SteveCampbell Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 During a recent shoot I briefly swapped on some UV lenses for some experimental photos. While the shutter speeds make it incredibly difficult to get a clear image, the resulting images have a quite interesting look. I used a Zeiss Biotar 2/58 and a Kodak Ektanar 2.8/127 triplet projection lens +UG11/BG39. The lens choice was aimed primarily at creative rendering. This was before I got my Meyer Diaplan 2.8/150 and ISCO 2.1/120, so no shots with those ones. Next time. Model: Damien Sato Zeiss Biotar 2/58 Zeiss Biotar 2/58 Zeiss Biotar 2/58 Zeiss Biotar 2/58 Kodak Ektanar 2.8/127 Kodak Ektanar 2.8/127 projection Link to comment
dabateman Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Your last image I really like. Interesting results, and I am not a big bokeh donut fan. Link to comment
SteveCampbell Posted September 14, 2018 Author Share Posted September 14, 2018 Your last image I really like. Interesting results, and I am not a big bokeh donut fan. Thank youThe curious thing is that the edges of the bubble-bokeh are much thicker in ultraviolet on the 2.8/127. In visible light they have a more classic Trioplan-like shape. Link to comment
eye4invisible Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Some great shots, Steve! Do you have a Helios 44-2 (which is supposedly a Biotar copy) and if so, how does it stack up with UV versus the Zeiss? Link to comment
SteveCampbell Posted September 14, 2018 Author Share Posted September 14, 2018 Some great shots, Steve! Do you have a Helios 44-2 (which is supposedly a Biotar copy) and if so, how does it stack up with UV versus the Zeiss? Hey thanks Andy! I have an early 13-blade M39 Helios 44, initially hoping it would have good UV performance due to it being an earlier model. However, it unfortunately performs relatively poorly compared with the Biotar - so much so that I don't consider it usable for UV. This was somewhat surprising considering their very similar design, but understandable considering the significant differences in Soviet and German glass/coatings at the time. Even the Biotar performs about 1-stop slower than the Steinheil 2.8/50 at comparable apertures, although the 1-stop faster maximum aperture on the Biotar compensates in terms of usability. I only chose the Biotar over the Steinheil here on account of the crazy swirly bokeh. I recently listed some other lens comparisons here Link to comment
eye4invisible Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 I recently listed some other lens comparisons hereOh, I have the Pentacon AV f/2.8 80mm projection lens! Looks like I need try some UV with it. Link to comment
SteveCampbell Posted September 15, 2018 Author Share Posted September 15, 2018 Oh, I have the Pentacon AV f/2.8 80mm projection lens! Looks like I need try some UV with it. The Pentacon AV 2.8/80 was a happy discovery of mine! As you might have seen in my original post, my adaptation uses 52->43mm and 43->52mm rings, and a M52 36-90mm helicoid. Link to comment
eye4invisible Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 The Pentacon AV 2.8/80 was a happy discovery of mine! As you might have seen in my original post, my adaptation uses 52->43mm and 43->52mm rings, and a M52 36-90mm helicoid.Bought mine off of ebay, already converted to M42 mount, with a 42mm filter thread attached. Just needed to get a step up ring to attach my 52mm filters. Link to comment
SteveCampbell Posted September 17, 2018 Author Share Posted September 17, 2018 Bought mine off of ebay, already converted to M42 mount, with a 42mm filter thread attached. Just needed to get a step up ring to attach my 52mm filters. Nicely doneAll you need to do is give the step up ring a good push into the front and it'll stick there securely Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted September 23, 2018 Share Posted September 23, 2018 I'm late to the topic but wanted to add that I like the first & last photos. Especially the last. I was just looking at the photography used in the advertising in Vanity Fair* magazine. An ad for Georgio Armani pushed the usual limits. The photo appeared to be a deliberate long exposure during which a physical bump created some edge doubling.** The focus was soft and might have even been deliberately OOF. The ad also featured some underexposure and shadowing. Usually it is the models' "look" or their poses which are the extreme in high fashion photos. But in this case it was the photograph itself which had unusual aspects. I suppose my rambling point here is that I can certainly see a very valid use of interesting lenses which produce bubble bokeh or other effects in these kinds of modeling or advertising photos. The effects do catch one's attention -- which must make advertisers happy. :D *Don't know if you have that mag in Aus, but it is an intresting combo of serious journalism and what can only be called fluff. **Of course, many things like this are also possible in photoshop. Link to comment
SteveCampbell Posted September 25, 2018 Author Share Posted September 25, 2018 I'm late to the topic but wanted to add that I like the first & last photos. Especially the last. I was just looking at the photography used in the advertising in Vanity Fair* magazine. An ad for Georgio Armani pushed the usual limits. The photo appeared to be a deliberate long exposure during which a physical bump created some edge doubling.** The focus was soft and might have even been deliberately OOF. The ad also featured some underexposure and shadowing. Usually it is the models' "look" or their poses which are the extreme in high fashion photos. But in this case it was the photograph itself which had unusual aspects. I suppose my rambling point here is that I can certainly see a very valid use of interesting lenses which produce bubble bokeh or other effects in these kinds of modeling or advertising photos. The effects do catch one's attention -- which must make advertisers happy. :D *Don't know if you have that mag in Aus, but it is an intresting combo of serious journalism and what can only be called fluff. **Of course, many things like this are also possible in photoshop. Yup, great magazine for the photography. They always manage to hire the bbes. I actually have a massive folder on my computer with an archive of Vanity Fair covers going back decades for inspiration. The bubble bokeh effect seems to have it's place, but it seems to only be used for macro photography at the moment. I'm experimenting with using a medium-format Praktisix camera with B&W film and the Meyer Diaplan 2.8/150 bubble bokeh projection lens + helicoid I posted about before. Once I fix up the camera a bit I'll try to get some post-able results. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now