![]() I personally recommend it to anyone who prefers to do portraits and is looking for a particular bokeh.In a way that was unique to the Soviet optical world, cameras were most often categorized by their lenses. Nothing that can not be overcome with a little ' practice. The first shots are tough to realize because the focus is very "sensitive" and just a nothing to spoil the photo. It is not at all jery and with a nothing you can set it to the desired opening without any effort. Other very important detail: the fluidity of diaphragm action, impressive. I was amazed right away by the razor-sharp image quality it offers, for its bokeh (in certain situations comes that "swirl" effect that I adore) and for the rendition of truly real, concrete colors. Found in the drawer of my late paternal grandfather along with other vintage lenses, I immediately began to feel confident mountain on my mirrorless. Pros: Sharpness, circular bokeh, price, color rendition, sturdiness, fluidity of the diaphragmĬons: You should be familiar with manual focus, solvable with a little practice. In the portrait I tend to alternate ZF 50/1.4 (full figure), Helios 58 (superb near contrasting windows) or Micro 55/2.8 (American floor, 85/1.4 AFD (half bust in the field), 105/2.5 AI (normal head, great technical blur), 70-180 AFD Micro or 180/2.8 AFD (head, hard faces). There's never anything important at the corner at TA, but here the yield of the new ones is superior and no need. A small arrow to the commercial AF: no AF optics beats the manual focus on fine details and brilliance. The low CA indicates symmetry and not bad glass (rare earths?). The bokeh is not very swirly, but perhaps it is also more beautiful in my specimen. Mine is a "mint" model equipped with OEM lampshade and 42x1/Sony E Coma adapter. Opinion: A beautiful surprising lens (compared with: Zeiss ZF, Color Ultron 50/1.8, Sony FE 50, two Micro Nikkor 55 AIS and 60 AFD, Nikkor 50/1.8 AI) with very high central and median resolution, medium contrast low, light glare but strong engraving of fine details. Screw mounting: It's easy to unscrew the lens by turning a dial, ![]() Pros: Very sharp in the central areas, low longitudinal chromatic aberration, original bokeh, robust construction, soft focus, useful for videos the diaphragm preselection ring, easy to find accessories and third-party filters with good aesthetic rendering.Ĭons: A certain glare causes monolayer (but well designed) treatment, before diaframmi diaframmi a little hard. On my Lumix GX8 the Summicron 25/1.4, neglecting the ease of use, clubbed it for Benino. On digital I also experienced a Takumar 50mm 1.4, the radioactive one, at the time a high-class optics. ![]() Is it worth it? If you want to save and resume with a fixed focal, obviating the lack of autofocus, yes. Today that you no longer shoot in the slide, with digital optics defects are easily obviable in post-production or by setting the machine to produce the correct JPG. The Tessar already had anti-reflective treatment which was lacking on the Helios. Those with the Helios were dead, with a very light dominant Verdina. In practice, they were not projectable together. Inserting the slides in the same magazine, divided by subject and not by camera, the differences between the Tessar of Rollei and the Helios were abytes. I snapped with both machines, both loaded with Ektachrome. ![]() I happened to go on a trip to the excavations of Pompeii and I took the reflex, an economical Praktica, equipped with the Helios, and a Rollei 35, the middle version, the one with the 40mm Tessar, which at the time used in the mountains. But the use with the slides showed its limits. In the b/w I could exploit the high resolution and the poor contrast was obviable in the development and printing and, in some cases, could return to advantage. ![]() Opinion: In the early ' 70, the years of my photographic indigence, I had the means to use this goal. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |