Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-11-2014, 05:54 AM   #4381
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Adelaide
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by Jorgario Quote
Thanks southlander for taking your time and explaining me the cons of the M 135mm f3.5. I really appreciated that. Definitely the purple fringing is to avoid and not desirable ... As you mention the chromatic aberrations, I am adjoining the original in order you can help me to see if there is in fact a CA (I may excuse with other users of this thread for continuing showing not a nice picture) ?? Cause I think the purple and green come from the original sand color and grass color of the out of focus backwards mountain and a color oversaturation I did ...

Thanks again for your advices,
The re-posted photo looks a lot cleaner. Nothing too obvious. I thought I saw some purplish colouring on the end grain detail towards the front of the fence post on the shot you first posted, but it looks like your post processing was the main contributor to what I thought I saw.

Many lenses can have a touch of purple fringing at wide apertures on high contrast edges. Good lenses get rid of it pretty quickly on the first click or two of stopping down. Modern lenses with automatic profile corrections of distortion and aberrations tend to hide it with the processing into JPEGs in camera or when uploaded to computer software. My M85/2 is a quality lens but can produce an amazing blue fringing outdoors at F2, heavily reduced by F2.8 and gone by F4. I really think F2 on that lens was designed for indoor portrait use only where lighting can be much more carefully controlled and high contrast edges avoided.

I don't have a really clear recent example of CA with the M135/3.5. The last lot of photos with it were generally pretty good (I must have been more careful with focus and background choice). If you look at this post on my blog A wet and rainy day and scroll to the pelicans with the jetty in the far distance, you can see some green CA around the jetty pylons (a close look and you can see I have used Lightroom to desaturate it to make it less obvious, with the side effect of producing an odd halo around the pylons). The top group of photos down to the bright orange seaweed were all with the M135/3.5 in interesting but rather low lighting levels on a late winter's afternoon.

The out of focus chromatic aberrations (CA) are more obvious with this shot taken with my M200/4 at either F4 of F5.6. I don't mind manual lenses but I do miss the EXIF details...



If you look at the out of focus parking zone signs behind the cupcake signage you should be able to see that the white/dark boundary around the sign is quite green fringed. The margins of the fluros upper left also show it as does the Colonel's chin. From memory the area out of focus but in front of the focus plane would show blue/purplish fringing. Not violently obvious and distracting here but out of focus trees with masses of bright/dark boundaries can get pretty ugly, so good to avoid.


Last edited by southlander; 06-15-2014 at 04:38 AM.
06-11-2014, 07:25 PM   #4382
Veteran Member
JibbaJab's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 362
Contrasty magic (SOOC JPEG): M50/1.7


Last edited by JibbaJab; 06-11-2014 at 07:33 PM.
06-12-2014, 07:18 AM   #4383
Senior Member
Bunch's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 283
SMC-M 50m f4 Macro reverse mounted on some cheap tubes.
Attached Images
 
06-12-2014, 12:55 PM   #4384
Veteran Member
Jorgario's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Josť
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,769
QuoteOriginally posted by southlander Quote
Many lenses can have a touch of purple fringing at wide apertures on high contrast edges. Good lenses get rid of it pretty quickly on the first click or two of stopping down. Modern lenses with automatic profile corrections of distortion and aberrations tend to hide it with the processing into JPEGs in camera or when uploaded to computer software. My M85/2 is a quality lens but can produce an amazing blue fringing outdoors at F2, heavily reduced by F2.8 and gone by F4. I really think F2 on that lens was designed for indoor portrait use only where lighting can be much more carefully controlled and high contrast edges avoided.
Got it and remeber this for the rest of my life, not too open in high contrast ...

QuoteOriginally posted by southlander Quote
I don't have a really clear recent example of CA with the M135/3.5. The last lot of photos with it were generally pretty good (I must have been more careful with focus and background choice). If you look at this post on my blog A wet and rainy day and scroll to the pelicans with the jetty in the far distance, you can see some green CA around the jetty pylons (a close look and you can see I have used Lightroom to desaturate it to make it less obvious, with the side effect of producing an odd halo around the pylons). The top group of photos down to the bright orange seaweed were all with the M135/3.5 in interesting but rather low lighting levels on a late winter's afternoon.
Unfornutarely I could not saw the linked page ... but understood your idea to desaturate in PP (the contrary I did ...).
QuoteOriginally posted by southlander Quote
The out of focus chromatic aberrations (CA) are more obvious with this shot taken with my M200/4 at either F4 of F5.6. I don't mind manual lenses but I do miss the EXIF details...
Thanks for showing what CA exactly is and I also miss the EXIF info for M lens but I love the sensuality of doing everything manually on the lens ...,

06-14-2014, 09:01 PM   #4385
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,356
I don't have the results yet, but I took my ME Super (which was very graciously given to me by a forum member) out for a spin today with my M135 f3.5. It was a wonderful shooting experience, and I can't wait to have a full frame digital camera that replicates it.
06-15-2014, 04:41 AM   #4386
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Adelaide
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by Jorgario Quote
Unfornutarely I could not saw the linked page ... but understood your idea to desaturate in PP (the contrary I did ...).

Thanks for showing what CA exactly is and I also miss the EXIF info for M lens but I love the sensuality of doing everything manually on the lens ...,
Link fixed. The http: part of the web address was duplicated. Should work now.
06-15-2014, 09:07 AM   #4387
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,802
M50/2 on an *istD (xposted)


06-18-2014, 09:20 AM   #4388
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,802
Took my old *istD and rarely-used M50/2 to the lake last night. The lens is a pretty decent performer, imo. I think this was f/8 (xposted):

06-19-2014, 07:47 AM   #4389
Veteran Member
Dewman's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,369
You have inspired me, sir!

I have several older manual focus lenses left over from my film days, a SMC Pentax 50mm, f:1.4, a SMC Pentax 50mm, f:2 and a Takumar (bayonet) f: 2.5, 135mm among them. There's something about these lenses, their all-metal construction and solidness that commands respect. The optics in most of them is amazing.

Last edited by Dewman; 03-25-2015 at 04:35 PM.
06-19-2014, 08:24 AM   #4390
Veteran Member
Jorgario's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Josť
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,769
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
You have inspired me, sir! I have several older manual focus lenses left over from my film days, a SMC Pentax 50mm, f:1.4, a SMC Pentax 50mm, f:2 and a Takumar (bayonet) f: 2.5, 135mm among them. There's something about these lenses, their all-metal construction and solidness that commands respect. The optics in most of them is amazing.
I really liked the third one,
06-20-2014, 05:10 PM   #4391
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,678
I received Pentax-M 100mm f4 from ebay seller today, in great condition. After playing with the lens for a while, I'm kind of disappointed. I get better macro and not only macro with Pentax-F 35-70mm, and I can great flowers pictures even better with Helios 44K-4 stopped down. Also, cheap Vivitar VMC 135mm f3.5 lens does not less job that M 100mm.
The lens is heavy and it's hard to focus in full length out handheld. It seems that lens is overrated somehow. Perhaps, I'm not got used to that lens yet.
Kind of feel sorry I paid $100 .
06-20-2014, 05:49 PM   #4392
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,171
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Kind of feel sorry I paid $100 .
That's a good price for that lens, if it is in good condition, so you should have no problem reselling it at cost. I have the Bellows Takumar version of this optic; I find it to be a fine performer (not stellar by macro standards but quite reasonable). It does need to be well stopped down (to at least f/8) for best performance.
06-20-2014, 06:09 PM   #4393
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,678
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
That's a good price for that lens, if it is in good condition, so you should have no problem reselling it at cost. It does need to be well stopped down (to at least f/8) for best performance.
It has been raining mostly all day, so I stopped down to 5.6 and f8 a few times. The condition is very good, and it came in original leather box, so I decided not to return the lens, but test more. If I'm not getting used into, then I return the money of course. The only advantage I found is no need to come too close to spiders and not to scary them
06-21-2014, 08:03 AM   #4394
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,678
I was wrong, Pentax-M 100mm is great lens. I did compare it today to Pentax-F 35-70mm. They both sharp, but 100mm is "rich". It's hard to explain, but it feels like that lens is higher grade. It also does great close up "portraits". Not gonna sell it any time soon
Not edited:



Crop, very little pp:


Portrait of tiny lizard:
06-21-2014, 09:20 AM   #4395
Veteran Member
cbope's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 664
Very nice. I would be looking for one of these if I didn't already have my F 50 macro.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
28mm, background, bokeh, camera, city, colours, contrast, dust, elpolodiablo, flickr, focus, hood, k-5, lens, lenses, light, m50/1.4, park, pentax, pentax lens, photo, picture, pm, post, pp, ps, shot, thanks, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
D-FA WR Club Rico Lens Clubs 640 1 Day Ago 05:43 AM
The A Club jake.astig Lens Clubs 3822 11-22-2021 10:56 PM
The F Club! jsherman999 Lens Clubs 1057 11-22-2021 03:26 PM
Ltd club, here I come axl Lens Clubs 21 12-12-2010 03:06 AM
In the club again metroeloise Post Your Photos! 4 10-20-2008 08:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top