2-3 meters out, that could get interesting! (in my opinion anyway)
And you aren't the first to try lenses like these, among others, I believe Blair Bunting did some work with these fast aperture 'copying' lenses a few years back. So it's nothing wild and completely brand new that we haven't seen before (not saying the images don't look good though!)
to try an sum us all up as folks who care more about sharp images than a good photo, is just not accurate. You see a lot of talk about image sharpness, because this is a very gear oriented forum! Not because we don't care about anything else, but because sharpness and optical quality is something that is a trait of the lens, composition and a good photograph has nothing to do with the lens! So in my opitnion, you are either very short sighted in your opinion of us, or you are just out to make trouble
p.1 #10 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
Daniel,
Well I see a lot of macro images on the alternative image thread.... so for each his own. Just trying to help people with the information on focus distance, and sample images. If it doesn't help you don't knock it as it might still be useful for others. I don't see what your intent of your post is. You have made a number of wrong assumptions in any case and I think you shouldn't speak as if you represent all members here.
As for focusing further out and still having very shallow DOF, its harder to do because the DOF increases with focal distance as you may or may not know. But there are many ways. Search here for my posts or via google for kodak meniscus lenses. There is a great article on a home made optic called the Cyclops on the alternative process board. Don't have the link handy but you can find via google if interested.
Blair Bunting did not pave the way, but only profited from it. He never provided any information such as how to fit the lenses or focal distances for example. I actually bought my first lens from him, then realized the same could be had on ebay for only a tiny fraction of the cost. Of course I am not the only one that has experimented with these lenses. If you do a google search there are many sites detailing the use of these lenses going back a ways.
p.1 #11 · Fast glass tests and images, Rodenstock and Kowa
what wrong assumptions have I made?
I'm sorry I posted in your thread, I didn't knock you, your lenses, or your techniques. Just trying to explain the reason that I thought folks were not crazy over the results. (you seemed to be wondering why folks weren't really that interested?) Not sure of a better way I could have said that?
I didn't say Blair "paved the way", I said you weren't the first and he had done something like this a while back (my mistake if that came across as him being the 'first'). And that maybe this was part of the reason you weren't finding folks to be more into the technique, because folks have seen it before?
I did, however, take a little bit of offense at your comment that we seem to be not interested in composition, 'beautiful images' and are only concerned with sharpness and MTF charts. I apologize if this was not your intent.
At any rate, no hard feelings? It's difficult to convey thoughts over the internet with just text.
I've about zero interest in selling prints and could care less about what other people like compositionally. It only matters if I like it. ....maybe that's why I don't sell anything. 
You're pictures are quite nice though, and it's always fun to experiment as long as it doesn't cost a mint.