Bokeh hounds, do not read this thread..... Gear Porn!

[jcdeboever]

Blade count accuracy cannot be guaranteed to be =>15, but here goes:

Tair 135/2.8 11A
Pentacon 135/2.8
Jupiter 9 85/2
Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Meyer Telemegor 180/5.5
Vivitar-Komine Tele 200/3.5
Schneider Componar 75/4.5
Apos Elgeet Colorstigmat 90/4.5
Novoflex Noflexar 105/3.5
Ilex Solar Anastigmat 140/4.5
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 162/4.5
Wollensak Enlarging Velostigmat 182/4.5
Eastman Projection Anastigmat 190/4.5
Steinheil Culminar VL 105/4.5
Steinheil Culminar VL 135/4.5
Meyer Orestegor 300/4
Schacht Travegar 100 /3.3
Koki Tele-Tokina 135/2.8
Soligor 350/5.6
Zeiss Biotar 58/2
Novoflex Noflexar 600/8
Takumar 300/4

Thanks Sparky!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[480sparky]

I'd be interested in knowing what the proper is if it's not any trouble.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

KP-A/N Adapter Mount for "A" lens to Nikon camera (or Kiev 19, Sigma) - BR.NEW!

 

[jcdeboever]

I'd be interested in knowing what the proper is if it's not any trouble.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

KP-A/N Adapter Mount for "A" lens to Nikon camera (or Kiev 19, Sigma) - BR.NEW!

Thanks!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

I wonder how these would do on a mirrorless. Hmmm...

I actually got it to mount on my a6000 more than the D610.

 

[Braineack]

 

[480sparky]

So I take it you're comparing the Tair to a 70-200 @135mm?

 

[Braineack]

Yeah. You can see how better the tair blends the background.

using tapatalk.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'd be interested in knowing what the proper is if it's not any trouble.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

KP-A/N Adapter Mount for "A" lens to Nikon camera (or Kiev 19, Sigma) - BR.NEW!

Will I be able to use a M42 lens on my D3300 with this? I have an opportunity to get a Vivitar Komine 135 2.8 preset, 15/blade iris.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[480sparky]

I'd be interested in knowing what the proper is if it's not any trouble.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

KP-A/N Adapter Mount for "A" lens to Nikon camera (or Kiev 19, Sigma) - BR.NEW!

Will I be able to use a M42 lens on my D3300 with this? I have an opportunity to get a Vivitar Komine 135 2.8 preset, 15/blade iris.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No. The mount is designed for converting an A mount lens. There are no threads on the lens, just a rim designed to accept an A-mount adapter.

You can get M42 → Nikon F adapters. I don't know if they will maintain infinity focus without glass.

 

[Derrel]

So I take it you're comparing the Tair to a 70-200 @135mm?

DSC_4247 has ugly, nervous bokeh; so does DSC_4251; shot DSC_4260 shows very poor lens performance. This is what I think of when I think of DDR-era (Germany Democratic Republic) and Soviet-era lenses....that awful, circular bokeh, sometimes called "swirly" bokeh by manual focus lens users. I'm not sure what lens shot what photos, but 4247 and 4251 are not "good" bokeh.

The number of blades is not really ANY guarantee of good bokeh; the best bokeh lenses are Nikkors with 9 blades...85/1.4 AF-D, 105/2 AF-D, 135/2 AF Defocus Control, and 200/2 VR and 300/2.8. A goods number of lenses with aspherical; element designs give poorer bokeh than spherical element lenses.

***This Fotodiox M32 thread mount to Nikon F mount adapter claims to allow infinity focusing. Fotodiox makes some good adapters, in my experience. I have several from them. This one's design is different from many other M42 to F-mount adapters:

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Thread-F-Mount-Camera/dp/B003Y2ZESE

 

[480sparky]

DSC_4247 has ugly, nervous bokeh; so does DSC_4251; shot DSC_4260 shows very poor lens performance. This is what I think of when I think of DDR-era (Germany Democratic Republic) and Soviet-era lenses....that awful, circular bokeh, sometimes called "swirly" bokeh by manual focus lens users. I'm not sure what lens shot what photos, but 4247 and 4251 are not "good" bokeh.........

The lens info is included with all the images. According to you, neither lens produces "good" bokeh. Yet bokeh is usually considered an 'artistic' quality, one that generally cannot be quantified.

 

[Derrel]

Bokeh can easily be described, compared, and evaluated. All it takes is experience, and visual taste. Nervous, ugly, swirly bokeh is the province of the former communist-era lenses, especially the junk made in the DDR. Some people think that's good bokeh, just as some people think Night Train is good wine.

Here's a good article to get people started. This is only one of many articles about bokeh on the web, but this has a nice comparison of various lenses on the SAME, EXACT scene, shot under the same light, same session. Rick did a great job on this article.

Kiev Cameras

The idea that bokeh cannot be differentiated is the kind of argument I expect from somebody who is not really all that interested in bokeh's nuances. We cannot "quantify" the degree of ugliness in a woman or a dog or a boat--but we ALL can differentiate between an ugly woman, and ugly boat, and an ugly dog. But I give you points for trying.

I scrolled the photos "up to the top" and held a magazine below, so I would not see the EXIF bars, so as not to influence my opinion; I actually know how to evaluate images and NOT leave influencing Data right in plain site, and I'm a little bit surprised you didn't deduce that there's ,a dead-simple way to NOT see potentially influencing information. (That's part of of trying to evaluate things fairly...not by lens-owner bias...not by EXIF data, but by what the pictures actually show and contain.) I've been on the web since the mid-1990's...

 

[Braineack]

For me, I simply wanted a 135mm, and maybe something with a little character, but this $175 lens was better than spending $1200 on a DC.

I haven't been able to do a ton of shooting or comparing yet, what I posted I quickly did in my backyard. It's been like living in Seattle here the last two weeks so no good weather to go out and do anything.

 

[480sparky]

Bokeh can easily be described, compared, and evaluated. All it takes is experience, and visual taste..............

Thanks for making my point.