Adapted Lens Image Thread

ektar

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
583
Location
Western NC
Real Name
Don
if wanted, diagonal beam can be easily cloned out with "content aware" tool in Photoshop (or similar software)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Like so. Thanks for the tip!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
69
Location
INDIA
That crosshatch-like bokeh sure is an interesting outcome of the mod, I like it a lot.
Another fallout I noticed is an increased sharpness . But I need to experiment a bit more to find a sweet spot for a 3D pop to the subject .

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P1008070_resized by Achin Chitrakar, on Flickr
 

carrots99

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
25
Playing around shooting some macros with the Durst Neonon 50mm f2.8 enlarging lens mounted on a M42-MFT 25-55mm helicoid:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And this one shot on macro mode with the Vivitar Series 1 f3.5 70-210mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

The Grumpy Snapper

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
435
Playing around shooting some macros with the Durst Neonon 50mm f2.8 enlarging lens mounted on a M42-MFT 25-55mm helicoid:

View attachment 795104
View attachment 795105

And this one shot on macro mode with the Vivitar Series 1 f3.5 70-210mm:

View attachment 795106
Interesting, the Neonon was probably the second worst enlarger lens I ever used. I ended up using a decades older 2" Wray in preference to the Neonon. I seem to remember a rumour that the Neonon was made by either Rodenstock or Schneider, both makers of very good enlarger lenses at the time. If it was made by one of them it must have used parts from their reject bins.
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,246
Location
N Essex, UK
Real Name
Mike
Interesting, the Neonon was probably the second worst enlarger lens I ever used. I ended up using a decades older 2" Wray in preference to the Neonon. I seem to remember a rumour that the Neonon was made by either Rodenstock or Schneider, both makers of very good enlarger lenses at the time. If it was made by one of them it must have used parts from their reject bins.
Probably a rumour started by Neonon. :thumbup:
 

carrots99

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
25
Interesting, the Neonon was probably the second worst enlarger lens I ever used. I ended up using a decades older 2" Wray in preference to the Neonon. I seem to remember a rumour that the Neonon was made by either Rodenstock or Schneider, both makers of very good enlarger lenses at the time. If it was made by one of them it must have used parts from their reject bins.
Yes, I've read about that somewhere too so I'm not sure about the origins of this lens....

I Don't have an opinion nor a way to make a comparison with other enlarger lenses, but at least I don't dislike the results I'm getting for now.

I also have a PZO Amar/S 105mm f4.5 that I've recently bought but I haven't tested it yet properly, as it needs some extension tubes to be able to focus, while the Durst only needs the helicoid
 
Last edited:

User ID

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Messages
70
I have a version of this image where I cropped it to almost square to
eliminate the diagonal beam at the top, but I decided I liked the bokeh
in the background in this version. Thoughts?

Mir-1 37mm

View attachment 794029

Olympus OM-D E-M1.1 f4.0 @ 1/1600s, ISO 200
Finding zero redeeming value to the defocused background,
I think you should have cropped it out if that results in some
composition that better serves your intended message.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,498
Location
Baltimore, MD
I think the forum does it? I can enlarge it by clicking on the thumbnail. I uploaded the file (I did not insert an 'external image')
Ok, I did some testing, and when you upload an image, if the image isn't automatically inserted into the body of the post, or if you choose not to do so, then the uploaded image renders as a clickable thumbnail. FWIW, if it's not automatically inserting for you and you want your photos to display inline, you can click on the Click here to Insert Image into Post button while in edit mode as shown below:

1578872761899.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

91photographers

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
17
Very nice!
You have a good copy of the 44-2.
Very sharp.
Did you mounted the lens on a focal reducer, or used just the 44-2 alone?
I tried both (speedbooster and a 'simple adapter'), both these photos were without speedbooster = just a simple adapter (so the focal lenght should be 58 * 2 = 116 mm ff eq.)
 

jrsilva

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
1,477
Location
Portugal
Real Name
Jaime Silva
I tried both (speedbooster and a 'simple adapter'), both these photos were without speedbooster = just a simple adapter (so the focal lenght should be 58 * 2 = 116 mm ff eq.)

Thank you for the info.
I also have a simple adapter for my 44-2:
I must pick up my 44-2 from the shelf one of these days.
Please keep sharing your portraits with the Helios 44-2.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom