-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Most beautiful rendering
- Thread starter fferreres
- Start date
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
I generally hate "most" or "best" statements because nothing is the best in every way, so the terms are meaningless until one specifies metrics and weightings of them... but I guess I get to pick and state my metrics here. ;-)
To me, the most beautiful rendering is primarily about having super-smooth bokeh combined with really crisp high-resolution microcontrast. There is ONE lens that is the indisputable winner in that contest: the Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSS :
Sony's reference image of the 100mm STF
The reason it wins is because it cheats in the most effective way: it has almost no vignetting combined with the most effective type of apodizer and the strongest version of it. Runners-up would be the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF and then the Laowa 105mm STF.
My mini review of it here was Perfect Bokeh from a perfect lens , but to the summary that the title gives, I'll add that this is one of the highest-resolving lenses DxO ever tested . Aside from the apodizer making this f/2.8 lens T/5.6, the weakest point of the 100mm STF is CA, which it does have a noticeable amount of. Still, it consistently delivers images with background blur like:
One of many screen background shots I took with the 100mm STF
I know -- it's not an adapted lens on my A7RII -- but it is what I consider the most beautiful rendering. If you have a Nikon Z body, I think this lens should be the top motivation for buying a Sony E mount adapter. ;-)
One last comment: you do NOT want to use a lens like this for every shot. It's somewhat special-purpose, but if your goal is to have a super-crisp subject with all the out-of-focus regions completely smooth, this is THE lens.
If I were to pick "most beautiful rendering" by other criteria, there are lots of other contenders, however, I'll mention one that's more obscure, adapted, and usually quite cheap: the Rodenstock Omegaron 150mm f/4.5:
Rodenstock Omegaron 150mm f/4.5 -- a large-format enlarger lens
My particular copy has some element separation, which is VERY common (or should I say "virtually unavoidable"?) for this lens model. Despite that, this large-format enlarger lens gives really nice renderings with very crisp high-resolution detail and quite smooth transitions to out-of-focus. The crispness is particularly unusual for a large-format lens; usually all that light bounces around behind the lens and lowers contrast, but that doesn't seem to happen so much for this lens. Here's a simple example shot years ago using it on my NEX-7:
Shot in the Arboretum with NEX-7 used as a back for B&J 4x5 with the Omegaron 150mm
The thing that makes this rendering special is the "clean" feel that the images give from crisp sharpness smoothly transitioning into quite good bokeh combined with a very nice color rendering. I would describe the rendering as graphic, but factual; illustrative in that Norman Rockwell way. There also are none of the little artifacts that more complex modern lenses tend to sneak into images. It's freaky that a cheap enlarger lens with serious separation can produce images like this, but at least this copy does...
Last edited:
Hi!
For me, most beautiful rendering is provided by Rokkor MD 45/2. "Beautiful rendering" is, of course, matter of taste. For me, I love MD 45/2 because it's "vintage" results, not being too smooth by bokeh, for example.
Sorry for not providing any good examples: I'm limited with phone right now...
A s l a
Yes, in questions like this, the lens and the person are entangled, so you get to learn a bit about the combo.
I love the pink wooden board! Does it add to the charm? It shouldn't. But what if the person that used the lens picked the board color AFTER using it? It could be a label for how the lens felt after built.
Rodenstock Omegaron 150mm f/4.5 -- a large-format enlarger lens
- Rich vocabulary but kin ability to be succinct.
- clean feel
- crisp sharpness
- smooth transition
- nice color rendering
- graphic, factual rendering
- doesn't sneak little artifacts (which people may not consciously notice)
"When they started this practice [of having a great photographer inspect actual photos of prototypes and give the designers feedback], the designers were not always able to see the differences, but Otake-sensei could immediately see the significant areas and told them where to look. Once they developed the ability to see the differences, they became skilled in the art of evaluating images themselves."
Elaborating on this, this is very different from other design approaches. From this webpage, where Ricoh's documents the approach for FA Limited:
"Creating natural image renditions that faithfully reproduce the ambience and sense of depth of a given scene — essential elements that can’t be measured simply in numerical values.
These factors include:
- Emphasizing the importance of sensibility evaluations based on actually captured images.
- Making in-depth assessment of the image renditions of solid objects.
- Producing images rich in gradation and with a truthful sense of depth."
I think in the statement from the Omegaron, you created a design statement, and approximate an aspect of what you find beautiful, based on your concept of beautiful images. And in the STF example, the reality is that it's one of the very very few lenses where the measuring apparatus is least discernible. It's as if someone could imagine the scene and didn't use a lens at all, just like God creating a screenshot.
Last edited:
I find the Elmars to have some of the most beautiful renderings. While they still have some character, there's more to it than sharpness. They are crisp but not overworked. They deliver color clarity but are not over-saturated. They deliver contrast, but are not harsh. They produce clear lines but in a very natural way. They pretty flat but not flat as a macro lens. Overall, they see the world in the best possible light, and always with gentle, positive spin on things.
The images are convincing, if imperfect, they tend to err in the side of beauty.
135/4 Elmar
50/3.5 RS
The Pancolar is another lens that with all it flaws makes beautiful images. It's very different than the Elmar, and while there are "better" lenses, the bag of tricks this lens has is packed and often amusing. It only reveals itself through photos, but will hide its tricks when tested.
Pancolar 50/2
There are other lenses that have what I think very beautiful rendering, so it hard to draw a line, or make comparisons. But there are many many lenses, that while great, are best described terms of something else, than for beautiful rendering.
The images are convincing, if imperfect, they tend to err in the side of beauty.
135/4 Elmar
50/3.5 RS
The Pancolar is another lens that with all it flaws makes beautiful images. It's very different than the Elmar, and while there are "better" lenses, the bag of tricks this lens has is packed and often amusing. It only reveals itself through photos, but will hide its tricks when tested.
Pancolar 50/2
There are other lenses that have what I think very beautiful rendering, so it hard to draw a line, or make comparisons. But there are many many lenses, that while great, are best described terms of something else, than for beautiful rendering.
Last edited:
Murrayatuptown
Well-known member
Of course it's subjective, but I have a pretty wide tolerance for unusual and accidental results. I shot only pinhole for 3 years while slowly getting a 4x5 Crown Graphic & shutter repaired. That gave me an appreciation for atypical results, including long exposures that would be hard to do with short exposures.
Most optics misuse, in my opinion, requires post-processing. Sometimes I call it 'rescuing' an image. That makes it rather difficult to eliminate lenses from the hoard(e). I do try, occasionally. Not everyone has 'misuse' as a primary goal. The experiment is as much a part of the hobby for me as the result. (I don't use photography for a source of income).
My opinions change over time, too. Maybe daily or weekly. I get tired of minimal DOF and outrageous bokeh phenomena at times, but keep trying the same lenses on a different camera when the time comes. It has taken me years to approach use of HDR processing. I think any logic explaining my hesitation is irrational, because what I DO like is also.
When opinions of others are considered, it's a whole different thing. Plenty of room for disagreement there.
Most optics misuse, in my opinion, requires post-processing. Sometimes I call it 'rescuing' an image. That makes it rather difficult to eliminate lenses from the hoard(e). I do try, occasionally. Not everyone has 'misuse' as a primary goal. The experiment is as much a part of the hobby for me as the result. (I don't use photography for a source of income).
My opinions change over time, too. Maybe daily or weekly. I get tired of minimal DOF and outrageous bokeh phenomena at times, but keep trying the same lenses on a different camera when the time comes. It has taken me years to approach use of HDR processing. I think any logic explaining my hesitation is irrational, because what I DO like is also.
When opinions of others are considered, it's a whole different thing. Plenty of room for disagreement there.
simple-joy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,148
- Reaction score
- 1,672
I think my favorite lens in terms of rendering might be the "Tomioka Copal-E66 75 mm f/2.8" (enlarging/minilab lens):
Tomioka Copal-E66 75 mm f/2.8
I just adore the rendering of this lens... no matter if wide open or stopped down.
Don't worry, we're just playing ball here!
Music theory? It’s all a blur to me…
A dead end, ant! And now?
Part of glowing up
Pretty or just pre-tea?
--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.
Tomioka Copal-E66 75 mm f/2.8
I just adore the rendering of this lens... no matter if wide open or stopped down.
Don't worry, we're just playing ball here!
Music theory? It’s all a blur to me…
A dead end, ant! And now?
Part of glowing up
Pretty or just pre-tea?
--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.
sensiblename99
Leading Member
- Messages
- 858
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 566
First define 'Beauty' and conversely 'Ugliness'. We will all have a different idea about what these are based on our own experiences because they are sentiments and not objectively measurable. The stuff that some consider 'ugly' others consider interesting or engaging which bring their own kind of joy, as would 'beauty'. The best definition of beauty that I've ever read is that beauty is associated with '...the comfort of familiarity', (by the Australian architect and author Robin Boyd ca. 1960 in 'The Australian Ugliness'). I think this best defines the quality of anything that makes us think it to be beautiful and how personal this is. Conversely the ugly things challenge or even threaten us and our understanding of things.
I like ugly things, they are far more interesting.
In terms of lenses, it's the ugly ones, with harsh and distracting bokeh that are often appreciated the most by some photographers (Trioplan and harsh bubble bokeh lenses come to mind, as do lenses with mechanical vignetting and their swirly bokeh). These lenses create their own images in the way their bokeh draws attention to itself, and away from the subject. At the other extreme its the exceptionally smooth bokeh of cine lenses that are demanded for their very lack of attention to their bokeh, allowing the subject matter to shine. I suppose it is this later group that you consider beautiful but maybe you are using the wrong term in the first place and maybe terms like 'harsh' or 'smooth' night be more appropriate.
By the way, one of the smoothest lenses I've used is the Contax 135mm F2, very soft bokeh (behind the subject) but still very sharp, a great lens, If I find some pics I'll post them.
I like ugly things, they are far more interesting.
In terms of lenses, it's the ugly ones, with harsh and distracting bokeh that are often appreciated the most by some photographers (Trioplan and harsh bubble bokeh lenses come to mind, as do lenses with mechanical vignetting and their swirly bokeh). These lenses create their own images in the way their bokeh draws attention to itself, and away from the subject. At the other extreme its the exceptionally smooth bokeh of cine lenses that are demanded for their very lack of attention to their bokeh, allowing the subject matter to shine. I suppose it is this later group that you consider beautiful but maybe you are using the wrong term in the first place and maybe terms like 'harsh' or 'smooth' night be more appropriate.
By the way, one of the smoothest lenses I've used is the Contax 135mm F2, very soft bokeh (behind the subject) but still very sharp, a great lens, If I find some pics I'll post them.
Last edited:
Murray, thanks for the views. I was limiting it to subjective "beautiful rendering". Will usually require some things out of focus, and a subject. If I think of photographers that make beautiful images, they can get away with making every lens a star.
sensiblename99
Leading Member
- Messages
- 858
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 566
That's a very interesting lens, thanks for posting it. There aren't many 75-80mm enlarging or machine lenses at that aperture, most are much slower. Interesting.
The images are absolutely gorgeous. I tried to find this lens, and could not find it. Is there a lens diagram anywhere? I was curious the first time you posted images about it.I think my favorite lens in terms of rendering might be the "Tomioka Copal-E66 75 mm f/2.8" (enlarging/minilab lens)retty or just pre-tea?
Last edited:
You are not alone with your Rodenstock Omegaron. I understand that an Omegaron is just renamed Ysaron, and the Ysaron and Ysarex are fairly similar, the "on" optimized for close distances and the "ex" for normal photography.
And the Ysarex are highly regarded: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/
I personally have 3 Ysarex (127mm, 135mm and 210mm) and and a 75mm Ysaron, all in shutter. And a couple more Ysarons in barrel. I have mostly used the 135mm one, I bought the 210mm just before moving back, so I really haven't had the time to use it.
And the Ysarex are highly regarded: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/
I personally have 3 Ysarex (127mm, 135mm and 210mm) and and a 75mm Ysaron, all in shutter. And a couple more Ysarons in barrel. I have mostly used the 135mm one, I bought the 210mm just before moving back, so I really haven't had the time to use it.
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
Interesting. I saw things saying they were the same as Rodagons, but I know they aren't the same as Rogonar-S (I have two 135mm f/4.5 that are just OK). The Ysarex lenses are pretty common because they were used on Polaroids, but my understanding is that the 127mm doesn't quite cover 4x5, so I had avoided them... perhaps I shouldn't avoid them?
I also rather like the Ektars. I have a 127mm and a 203mm and I would agree with the reference you cited: the Ektars do give a more "old fashioned" rendering, which is quite pleasant in its own right. My Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 135mm is not too far off the Ektars, not as sharp, but less old-timey in character.
I also have a 210mm Omegaron -- which I haven't yet had time to use. ;-)
Just a little side note: these long focal length large-format lenses are a bit of a problem for FE bodies. They have the rear element far from the focus plane, which means rays go pretty much straight back; Sony E-mount doesn't really leave enough room for the (especially 3D-printed) bayonet to avoid clipping the corner rays for a FF sensor.
Honestly, if I end up buying a Nikon Z, this will have been the motivation...
QuietOC
Veteran Member
I like the rendering of the GM STF, but at least my copy is not that crisp at least compared to other lenses at the same transmission. The GM is better than the old 135mm STF.
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
The 100mm STF consistently ranks as one of the highest MTF lenses at any given aperture setting, partly because it's a very well-corrected lens, but also because that's another side benefit of the apodization: it also shapes the in-focus PSF. Stopping another lens down to f/5.6 certainly should help the other lens against this at T/5.6, but the DxO tests on the A7RIV say only the Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS beats it. On my A7RII, only a few of my >250 lenses basically match the 100mm STF resolution at the same T stop.
I suppose it's possible you have a bad copy, but if you were using a filter on the lens, that would be the more likely explanation. BTW, I really encourage folks to make some MTF measurements with and without filters; the drop in MTF with even the very best filters is quite significant for >40MP FF sensors. The IQ drop due to a filter also depends on the lens; for example, putting a supposedly good-quality filter on my Tamron 150-500mm basically drops the MTF resolution by more than half! I only use filters when absolutely necessary.
Last edited:
QuietOC
Veteran Member
I don't use filters, and I don't see any signs of misalignment. I don't mind the slight softness.
I just got the 90mm F2.8 Macro G, and it is certainly sharper than the STF, but it is not the sharpest lens either.
I just got the 90mm F2.8 Macro G, and it is certainly sharper than the STF, but it is not the sharpest lens either.
Last edited:
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
Um, the 90mm macro is LITERALLY THE HIGHEST-RESOLVING LENS on Sonys by every MTF measurement I've ever seen. On the A7RIV DxO quotes it as delivering 61MP effective -- the maximum possible score. What lens are you seeing do better?
simple-joy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,148
- Reaction score
- 1,672
Thank you! Unfortuntely I don't have any official specs or a lens diagram... and I've pretty much given up hope on ever finding one.
It seems like this lens is slightly different from the other Tomioka Copal E36/E90 minilab lenses, but I'm pretty sure it's also a 6/4 construction. It looks like a Double-Gauss design to me, pretty similar to the Agfa Color-Solagon DI 70 mm f/4.5:
Agfa Color-Solagon DI 70 mm f/4.5 (also no official diagram though... just based on a matching patent granted to Agfa)
I emphasize that it's only a suspicion but from my experience this lens renders quite similarly and is stopped down to f/4.5 deliberatly and would otherwise be close to a f/2.8 lens as well.
Here's how this lens renders:
On the road again?
Ugly duck and cover?
--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simple_joy/
Last edited:
smith-jones
Leading Member
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 306
I have three favourites for rendering.
Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall
Tokina 60-120 2.8 (FD mount) portrait lens
Sony GM 85 1.4
The last is not an adapted lens as it stands but my Nikon Z6 is here and I am waiting on a megadap adapter to use it.
Photos of and with the lenses later.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum