For me the dealbreaker is the absence of a step-down pin. I know it costs more to make but a new M42 lens without a pin isn't for me. That said it's very nice to see a new M42 lens with a warranty!

@ceticmilan

9 ай бұрын

If only there should be new M42 SLR film camera any time soon.

@ravajaxe

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, but... The classical M42 stop-down pin requires machining with acceptable precision the M42 thread. So that the focusing markings are about on top, and the stop-down pin is about on bottom, when the lens is fully screwed-in. This realisation by TTartisans can't even achieve this 6 decades old standard.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

No kidding.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

And also a spring-and-lever mechanism inside the lens that transfers the energy of the M42 camera's flappy paddle through the lens and to the aperture, which has to be light and responsive enough to stop down in the time that will elapse between the shutter shutter button being pressed and the mirror flipping up so the curtain can open. I suspect that requires a lot of mechanical engineering acumen.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

I can understand that, though I'd counter that many great M42 lenses are presets without pins. I'd argue this is fundmentally a preset without the governor ring.

Handheld, I am using this lens with an helicoid adapter an my Sony cameras, mostly with f/2,8 for excellent macro shots! Even, the distortion is excellent at f/2,8! I am very pleased with this lense!

@DavidHancock

7 ай бұрын

Nice! I've been using it handheld, too, and just picked up an M42 tilt-shift adapter because the image circle is a hair larger than full frame. I haven't done any technical testing yet, but it does have good portrait prospects.

Hi David, I have the Helios 44M-2 M42 58mm f2 lens that gives the same bubble effect. I specifically brought the lens for that purpose. It is a fun lens to play with the effect occasionally. Thanks for the review, some interesting observations.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

Thank you, Ross! That's fascinating because I haven't gotten mine to do that just yet. I do really like the way that lens renders images, though.

Why are here not more likes? It’s great! Many thanks!

@DavidHancock

Ай бұрын

I've definitely grown to like the 100mm f/2.8 BB. I'll be releasing a full review of it on June 17 with a lot of sample photos, and a few surprises about the lens, too.

I bought the M mount version 2 days ago and I’ll receive it tomorrow. To simply tell, I’m impatient to test it on my Nikon Zf. 👍

@DavidHancock

10 күн бұрын

Have you had the chance to see the full review I posted on the lens last week?

@jbnitpou9942

10 күн бұрын

@@DavidHancock No, but I just looked at it and it’s very interesting. I went to see the current productions of Meyer Optik Görlitz also but the price difference is too large even if it is justified by the additional quality and the made in Europe which necessarily leads to inevitable additional costs. I had a very nice collection of original Trioplans and Primoplans a few years ago but I sold them because I didn’t use them enough.

Love to try that lens some day on my pen ft just found an original pen ft to m42 adapter in a lot. (Body and 25mm 2.8 38mm 1.8 ware also part of the sale) amazing to try m42 lenses on that half frame

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

Could well be good on that camera. You'd need a longer working distance and that may reduce some of the OOF area character, but the center area of this lens appears (from the digital shots I've taken with it -- I haven't developed the film yet) to be sharp enough to deliver good film results.

Hi thanks you for great Chanel, can you please make a video about different lens design and different resolve optically

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

Thank you! I have a video series called Round Glass Review; here is a link to the whole playlist: kzread.info/head/PL6MrZtHJOVgGI2OPWmoeTdXu1lHZ437je Each video looks at the optical formula of the lens and the optical design section in each video will have some tidbits about what you're looking for.

my sample focuses past infinity and the markings don't line up on any of my cameras. I didn't even buy it for the bubbles. I bought it because multicoating and i'd rather drop it in a creek than a 40 year old nikon. I feel dirty putting it on a zenit.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

I'm glad to hear that, but also at the same time not, that yours doesn't line up either. :D Honestly, I used to have a Takumar 105mm f/2.8 and that lens is about the same price and SO much better. And I did already drop this lens on a bit rock (with my A7 IV on the back) and it took the hit like a champ. There's a nice gauge in the housing, but no dent and my camera is fine. So aside from the usability refinements, the build quality is great.

Will this work on k mount with an adapter ?

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

It should. I've used it on Sony, a Pentax SV M42 film camera, and a Minolta Alpha 9 film camera.

Might just be yours, mine lined up perfectly on my M42 body

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

I'd definitely believe that there's a lot of production variation in these.

@highlander200107

8 ай бұрын

@@DavidHancock a friend of mine picked one up too, and his was like yours, he’s returned it and they are sending him a new one, they have apparently checked this one on a M42 body first to verify it’s facing the right direction

Fine tuning requires much more time in production, increasing price. Back in the days salary in Japan was low and it allowed to spend more time on tuning without rising final price dramaticaly.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

That's a good point and one I likely tend to oversimplify in my head. I'd argue that the Japanese makers had a motivation to produce high-quality lenses, that ovular gold sticker. Japan's camera makers voluntarily signed up for a quality program to help improve their perception in markets outside of Japan. If there were a similar program for Chinese lens makers, I suspect that the issues with this class of lenses focusing past infinity would self-rectify rather quickly.

did you just get home from the office for lunch break?

@DavidHancock

Ай бұрын

I haven't had the time to make one of these in a while, but yeah, I do tend to make them over lunch the day before they go live.

:) WELL.... I have found similar disappointments +500€ lenses :) from similar manufacturers.... I really cannot understand why, as all the machining is automated. I have some haiou (seagull) lenses that are well.... mechanically correct... and made in the great famine :))

Should have just dropped it like you do with good lenses. I was going to use a lot of bad grammar/syntax, just because...you know.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

...I did. Onto rocks. With my A7 IV attached. This has not been my month (camera is fine.)

I do not have a masters in English. I barely eekeded over the line for my GED and I still qant schpell. I'd love the long version of why you believe 'brokeh' is the stupiddist werd in fotography.

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

:D Fair question. So, in short, Bokeh is a redundant word that does nothing above and beyond the original term -- out of focus area characteristics -- except be shorter and less-precise. The term bokeh adds nothing and provides no improvement to clarity or understanding. In fact, I argue that bokeh eliminates understanding as the exact meaning of it is interpreted differently by different people. When I say a lens' bokeh, what exactly am I talking about? The specific shape of a blurry ball of light? How the aperture makes a light point a star or a hexagon? Do I mean the shapes that source lights take in different parts of the image? The manner in which blurry areas blend together, or blend with focused areas? All of those are different aspects of the character in an out-of-focus area as created by a lens, and all of them have different causes, but I've heard people refer to all of them as bokeh. However, if I say let's discuss a lens' out of focus area characteristic then we both know exactly that I'm about to discuss why the blurry areas perform in the manner they do. So the out of focus area character is the sum total of all factors in lens performance that affect how blurry areas look, and that means the term can open the door to discussing individual elements. My other complaint about bokeh is that is also that it has given rise to a culture in photography where some photographers don't focus on mastering the basics of good photography but instead focus on using tricks and gimmicks to create images. And so saying bokeh versus out-of-focus-area character says a lot about the person -- is the person looking surface-deep at various little things or is the person interested in understanding the root cause of why images turn out the way that they do. That's not inherent to the word, but an outcropping of the popular photographers who embrace the word bokeh. For some reason, that word really works well as a hallmark that separates photographers into how they perceive the work of creating lasting images. Do all photographers who say bokeh want to rely solely on image gimmicks? No, decidedly not. Language is reflective and derivative of mindset and perception, but does not dictate how we think about things. So when I say 'let's discuss why this lens has this out-of-focus-area character,' what I mean is 'let's tear apart the aspects of focal length, subject distance, aperture, and the various optical system flaws that give this lens its signature look. And let's understand why each of those elements contributes to the overall look.' Whether I like it or not, bokeh is in the lexicon and a lot of people have embraced it. Language changes, and if someday no one remembers OOF area and everyone uses bokeh, that's the way language evolves and hopefully the word adopts a more-specific meaning.

@seoulrydr

9 ай бұрын

@@DavidHancock I just love me a good rant - thanks for the response! To be clear, I consider the term bokeh as representing out of focus characteristics of an IMAGE regardless of the means or lens used. That's just me. And since I'm a sore loser, I'll also add for the record that the bokeh shot I entered into your last contest lost it for me (boo-hoo)! I collect old lenses and tend to take a few just in case I'm in the mood to care a whole lot less about what I'm doing. And since I'm OCD about certain things, I need a convincing set give or take a focal length or 6 (depending on cost). I literally take my phone camera more seriously. I own a workable copy of the original Trioplan 100mm f2.8 and it kinda sux. the Meyer Optik 200mm f3.5 is almost preferable. Some day I hope to find a bokeh that sparks creativity for using on real images and not just swirls and specular highlights. I typically use the trilogy of zooms for my mirrorless camera when I am trying to really make something happen. For me bokeh is a fun distraction when I can't come up with anything else but still want to get out and shoot flowers or moody blocked up blacked out shadows with animals (to include humans) moving in and out of them. And if you've gotten this far? I very badly want a Domiron, and several fast 50mm /85mm /100mm /135mm lenses from the major and obscure manufacturers from back in the day. Hook me up!

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

@@seoulrydr I did get this far. :D So, out of not-idle curiosity, what are your thoughts on the blurry areas of these photos?: photos.smugmug.com/10-22-17-K-1/i-bZXTqjs/0/7f0c96a7/XL/Napoleon%20%2823%29-XL.jpg photos.smugmug.com/10-3-20-Bronica-S2A/i-LwxHLvr/0/a660915a/X4/10-3-20%20S2A%20CineStill%20800T%20%2810%29-X4.jpg photos.smugmug.com/10-24-21-A7S-II/i-78RpxvR/0/0158cec4/X4/7S202438-X4.jpg photos.smugmug.com/2019-Top-20/i-S2hmcmd/0/655c371d/X4/6-X4.jpg Four different lenses, BTW.

No stopdown pin AND it focuses past infinity? That's lazy and awful. Too bad, I would've snapped one up otherwise.

@DavidHancock

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, the stop-down pin is less of an issue, honestly, because pre-set (and pre-set-ish like this) lenses have some significant benefits, especially in video (assuming that the lens does not have detents on the aperture ring, which this one does.) But yeah, it's kind of all over the place, this lens. I've heard from people whose lenses line up properly on their cameras and focus at infinity. So it sounds like the production and quality control on this lens are wildly varied. To me, that's the biggest problem because it indicates that the brand is not concerned with providing a consistent product and user experience. So when I buy one of these, will I get one that's great or will I get one that's not? I have no way of knowing until I test it and, at that point, good luck to me getting a refund or return from AliExpress if the lens is flawed.

1. bokeh means blur in Japanese those bubbles are lens abberations. bokeh bro's make me sick. Learn to frame a shot.

@seoulrydr

9 ай бұрын

I am a brokeh bro - cringe i mean shudder i mean cower in my presence!

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

:D

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, but it's so imprecise. I responded to SeoulRydr in another thread about my specific complaints (which really boil down to vernacular and precision in language, and me being an old curmudgeon.) I do tend to agree that the 'bokeh culture' is one that is less focused on mastering the principles of solid photography vs. seeking a look. I do understand that impetus, in fairness, I say as someone who often looks at his own work and thinks 'another alpine lake with a mountain behind it and blurry clouds above? There's got to be more I can do.'

This sort of thing was important in silent films, when an otherwise overly busy background needed to be supressed to make actors more prominent. Hendrik Sartov's unique camera work in still photography led to him being hired as a cinematographer. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZJip3NKopLjXqrA.htmlfeature=shared

@DavidHancock

9 ай бұрын

Thank you! One of the things I love about vintage cinema is that were you to take basically any frame, it would work well as a still image. There was a lot of thought and care put into the means and methods to achieve every part of every shot. The Master, which is something like 15 years old now, really reminds me of that approach to cinema. Most movies today aren't that careful.