Spiratone Catalog from 1966
Photo Courtesy of Mark Black
Related Links:
240mm f/1.2 Superfast Lens for Pentax67
(thanks to Niall Syms) [6/2001]
These third party lenses are just plain weird. That makes them fun and interesting to learn about, and a possibly unique solution to some of your photography problems too.
You have to admit that a T-mount fisheye lens is pretty weird, especially in an odd focal length such as 12mm. Better yet, it is not a full-frame fisheye, nor is it a circular fisheye. It is a vignetting fisheye, meaning it clips the corners of your image on 35mm.
Not weird enough for you yet? How about the fact that this 12mm lens lacks a focusing mechanism. To focus closer than 3 feet, you simply loosen the T-mount adapter and unscrew the lens forward.
Still unconvinced? How about the fact that this lens does not have a lens diaphragm to vary the f/stop? Instead, there is a wheel that you rotate that has a series of fixed size holes drilled into it. Remember Waterhouse stops? When was the last time you saw Waterhouse stops used on a 35mm SLR lens?
Admit it. This 12mm T-mount fisheye lens is just plain weird!
The idea behind a T-mount lens is that you can share it between different camera systems, simply by using a low-cost T-mount adapter ($10 US up used). Because a T-mount is just a mechanical mounting adapter, there is no diaphragm automation in these lenses.
Besides the 12mm fisheye, there was also a rarer 7.5mm (or 8mm) circular fisheye also produced in a T-mount. This circular fisheye lens cost only $69.95 (1970), used a preset diaphragm, and ranged from f/5.6 to f/45!
Now if you know fisheye lenses, you know that the depth of field at f/5.6 was from "a few inches to infinity". Stopping down to f/45 increased that depth of field from just about the front surface of the lens to infinity! Now admit it, that's pretty weird too!
You can find these 12mm lenses under the Accura or Spiratone brand names from the late 1960s ads. I am told that they were some of the early efforts by Sigma in ultra-wide angle lenses, but can't confirm that.
The 12mm fisheye typically listed for $225 US new but sold for around $100 US, with T-mount and unique circular lens cap. Today, you can still buy them on the used market for $100 US or so, when you can find them. I see a few 12mm lenses a year offered for sale. An even cheaper 8mm f5.6 T-mount was only $70 list new, selling for $45 in 1969. Today, these weird third party T-mount 8mm f/5.6 fisheyes command over $200 US premiums (see postings below). But then, have you priced any 8mm fisheye primes lately (hint: checkout Sigma's 8mm f/4).
Fisheye lenses are fun, and the distortion of these lenses just adds to the fun of using them. The clipping or vignetting of the edges of the slide, along with the extreme distortion near the edges, tips off your audience that you are using a fisheye lens.
As with any fisheye lens, flare can be a problem shooting into the sun or bright lights, and lens hoods just aren't an option. Again, I find this adds interest and fun to some photos too. Keeping your feet and shadow out of the picture isn't as easy as you might think. On a sunny day, it may be a choice between flare from the sun and your shadow. Bright cloudy days are one option I use to fix both problems.
So if you are looking for a quality fisheye, this isn't it. The 14mm Sigma f/2.8 or the 8mm Sigma f/4 would be better choices, albeit at a much more hefty price. (See Ultrawide Lens Choices).
| Jason Schneider in Modern Photography on Accura 12mm f/11 T-mount Fisheye |
|---|
| Inexpensive true fisheye in T-mount, with Waterhouse-type clickstops of f/11-f/22 produces classic round image in center of 35mm frame. Also sold under Spiratone label, this lens is a surprisingly good performer. An f/5.6 version was also produced, but its performance isn't quite as good as this one. |
If you are looking for some fun, a lot of distortion, and a weird optic that nobody else is shooting, this could be it!
If you can't find one of these low cost T-mount fisheyes, you can use a front-of-the-lens fisheye adapter.
I admit to being very fond of this adapter optic. You basically screw the adapter onto the front of your regular camera's lens. The Kenko 180 degree fisheye adapter shown above screws directly into a 52mm filter thread on my lenses. You focus your camera's lens to infinity and leave it wide open. You can see the f/stop ring on the adapter to set the desired stop (e.g, from f/4 to f/22 on a 50mm lens).
For other cameras with different filter threads, I just use an adapter ring (e.g., 52-49mm for Pentax). On my Fisheye Adapter Page, you can see an adapter for the bayonet mount on a Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 planar lens. In other words, you can use this fisheye adapter on medium format as well as 35mm cameras. Most front-of-the-lens adapters can be shared between cameras, even if they are different formats!
Another weird trick this adapter can do is work with lenses from circa 28mm to 300mm. That's what the lower ring on the adapter does, adjusting the adapter to different focal length lenses.
To figure out what kind of fisheye effect you are going to get, simply multiply the focal length of the lens on the camera by 0.18. So a 50mm normal lens with the adapter mounted acts like a (50 x 0.18 = 9) 9mm fisheye lens (f/4 to f/22). Used on a 100mm short telephoto, you get (100 x 0.18 = 18) an 18mm fisheye effect. Soligor made a 0.15x version of these circular fisheyes with a 52mm thread mount too.
Your maximum coverage will be 180 degrees, basically a full half-sphere of coverage (less with longer prime lens focal lengths). The image on film from the 50mm lens (on 35mm) is a circle, surrounded by black unexposed film. See fisheye page for more information and sample photos.
Used on a zoom lens, you get a zoom fisheye effect. Admit it, that's pretty weird! When was the last time you saw a zoom-fisheye for 35mm?
Sadly, the quality of this zoom-fisheye adapter combination suffers on most zooms, since you probably have 30 or more glass elements between the adapter and the zoom. I find the typical 50mm or 35mm normal lenses give the best effects.
Shooting at f/11 or f/16 produces some very nice and surprisingly decent photos. While most professionals would prefer to rent a prime fisheye, you can buy this fisheye adapter for less than most 8mm fisheye's one day rental will cost.
Cost of these adapters runs from $50 US up to $100 US or so on the used market.
While on the subject of adapters, take a look into the 0.42X Mutars, sometimes called Ultra-wide or Super-wide adapters. These adapters convert a 50mm normal lens to roughly 21mm, but with lots of wide angle distortion (50 x 0.42 = 21). They also mount on the lens thread using an adapter ring (mine uses a Series VII to 52mm ring).
These super-wide .42x adapters are usually cheaper than the fisheye adapters, often in the $25 to $50 US range. They are simpler internally too, just being a hunk of glass. They don't change the light reaching your camera's lens, so you set aperture and expose as you normally would.
Unlike the fisheye adapters, these super-wide adapters have a flat top surface. In both cases, you would put filters, if needed, under these adapters. Mine has a tiny pop-up lens hood that is cut out at the sides.
While you can buy 20mm lenses, they often aren't available in the $25 US range. But the photos from this super-wide adapter optic have much more deliberate distortion than any rectilinear 20 or 21mm wide angle lens. So if you want that effect, this is the only way to get it!
By now, you are probably ready to concede that a lens that can see around behind itself is pretty weird and interesting, right?
Nikon makes a unique fisheye lens that can take in an incredible 220 degrees, in effect seeing all that is in front of itself and even some of the things behind and to its sides. Wow! As you might guess, the price is even more incredible.
Spiratone made a Bird's Eye adapter that also takes in an incredible 220 degrees of coverage. But Spiratone's adapter only cost $25 US!
Spiratone's Bird's Eye adapter uses a simple curved mirror mounted in a clear plastic tube on the camera lens filter threads. The mirror has a paraboloid curve, similar in shape to a bird's eye and providing similar coverage. The adapter has a closeup lens on it to enable you to focus on the virtual image in the mirror. Due to the rounded shape of the mirror, you get to see a full 220 degrees of coverage.
Another weird point about this lens is that the mirror is obviously facing the camera lens, so the camera is always centered in every picture.
If you can't find one of these, you can fake it and build one easily enough from a circular security mirror.
Anamorphic lens adapters definitely fit the weird lens requirements to be featured on this page!
Wish you had a panoramic camera? How about a lens that converts your regular 35mm or medium format camera into a panoramic picture taker with a 1:1.5 or even 1:2 super-wide panoramic perspective?
Actually, you have probably seen lots of superwide images, as most movie theatres feature a wide or superwide screen playing Panavision (tm) or Cinemascope (tm) movies. But they don't use panoramic cameras to get these wide and superwide screen effects. Instead, they use a special anamorphic lens to compress a wide scene onto 35mm film. The same kind of lens on the movie projector converts the compressed scene back into a wide screen (1:1.5) or superwide screen effect (1:2).
A 1:2 anamorphic lens compresses a horizontal scene in half, without changing the vertical dimension. Use the same lens on your enlarger or slide projector, and you get back a 1:2 panoramic image (horizontal or vertical, depending on how you shot it and align the lens).
These anamorphic lens optics are turning up from former 16mm movie makers and other surplus sources, often for under $100.
Besides these planned panoramic adaptations, this lens is also a unique special effects lens. You can use it to squeeze buildings and objects in space closer together, without changing their height, reducing them to 2/3rds (1:1.5) or 1/2 (1:2) of their true width (or height if shot vertically).
If you rotate the lens, you can get a diagonal line of compression which again generates a truly unique image effect. This fun-house mirror effect is another potential use for this lens.
Finally, this is the ultimate lens for converting fat people into thinner on-film images, albeit distorted, and thin models into emasciated figures. Such applications in fashion photography in the 1970s resulted in a number of 35mm camera mount anamorphic adapters which are now for sale on the used market. Some of these adapters included their own normal lens optics along with the anamorphic adapter.
Unfortunately for panoramic wide angle photographers, this adapter usually works best with short telephoto lenses (e.g., 105mm on 35mm camera). But you can experiment with it and get some quite interesting panoramic or specialty effects for a small investment.
See Anamorphic Lens Adapters for more details).
You will also see telephoto and wide angle adapter sets for sale. While these adapters make good sense for some medium format users, the quality and utility is very marginal on 35mm.
Actually, you might want to buy the telephoto adapter (a 1.25x typically) because it is a lousy quality optic. Let me explain. Many portrait lenses are so sharp that every defect in the person's face shows up clearly. A variety of filters and tricks are used to soften the portrait image.
These telephoto adapters convert the normal lens (50mm) into a short telephoto lens (e.g., 50 x 1.25 = 67mm). The softening effect when used wide open is thought to be pleasing to some photographers and their clients.
The wide angle adapter is less useful, since it also reduces sharpness and provides only a slightly wider view (e.g., 50 x 0.75 = 38mm).
An even wide 0.6X adapter is sometimes seen in a series VII size filter thread. The adapter is circa 65mm long and 80mm in diameter. On a normal 50mm lens, you get (50 x 0.6 = 30mm) 30mm equivalent effects. But this lens will have more distortion than a true 28mm lens, which would be the main reason for buying one. Again, these wide angle adapters have more use on medium format cameras than on 35mm SLR cameras.
However, many 35mm cameras have a fixed lens mount. For these cameras, you can use these telephoto and wide angle adapters to expand their picture taking possibilities. Adapters are available for a wide variety of filter thread mounts, and also for some smaller sized video camera lenses.
Monoculars are half of a pair of binoculars. Like binoculars, they incorporate an erecting prism, so using them is natural and easy, unlike telescopes which have inverted images. Monoculars also have a T-mount which makes it easy to mount them on most 35mm camera mounts. There are also afocal mount adapters, which are designed to mount on the camera's normal lens using a filter thread adapter.
The big advantage of monoculars is their low cost and compact size. You can also use them as a small telescope. However, a relatively low power 7x50 monocular represents a 7 x 50mm or 350mm focal length with a x50 or 50mm diameter lens. Now a 50mm wide lens at 350mm is 50/350mm or 1/7 or f/7. So this monocular would be a pretty respectable 350mm f/7 lens. A 10x50 monocular would be a 10x50 or 500mm focal length lens, with a x50 or 50mm diameter lens. Now, 50/500 is 1/10 or f/10, so this monocular would be a 500mm f/10 lens. That's slow, but not outrageously so.
Because of the integral eyepiece, it is relatively easy to get very long focal lengths using a compact monocular. Examples would include 24x50, which would be a 1200mm (24x50) lens of (50/1200) f/24 aperture. Wow!
A related solution to the problem of portraits being too sharp is the Sima f/2-4 100mm soft focus lens. This lens is little more than a simple lens (like a diopter closeup lens) and a camera mount with adjustable f/stops. It uses a T-mount.
Spiratone and others also made a series of these soft-focus lenses, again using simple lenses with poor correction. The spherical under-correction results in splaying the light out on the film around a sharp central point. Unlike an out-of-focus image, features like hair and eyelashes still retain their form. But there is a diffuse airy glow of light in the picture, especially diffuse in the brighter fleshtone areas.
These soft focus optics were also weird in that some of them incorporated Waterhouse stops (surprise again). You had a series of disks with holes drilled in them, one of which you selected and put in the lens to control f/stop. Stopped down, some of the diffuse effect would be lost, so many times these optics were used nearly wide open.
How about lens that is two lenses in one? The idea behind these lenses was to provide a lens that took up only one spot in your bag, yet functioned at two focal lengths. The Soligor dual focal length 85mm/135mm f/4.0 lens provided both an 85mm and a 135mm telephoto lens combination.
As you can see from the f/4 speed, this lens wasn't really very fast by either 135mm standards (where an f/2.8 was standard) or 85mm standards (where f/2 or f/1.8 were standard). The focal length also straddled the most popular portrait lens focal length (100mm), while the 135mm focal length has long been in disfavor. A similar dual focal length 28mm/35mm lens suffered from similar unpopularity, although cost was low for the extra capability.
Sigma offered an interesting approach to the wide angle filters problem with their 28mm filtermatic XQ lens series. These lenses featured two filter mounts, a smaller inner one (e.g., 52mm) and a larger outer one. This idea neatly solved the problem of using a polarizer on a wide angle lens without problems, unlike most current lenses. Typically, you either have to use a thin polarizer filter (3mm versus standard 6mm or thicker models) or a step-up ring to use a thicker and larger diameter filter that won't vignette your wide angle lens. You could still use your popular 52mm colored filters in the inner filter ring. Clever idea, but two filter sizes on one lens didn't click with the public, as you may have noticed. So we will give it a nod and add these to our weird lens listings.
A pictrol device mounts on the front of your camera's lens (e.g., 52mm Nikon filter thread). A series of wedge shapes are adjusted to block part of the incoming light. The result is a variable softening effect. Unlike standard diffuser or softar filters, this effect is variable from very soft to no softening effect. Unlike coating a filter with vaseline, this device isn't messy and the results are easily repeatable.
See Pictrol from Porter's Camera store for only $35 US.
This gizmo screws onto the front of your regular lens' filter thread (e.g., 52mm). It looks like a lens with a hole cutout of the side. Mounted in that hole is a mirror at a 45 degree angle. The effect is that while you point your lens straight ahead, you are actually shooting 90 degrees to your left (or right) side.
The obvious purpose of such an adapter is to fool people into thinking you aren't taking pictures of them, when you really are. Pretty sneaky, huh?
Gene Rhodes reports Adorama's catalog offers one of these as a "SPY SCOPE" adapter ($29.95 US 8/28/99). You will need a series adapter ring for your filter ring size in some versions (another $5-10US).
A beam-splitter is able to split one image into two identical images
(albeit dimmer). An optical prism version or a partially silvered mirror
may be used in some designs. The most common use of beam-splitters
is in autofocus and rangefinder designs.
The most interesting and off-the-wall use of such mirrors and related
tricks is best illustrated by the work of Prof. Andrew Davidhazy and
colleagues at RIT. He has designs for some astonishing solutions to
getting many images onto a piece of film, often at effective shutter
speeds that seem unobtainable using any other method.
Most 35mm shift lenses are 24mm (Olympus), 28mm, or 35mm PC or tilt/shift lenses (e.g., Canon, Nikon). A few lenses offer variable field curvature too. But a short telephoto shift lens is, well, just plain weird!
Vytron Corp. produced a unique series of four short telephoto shift lenses in the 65mm (f6.8), 90mm (f6.8), 100mm (f5.6) and 110mm (f6.8) focal lengths.
These lenses were mounted on a 35mm camera using a camera mount (e.g., Nikon) on one side, and the lens mount on the other, with two sliding metal plates inbetween. Turning a screw reportedly moved or shifted the position of the lens up or down, creating a short telephoto shift lens.
An earlier varioflex design offered used a 65mm f/6.8 Schneider Angulon lens, a symmetrical six element design. A shift of up to 23mm (!) was possible using a geared knob in a given direction. You could also use a locking lever and get up to a 30 degree shift in the same direction of travel. The mount rotated, so you could easily get reverse shifts to rise or fall as needed. Rotated, you could turn the swings into tilts. A manual diaphragm was used, stopping down to f/45. Close focusing distance was one foot.
See Homebrew Shift Lenses Page
| Keppler on the Varioflex Performance said... |
|---|
| The Varioflex performed splendidly even at a 22mm shift. By shifting the lens after swinging it, almost maximum lens definition could still be maintained. (Bulky, inconvenient to operate, and roughly mounted - what a lens!) |
In the mid-1970s, this varioflex design was the cheapest shift lens available at a low $270 US for lens and varioflex mount. A Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 PC nikkor lens was $364 but only offered an 11mm shift capability. The Canon true tilt/shift lens (a 35mm f/2.8 SSC Canon lens) was $630, but offered only 11mm shifts and 8 degrees of tilts with a rotating mount. So the telephoto varioflex shift lens offered a huge amount of shift and lens movement in one direction compared to these wide angle shift and tilt/shift lenses.
While these lenses were slow, they weren't cheap. Prices ranged from $200 to $325 US in 1971, when they were introduced. Obviously, lens diaphragm automation was lost due to the lack of coupling, but that is typical of OEM shift lenses as well.
The choice of short telephoto lenses from 65mm to 110mm presumably relates to the needed clearance to mount these lenses. With a 65mm long-focus lens on a Nikon lens mount (46.5mm lens registration distance), you would have under 20mm of space for the varioflex lens adapter mount and sliding plate mechanism.
I have only seen one of these shift lens mounts offered for sale, so they aren't common. I haven't ever seen any shift lenses by other 35mm lens makers in this telephoto range. Have you?
Don't despair if you can't find one at your local camera dealer. You can achieve a similar effect with a shift or tilt/shift bellows unit. I am told that several of the Spiratone Macrobel I/II bellows units offered front tilting and shifting capabilities (in a variety of camera mounts). Similar tilt/shift bellows were offered by OEMs for their cameras (e.g., Nikon PB4). In medium format, Kowa and Bronica also offered tilt/shift bellows, as did some other OEMs.
Once you have a tilt/shift bellows, you just need a lens with enough coverage to permit using shifts, and which you can bring into infinity focus when mounted on your bellows. Lots of folks use an enlarger lens, which are slow but good on coverage (e.g., 6x6cm enlarger's 75mm lens). You can also use a wide variety of homebrew lenses mounted on your bellows from older folder cameras too.
I am also still looking for a vario-flex adapter (Nikon mount preferred) that I can use to mount a wide angle lens in T-2 mount (55mm lens registration distance). I suspect that a low-cost 28mm shift lens could be made from a T-2 mount lens in a sliding groove mount (cut into a Nikon metal body cap). Consider it a homebrew third party lens shift adapter!
But if what you really want and need is a low-cost third party wide angle shift lens, keep reading below!
How about a 35mm f/2.8 shift lens for your Nikon mount ($280 US) or Canon EOS, Pentax K, Leica R, or Pentax M42 screw thread mount ($340 US)? These lenses are available directly from Kalimex s.r.o. in the Czech Republic. These lenses are made by Arsenal in the Ukraine and sold direct. In the U.S., you may also opt to get an imported version (e.g., KievUSA) with a U.S. warranty.
Besides 35mm shift lenses, you can also buy some fast 300mm f/2.8 lenses ($790 US) and a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye ($215-$260 US). They also have a number of other lens offerings in a variety of mounts (mostly Pentax M42 screw thread, T-mount (mirror lenses), and Nikon mounts).
The optical quality of these post-soviet lenses is often quite good. However, finish and mechanical quality of older lenses is sometimes a problem. The newer lenses feature multi-coating, while some of the earlier lenses were uncoated. Most of these designs are older, tried-and-true formulas too. I would recommend against some of the older Soviet era lenses, such as the Jupiter series lenses, unless you can thoroughly test them before purchase for optical and mechanical defects.
You may have heard of the MTO mirror telephoto lenses as referred to as Russian sniper lenses.
An MTO 1000mm f/10 mirror lens can be had for $200-230 US also from Kalimex s.r.o..
Besides this interesting long mirror lens, you can find the more common 300mm f/4.5 ($170) and 500mm f/8 ($140) or 500mm f/5.6 ($170) MTO mirror lenses too. Prices are from the Kalimex website as of 10/98.
Infrequently, you can find full kits with all the sniper accessories and some filters supplied with these MTO lenses offered for sale.
Not everybody needs a 1000mm f/10 lens, obviously. If you buy one, you will probably be the only one in your camera club with one!
Know of a weird third party lens you don't see described here? Send me
an email describing it
(preferably with an attached photo and permission to use your photo). I
will be happy to add to this list, and learn of your weirdest lens
candidates!
Hopefully, you have had some fun, and perhaps learned of some unique third party lenses that you can use to add fun to your photography.
[Ed. note: sold for $228.25 after 27 bids; wonder if these guys know
this is a fisheye lens that listed for only $70 new in 1970, and sold for
as little as $45?]
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "SATCHMO" satchmo@wfeca.net
[2] Re: Sima soft focus lens
Date: Wed Nov 04 1998
It doesn't attach to a lens. It is mounted via a T-mount adapter to your
camera body. It's a 2 - element lens with a sliding tube arrangement for
focusing. f stops are provided by interchangeable cardboard waterhouse discs
placed on front of the lens in f4, f5.6, and f8 sizes. Very light weight
plasticky item which sold for under $30.00 in mid 80's. Sometimes seen in
ads for Brooklyn Camera Exchange. Type to me for more info if needed.
Regards, Joe Arnold
P.S. The focal length is 100mm. Joe
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: AlanBall@compuserve.com
[1] Re: WTB: Sima soft focus lens
Date: Thu Nov 05 1998
> I don't know if I am spelling this name correctly or not. What I am > looking for is a tube-like soft-focus/diffuser that will fit onto a 35mm lens > with an adapter for that particular lens/thread combination. Hope someone > knows what I am talking about and can reply! Thanks
The tube in question is actually a 1 element 100mm f2 'lens'. It fits on the
camera with a T mount. It comes with 2 round cardboard cutouts that are
supposed to act as 2 iris apertures and therefore manage the softening
factor. It is total crap. Cheap crap.
To fix ON a lens, I have a German made circular gizmo providing a plastic
translucid iris: the more you close it, the worse the image. It looks serious
(graduated in steps supposed to make you believe you are controling the
softening factor). But it is total crap. Expensive crap.
Sorry,
Alan
Brussels-Belgium
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: cooncat1@ct2.nai.net (lensman3)
[1] Re: Wide angle conversion...
Date: Fri Nov 06 1998
I have tried several wide angle conversion lenses on a variety ofprime
and some zoom lenses.
You will _probably_ get severe distortion at the edges, decreased
overall sharpness, and of course, badly distorted pers pective in
close-ups.
The use of any fish-eye related lens will soon get to be "old" if used
too much. YMMV.
I have fun with mine, but they are no substitute for a good prime lens
or a zoom with a 24 or 28mm wide end.
I also have an 8mm Sigma which has all these problems, except that
it is sharper than the add-ons. It is also a bit more expensive.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: mark b mb50742@navix.net
[1] Re: Fisheye Attachment?
Date: Sat Jan 30 1999
I have one of these also and it is a lot of fun. Usually the effect is so
unique people don't notice the lack of overall sharpness. All and all not
a bad optic for as much use as it gets.
Robertmcca wrote:
> I have a .42x that I bought years ago. It makes a full circular image when > using a 28mm focal length. At longer focal lengths, the image looks kind of > weird to me. It is a lot of fun for the price, but quality is certainly not > fabulous. > > Bob
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: classicvw@aol.com (ClassicVW)
[1] Re: Looking for special "90 degrees accessory"
Date: Wed Feb 10 1999
I think I saw that in a Porter's Camera Store Ad. I don't have the catalog
anymore. I think they're in Chicago area, USA. You could try calling
toll-free information at (US) 800-555-1212 and ask if they have a listing
for Porter's.
George S.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "bhavna agrawal" b.agrawal@worldnet.att.net
[1] Re: Looking for special "90 degrees accessory"
Date: Wed Feb 10 1999
I just ordered one for myself from B&H; and it arrived this morning. This
is not listed on the B&H; website and so I had to send an e-mail to
photo@bhphotovideo.com
This is what I bought:
1) GB Right Angle attachment (Squintar): $39.95
2) GB XXmm to series 7 adapter: $9.95 [XX is your lens diameter]
- absolutely required because the attachment has a series 7 size,
whatever that is!
Problems:
1) serious vignetting with my 75-300/f:4.5-5.6 Nikkor AF lens. However, no
vignetting with my 105/f:2.8 Micro-Nikkor (the only lens I have with a
non-rotating front)
2) problems with 75-300/f:4.5-5.6 Nikkor AF lens because the front of the
lens is rotating type (during focussing)!
3) some problem with AF (Nikon F4) - sometimes it works great, sometimes it
continues to hunt.
4) haven't shot any film with it yet but I suspect that dust particles on
the mirror could seriously affect picture quality.
Hope that helps!
>I am looking for special accessory for my camera (both photo and video). >As I don't know the name of that accessory let me describe it: > >It mounts on the top of the lens and its used to take pictures/video from >the side - you turn the camera some direction left or right of the object >you want to picture and through that accessory (please e-mail me name of >that thing) take picture. > >I need 52mm (diameter) "adapter". > >I know what it looks like (it has mirror on 45 degrees) but I can't find it >nowhere. > >Can somebody provide me HTTP or E-MAIL address of some store where could I >find it. >I would prefer Europe but all info is welcome. > >(sorry for my English) > >Please, e-mail me directly if you can. > >tom@pro.hr
From: Joel Alpers joel.alpers@symbios.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Porter's Stereo Adapter-Any Good
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999
Kenneth Wiggins wrote:
> > Porter's Camera Store out of Cedar Falls, Iowa advertise a "Stereo > Photo/Slide System". It is basically a set of mirrors that go on the > front of a 35mm lens and produces 2 images on a 35mm negative or slide > that are side-by-side. Then with a viewer, one can see a 3-D picture, > not unlike ViewMaster Reels. > Has anyone used this and how well does it work?
I don't have any experience with this particular product, but I
do have info on a WEB page about the pros and cons of these type
of systems:
http://www.frii.com/~rkymtmem/3d.tutorial/beamsplit/beamsplitters.html
Joel Alpers
Rocky Mountain Memories - Equipment and Supplies for the 3D photographer
rkymtmem@frii.com
http://www.frii.com/~rkymtmem
From: Kenneth Wiggins kwiggins@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Porter's Stereo Adapter-Any Good
Date: 4 Feb 1999
Porter's Camera Store out of Cedar Falls, Iowa advertise a "Stereo
Photo/Slide System". It is basically a set of mirrors that go on the
front of a 35mm lens and produces 2 images on a 35mm negative or slide
that are side-by-side. Then with a viewer, one can see a 3-D picture,
not unlike ViewMaster Reels.
Has anyone used this and how well does it work?
[Ed. note: yep, another wierd one - a periscope shaped 100mm lens!]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999
From: George Ivanyo gti@bellatlantic.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: weird third party lens
I don't believe you mentioned the 'Periscope' lens of 100mm in T-mount,
sold by Spiratone. Ever hear of it? I have one :)
George
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000
From: Nikon Cameras nikoncameras@asean-mail.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Sharp pictures... fieldscopes
Be careful. This is NOT the equivalent of a regular camera lens. I own a
Swift spotting scope which mounts to a Nikon camera through the use of an
adaptor. Optically, this is inferior to my other telephoto lenses. It
zooms from 15X to 60X (1000mm to 4000mm) and the closest focusing is 30
feet. The problem also is an extremely dark image. At 1000mm (15X) it is
f/16. At 4000mm (60X) it is f/64. Try focusing at f/64! Dark has new
meaning. Not only is focusing difficult (the finder image is DARK) but it
is extremely difficult to keep still to avoid vibration. After zooming,
you have to wait for the vibrations to damp themselves out. The focusing
was designed for an aerial image and sharpness is sharper centrally and
poorer at the edges. My advise: Forget this and get a telephoto designed
for photography.
--- Roland Vink NikonMF@onelist.com wrote:
>From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz
>> I wonder what will be the quality of the image if I use a scope with my >> Nikon, be it a Kowa or even better - a Leica scope with appropriate >> transmission tubes et cetera? Anybody have experience? They say it will >> give somewhat 850 mm with 10,5 as the aperture. And the Leitz anastigmats >> and whatever. >> >> Would it be worse trying and spending that money: >> a) if I plan to buy a scope anyway (for my job/hobby); >> b) if I don't plan to buy a scope? > >HJi Peeter, >Nikon makes a Photographic Attachment which transforms Nikon fieldscopes >II/EDII/IIA/EDIIA into an 800mm f12.8 lens, and ED78/ED78A into an 1000mm >f13.3 supertelephoto (1998 lens catalogue). > >I have no idea what the results are like. These lenses have a very long focal >length and small aperture so camera shake will be a big problem. I imagine >fieldscopes are not be made to the same quality as photographic lenses. A lens >needs to resolve fine detail across the whole frame, while a scope only needs to >resolve to what a human eye can see, across the size of the iris. >I guess if you have a scope anyway, the attachment is a way of extending its >use, and it is probably a cheap way of getting a super-tele. > >Roland.
[Ed. note: zoom mirror lenses are not common, but there are a few out
there; thanks to mirror lenses having diopter glass lenses, it is possible
to put in a variable magnification element (mirror lenses = catadioptric
or mirror plus glass lens)...]
Was looking in the used counter of a local camera shop and found a Soligor
500mm-800mm F:8 MIRROR ZOOM!
I have never seen or heard of a "Mirror zoom"
Is this wierd enough?
Date: 25 Aug 1999
From: billcalsv@aol.com (BillcalSV)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: 90 degree lenses???
I've got one (from Porter's I believe) that I've fooled around with a bit.
they work ok, but are a bit awkward to use. Best with zoom lenses so you
can be sure to cut out the round circle of the tube.
The things are usually about 5 to 6 inches long and maybe 2 to 3 inches in
diameter, but are lightweight since all they are is a tube with a mirror
set at a 45 degree angle.
As far as I know they all have a "Series 7" (an older system of lens and
filter threading) male thread to attach to the camera. So you need to buy
a step-up (hopefully, because step-down would cut into the image area)
filter adapter ring that matches the thread size on your lens to Series 7.
For example, a lot of "normal" 50 mm lenses or 35-70 zooms have 52 mm
threads for filters. In that case you would need a "52mm to Series 7"
step-up ring to mount the right-angle attachment.
Porter's sells these adapter rings, as does B&H; Photo in New York. (B&H;
has more sizes than Porter).
Hope that helps. They can be fun toys once in a while.
[Ed. note: another odd-ball lens - PAN lenses to f/40 and f/64..]
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: "John L. Lovell" johnllovell@earthlink.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Sigma 135 2.8 PAN lens
Mr Monaghan-
I enjoy your work on third party lenses and cult lenses very much. I was
hoping you could shed some light on this lens I ran across recently,
unknown to me. Described as "Sigma 135mm 2.8 Pan focus," in Minolta MD
mount, the lens stops down to F64; pic of lens shows barrel markings with
PAN 64 after F22, PAN marked on either side of dof scale. Do you know what
it means? Does it close focus? Why "PAN"?
Thanks
John Lovell
[Ed. note:
PAN lenses can stop down to f/40 and f/64 and similar tiny apertures. The
problem is they run into Diffraction
effects, which make the image less sharp at f/22, f/32,.. f/64 and so on.
The advantage is greater depth of field, particularly for closer focusing
and macrowork. Not a great tradeoff, it didn't catch on ;-0) [See Roger
Hicks and Frances Schultze The Lens Book]]
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT unknown Sigma lens
I have a vague recollection of these lenses. The pan setting was a super
small f-stop and used as an advertising gimmick. Diffraction kills
sharpness at such small stops.
Bob
- ----------
>From: "John L. Lovell" johnllovell@earthlink.net >To: contax@photo.cis.to >Subject: [CONTAX] OT unknown Sigma lens >Date: Tue, Jul 11, 2000, >I ran across this lens, unknown to me, described as "Sigma 135mm 2.8 Pan >focus." The lens stops down to F64, pic shows barrel markings, PAN 64 after >22, PAN on either side of dof scale. Anybody know what it means? Why "PAN"? >Thanks >John Lovell
From: auctionfan@aol.com (AuctionFan)
Date: 09 Jul 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Spiratone fisheyes and superwides
>From: "Neil Harrington" no.spam@this.place.net >Many Spiratone lenses were also sold under the Accura brand name. >Neil >From: f11bob@webtv.net (Bob Hickey) >Years ago when Spiratone was still in Flushing NY, the main guy there >told me all the lenses were made by "Sun" in Japan. >Bob Hickey
Accura is the name of the company which is now Sigma lenses.
Yes, many of the "brand x" lenses were made by Sun Optical and others were
made by Tominon and Soligor.
AF.
From: joseph@shell1.aracnet.com (Joseph)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Spiratone fisheyes and superwides
joseph@shell1.aracnet.com (Joseph) writes:
>At one time, Spiratone was known for their superwide and fisheye >offerings, and marketed the following lenses, as far as I know: > >8mm f/5.6 >16mm f/3.5 >20mm f/2.8 >20-40/3.5
In fact, the lenses Spiratone offered were:
7.5mm f/5.6
12mm f/8
18mm f/3.5
20mm f/2.8
24-40mm f/3.5 (constant aperture)
The 20/2.8 was also marketed under the name Soligor, who also didn't make
lenses they sold. Usually, a generic japanese optic can be identified by
noting the focal length, max. aperture, and filter thread size, and you'll
see half a dozen companies selling the same thing.
But the Spiratone superwides were not replicated much among the usual
labels who sell such lenses. The only one of these with which I have
experience is the 20/2.8, which is of high optical quality. I have seen a
Soligor 20/2.8, which is the same optic I'm fairly certain, but the others
are not common under other brands.
I'm fairly certain that the 12/8 was made by Sigma and is the same optic
as the 12/8 Sigma sold. I suspect the 18/3.5 was also a Sigma, but that's
all I can gather.
These lenses are recommended by Michael McBroom in his camera bluebooks.
J.
--
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: joseph@shell1.aracnet.com (Joseph)
Subject: Re: Spiratone fisheyes and superwides
I wrote:
>In fact, the lenses Spiratone offered were: > >7.5mm f/5.6 >12mm f/8 >18mm f/3.5 >20mm f/2.8 >24-40mm f/3.5 (constant aperture)
What I've figured out is that:
-the 7.5/5.6 and 12/8 were made by Sigma.
-the 18/3.5 seems to be the same optic as the Tokina 17/3.5
(I saw a picture of the Spiratone 18/3.5 and I own the Tokina 17/3.5
and they look identical. Tokina fudges on the focal length a little
bit)
-Spiratone also labelled an 18/3.2 that apparently was the same as a
Sigma 18/3.5 (Spiratone was fudging on the aperture a little bit).
I am most interested in identifying the manufacturer of the
Spiratone 20/2.8, but I can't find any info about that (or the 24-40/3.5).
Anyone know of any other lenses (besides the Soligor 20/2.8 which is the
same as the Spiratone 20/2.8) with the same or similar focal length
and aperture to 20/2.8 and 58mm filter threads?
Thanks,
J.
--
From: bandhphoto@aol.com (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 21 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Spiratone fisheyes and superwides
I'm fairly certain that the 12/8 was made by Sigma and is the same
optic
as the 12/8 Sigma sold.
I own one of these with a Nikon mount & for the money I paid, it's a darn
good little piece of glass.
regards, Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video http://www.bhphotovideo.com henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000
From: joseph@shell1.aracnet.com (Joseph)
Subject: Re: Spiratone fisheyes and superwides
....
My experience with these 3rd party superwides has been with:
Tokina 17/3.5
Spiratone 20/2.8
Tamron 17/3.5
My assessment off all three is that wide open performance is poor, with
both unsharp corners and vignetting, but stopped down, they render a sharp
and contrasty image with even illumination. Distortion is moderate and
noticeable, definitely more pronounced than a premium lens from a camera
manufacturer. I shoot the Tokina 17/3.5 at f/8 and smaller apertures
and the Spiratone 20/2.8 at f/5.6 and smaller and am pleased with the
results.
But if you aren't using them for rectangular architectural objects
and don't need wide-open performance, they offer very attractive
price/performance.
J.
--
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
From: kahheng@studioQ.com (Tan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: What non-OEM soft focus lenses are still being made today?
I was rather intrigued by a picture someone made with a Spiratone soft
focus lens. Could someone tell me what non-OEM (i.e., not
anything from Mamiya or Canon, etc) lenses are still being made and
where I can find one? (no Ebay please)
The only one that I know of is the German made Dreamagon (what a
name!). They have a website of the same name.
I understand that there is at least one small Japanese lens maker still
churning out these (probably) single meniscus lenses in a T-mount.
If anyone has clues, kindly drop me an email as well. Thanks!
Regards,
K H Tan
STUDIO Q
http://StudioQ.com
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000
From: Robert Long boblong@1st-uspride.net
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: So-called fisheye lenses
Dear Robert,
While I'm delighted to have stumbled onto your Third Party Lenses page and
have bookmarked it for lots of enjoyable (and profitable) future
exploration, I must take up with you (or with a contributor to whom you
link? -- I can't now find the reference, but I think it was in the "Weird"
section) on the question of "distortion" in fisheye lenses.
There is a profound misunderstanding that colors much of what is written
about photography, particularly in the popular press. (Bert Keppler, with
whom I've worked, is a major contributor.) It often takes the form of
calling the human eye an "imperfect camera" because it fails radically in
terms of what photographers call "corner sharpness." If our retina were
capable of equal resolution everywhere, we would not have survived as a
species. In fact, the human eye works very differently from a camera and
for good reason.
Our depth-perception mechanism is much like the rangefinder in a Leica or
Contax: we rotate the two eyes until the images delivered by the foveae
(the tiny high-resolution areas near the center of the retina) "converge"
and, in effect, we "measure" the eye positions to judge distance -- and
movement toward or away from us. What would we not have been prey to
without this ability? But extend the high resolution to the entire retina
and we would be as confused about distance as were some of the prototype
designs for AF cameras. We could not have "triangulated."
Our way of seeing the world is far subtler and more complex than even the
most advanced cameras because of the intimate relationship between the
photomechanics of the eye and the enormous "data processing" capabilities
of the brain and its pattern-recognition systems. And it probably is
largely because these capabilities are applied unconsciously that we
photographers tend to give so little thought to the way we see and the
enormous differences between this process and those of photography.
Seeing is a four-dimensional process. Time is the absolutely
indispensable fourth dimension, in addition to the three of space.
Photos, by and large, are totally two-dimensional, and even conventional
"3D" images only simulate depth by the doubling of two-dimensional images.
In order to represent the human experience on a two-dimensional picture
plane (whether photographic or simply graphic) we must "throw away" half
the information supplied by the real-world experience. In technological
terms, we need a compression algorithm to reduce the information to only
that needed for recognition and reconstruction. In artistic terms, we
need a convention for telescoping our world onto the picture plane.
In conventional art, there are two rational, clearly defined, geometric
ways of doing this. Overwhelmingly, the most familiar and best understood
is what is generally called Renaissance perspective (though it was, in
fact, "revived" from extant examples from the Roman Empire and Hellenic
periods). It involves the assumption of a virtual fixed picture plane and
a rigidly fixed line of view. Lines from each point in the subject to the
virtual eye leave their image where they pass through the picture plane.
This is the kind of perspective rendering we expect from all non-fisheye
lenses and see every day of our lives in photos, on television, in the
movies, in magazines and books, in paintings -- in far more than 90% of
the graphic representations we are regaled with. If the public at large
is familiar with any one tenet of this form of perspective it is "straight
lines must always appear straight."
The only well defined alternative is "curvilinear perspective," in which
the line of view is not fixed. Instead, the image of each point in the
subject is rendered where the line of sight from the virtual eye would
pass through the virtual picture plane in looking directly at that point.
Straight lines whose images pass through the center of the picture plane
are rendered straight; others are not. So this sort of perspective is
much harder to draw precisely. As far as I'm aware, only one major
attempt has been made at its codification: Flocon & Barre's "Curvilinear
Perspective," published in French a half-century ago and quickly
translated into most other major European languages, though not into
English until 1987. Yet the technique was applied by some meticulous
draftsmen of the 19th Century and in relatively rough-shod form as far
back as the Middle Ages.
Now consider how we view the world. Since we can see only small areas in
full detail, we must scan the world around us. (A fixed line of sight
would net only one tiny patch of sharp vision, surrounded by the miasma of
peripheral vision.) We use no raster-like scanning system; traces of eye
movement in viewing pictures often resemble Brownian movement of the
subatomic world. The process is rather like downloading a RealAudio or
MP3 film clip: we hold the bits we have seen in memory and then "play
back" the entire, newly integrated object from our memory bank. We
remember straight lines as straight lines, so to this extent our
memory-pictures resemble those of Renaissance perspective. But the actual
process of acquiring the graphic information is comparable to curvilinear
perspective, because we must look directly at each point in the subject to
see its detail.
In that sense, the "fisheye" lens more closely represents the way graphic
information is gathered by the eye than does the conventional sort of
lens. The biggest difference between either sort of photographic lens and
the eye is that the lens can capture the full image instantaneously,
whereas the eye, working with the brain, can only build its images over
time, through scanning. We tend to be unaware of this because scanning
and recognition can happen incredibly fast, particularly with familiar
subject matter, but it remains a fundamental technological difference
between human vision and photography -- or any other graphic form.
There actually are three recognized standards of perspective rendering:
Renaissance, "standard fisheye," and Nikon's orthographic fisheye (I think
that's the term they used), but the last is of little representational
significance. Its formula was helpful in graphically calculating sky
illumination where the view of the sky is partially blocked, but its
images are anti-intuitive in most cases.
No matter; there is a formula for each of the three ways of rendering the
four-dimensional continuum of life in two-dimensional pictures. As long
as the resulting images conform to the appropriate formula, it cannot be
called distorted. Please save that word for those instances where the
image does not follow the formula. Distortion can "bend" straight lines
in conventional (Renaissance-perspective) lenses, which are supposed to
render them as straight, so that can legitimately be called distortion.
But as long as the curving convergence of lines in curvilinear perspective
conform to the intended formula, they not only are distortion-free but,
like it or not, are arguably imaged more nearly in the way our eyes would
image the same subject.
End of tirade.
I may take parts of my (still unfinished) book on this subject and put it
on a web page, since I have found no publisher to date. If I do, I'd be
delighted to have you link to it.
Bob Long
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
From: Tom Ferguson tomf2468@pipeline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dreamy, soft focus lens recommendation
I'm a fan of using "soft focus lenses". Lets start with some definitions.
There are three basic types:
1) Older (often very cheap) "almost soft" lenses that weren't meant to be
soft. You often see Wollensak Velotigmats being sold as "soft". While
they did make some variable Velostigmats, most of the Velostigmats are
just slightly "bad" at the widest 2 stops. This can be a very nice look
on portraits, but it isn't "soft focus"! I have one of these, and it is
my favorite 4x5 portrait lens.
2) Lenses with planned aberrations at wider apertures. These have become
expensive! A shame, as the amount of glass in them is minimal :-(
Wollensak Veritars, Kodak Portrait lenses. Many are found without
shutters (or with a "studio Shutter", just barely better than no shutter)
at mid prices, the examples "in shutter" are now $$$$$$.
I have a few of these. They are occasionally great, but the constant
change in softness everytime you change aperture is a "bother"!
3) Modern style soft focus lenses that use "diffusion disks" to change
both softness and aperture (Imagon, Fuji Soft). I have a Fuji Soft I
love, just make sure you get disks with these.
Good luck, but don't expect a truly good and worthwhile "soft focus" for
$50.
--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
> From: "Michael K. Stenstrom" stenstro@seas.ucla.edu > Subject: Dreamy, soft focus lens recommendation > > I've been shooting LF for two or three years now, as a hobbyist. I > am thinking about trying some low cost, older lenses to get a > dreamy, soft focus look. I know that Rodenstock makes the Imagon > to provide this effect. I was thinking about trying an older > lens, just to experiment. eBay and camera shows have older lenses > for $50 or less, often in shutters. > > Does anyone out there have a favorite lens or recommendations?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: stephen@bokonon.ussinc.com (Stephen M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: What non-OEM soft focus lenses are still being made today?
Another set of instructions for building your own soft-focus lens
can be found in the July 1998 issue of Photo Life magazine.
The sample pictures in the magazine look awful to me, but then
again, I've never been much of a fan of the soft-focus look.
--
Stephen M. Dunn stephen@bokonon.ussinc.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From: ewindell@psci.net (Gene Windell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What non-OEM soft focus lenses are still being made today?
Spiratone sells the 100mm f/4 Portragon lens. This is deliberately
uncorrected for spherical aberation, and gets progressively softer
from the center out toward the edges of the frame. It creates a soft
focus vignette around the portrait subject's face. It seems to work
best with fairly high contrast light. I haven't found the lens useful
for anything except head and shoulders portraits.
The Spiratone Portragon attaches to any 35mm SLR with a T-mount. The
lens has no adjustable diaphram - f/4 is the only aperture it has.
The lens comes with its own Series 6 screw-in lens shade, and handles
lens flare quite well. Cost is $89 new from spiratone.com
Gene Windell
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
From: kahheng@studioQ.com (Tan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dreamy, soft focus lens recommendation
....
Hi Mike
Interestingly, I have been kinda 'researching' this for over the last two
days. (I bidded on a Sima Soft Focus 100mm f2 with a T-mount last night -
I hear that this is a very 'bad' lens that would make very interesting
pictures, and bought a cheap Spiratone Portragon 100 f4 as well).
I came across a very good resource on soft lenses - it's a Japanese site
(with English) http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/vpk_slr_e.html It
essentially talks about the using the meniscus lens from a Kodak Vest
Pocket as a soft focus lens when you remove the 'hood' from its front. I
guess any single meniscus lens would function very well as a soft focus
lens. You might even want to try using just the front cell of a cheap
Dagor.
You can also look for old Veritos. Somewhere at this same website, there
is a page of examples taken with this lens. ok here
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/verito_e.htm
Seems that the many Japanese photographers love soft focus lenses.
A German co. has come up with I'd consider as a highly interesting 35mm
lens, the 90mm Dreamagon (what a name eh?) http://www.dreamagon.com - the
effects are nothing like what I have seen with many soft focus lenses and
the price seems okay for a new lens made in Germany. Would be nice if they
came out with a longer one mounted in a shutter for LF.
Have fun and good hunting!
Regards,
K H Tan
STUDIO Q
http://StudioQ.com
Date: 12 Sep 2000
From: jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dreamy, soft focus lens recommendation
Michael:
I have three suggestions. One is to try some of the Imagon type
diaphragms (home-made) in another lens instead of using the regular iris
diaphragm. I have some very interesting unsharpness just from a pinhole
in the lensboard once.
On 35 mm I used a 4" diameter magnifier from the old 5&10 cent store in
bellows to emulate the Sima soft focus lens. It worked great, so I have
no doubt that the right focal length single element lens would work.
Maybe the +10 diopter someone suggested, as a 12" focal length would be
about right for portraits on 4x5.
Another thing to try would be unscrewing the front element of a standard
les some and then checking the image for the desired flare/unsharpness.
It seems to me that one of the dial-in-the-unsharpness Veritos worked that
way. Or you might need to separate the front two elements by a greater
distance, but this shouldn't be too difficult with the right lens shim.
I have seen some of the old two element portrait lenses in brass barrels
down at the photo store (for 8x10). These should work on 4x5, but I have
no idea of the price, to say nothing of the difficulty of working without
a shutter or with a Packard. All these DIY solutions are a pain, but so
is the price of an Imagon or a Verito, now a real collectible.
Good Luck,
roy
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Makro lens : Confusing
Sure, this can be done. But you won't have diaphragm or meter linkage,
which would be prohibitively expensive to modify.
I've used a lot of different lenses with the AX via adapters. I was
very surprised to find that it can even autofocus my Spiratone 100mm
f/4 soft focus lens!!
Bob
[Ed. note: some confirmation regarding 12mm fisheye origin...]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
From: jsg jsg@spacelab.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: books Re: Neat! timely.. ;-) Re: Kenko fisheye
By the way, I have a Spiratone 12mm Waterhouse stop fisheye. You say on
your site that you can't confirm that they are an early effort by Sigma.
My Spiratone 12mm fisheye clearly has the unmistakable Sigma logo on the
front of the lens. I think this leaves no doubt as to the manufacturer. I
can send you a digital photo of it if you want to see it. I took some
photos with this lens and a Nikon F100 during the recent snowstorm here in
NYC and I was very pleased with the results.
Jeff
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
From: "J.T. Wenting" jwenting@hornet.demon.nl
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: X-Ray Vision Lens
"Willy Eckerslyke" ku.ca.rognab@801sso.backwards
> Jonathan Putsman wrote: > > > I can't remember the URL, but I think the idea was that the filter blocked > > out most visible wavelengths and passed IR. You had to modify the camcorder > > to remove it's own IR-blocking filter and I think they said it was best used > > with certain camcorders, whose CCDs had high IR responses. > > Do many cameras have IR blocking filters? > Both my Sony TRV9E camcorder and Nikon 995 digital still camera > will happily record IR if used with a filter to block visible > light. I've always assumed that the visible light simply drowns > out IR during normal use. > Infrared light certainly does penetrate certain substances to a > greater degree than visible light - an IR photo of skin will show > veins that aren't normally visible - but I don't expect this extends > to many types of clothing. > Ultraviolet light also penetrates skin to a degree, a UV photo > will show freckles that wouldn't normally be seen.
Those filters were put in in videocamcorders after some embarassing things
happened. In lowlight situations the sensors recorded near IR better than
visual light, causing the described effect (in other words, seeing through
some types of clothing). This was unintentional on the part of the
manufacturer, and the cameras were changed to prevent it.
With your CP995, the IR photography is intentional (and rather different).
End of Page