Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Toine]

Thanks! Very nice to read how much you like it. I'm just a happy photowalker :)

Toine

On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 19:18, Eric Weir  wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Toine  wrote:
> >
> > I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> > should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> >
> > https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> >
> > I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it 
> > pops.
>
> I can’t contribute anything to the discussion of bokeh, but using the above 
> link I took a look at your website, Toine. I LOVE everything I saw.
>
> You have a collection called “favorites.” If I had a collection of photos 
> like those on your site I would be hard-pressed to select any favorites. 
> There’s so much that’s so good.
>
> One thing I especially liked, though far from the only thing. is the way you 
> make striking images by focusing in on the fine details of a scene.
>
> You reminded me how much there is to see—if we look, and are able.
>
> --
> Eric Weir
> Decatur, GA  USA
> eew...@comcast.net
>
> "What does it mean...that the world is so beautiful?"
>
> - Mary Oliver
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Eric Weir]

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Toine  wrote:
> 
> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> 
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> 
> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it 
> pops.

I can’t contribute anything to the discussion of bokeh, but using the above 
link I took a look at your website, Toine. I LOVE everything I saw. 

You have a collection called “favorites.” If I had a collection of photos like 
those on your site I would be hard-pressed to select any favorites. There’s so 
much that’s so good. 

One thing I especially liked, though far from the only thing. is the way you 
make striking images by focusing in on the fine details of a scene. 

You reminded me how much there is to see—if we look, and are able.

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@comcast.net

"What does it mean...that the world is so beautiful?" 

- Mary Oliver 













-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: More on bokeh (Was: Re: PESO: 3D pop?)

[Paul Stenquist]

Great information. Thanks!

Paul

> On Oct 5, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> Toine,
> 
> First, let me say that you've got a very nice image!
> 
> Paul has given a very simple explanation for the visual effect you (we) 
> observe. The further difference is (as Paul and a few others pointed out) 
> comes from the quality of the bokeh for the particular lens.
> 
> As you probably know, the lead (actually, lead oxide!) in the lens glass 
> raises its refractive index. This allows for thinner lenses for a given focal 
> length. However, glass with a higher refraction index has higher dispersion 
> that needs to be corrected to make the lens achromatic (i.e. to minimize 
> chromatic [and spherical] abberations).
> So, the combination of these factors *can* affect the bokeh.
> 
> I've found this informative write-up on B website:
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh
> It gives a nice overview of what and how plays a role in the bokeh - with 
> some nice illustrations.
> In particular, I didn't know that there are lenses with adjustable bokeh.
> 
> Now, I was curious about how much is known scientifically about bokeh.
> It is clear that at least some lens manufacturers pay attention to it.
> 
> While I didn't do a deep comprehensive search in the scientific literature, 
> it seems, - not much seems to be published on that topic.
> I've been able to find a few research articles adressing the theory and 
> theoretical calculation of the bokeh, but there are literally handful of 
> those. (And there was some research on how to fake bokeh, - I assume aimed at 
> creating "creative filters" for the phone-shooters.)
> 
> Of those, one paper I looked at was  Viktor P. Sivokon, Michael D. Thorpe
> Optical Engineering, 53(6), 065103 (2014). 
> https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.6.065103
> (Sorry, it requires paid access. Feel free to contact me directly for detail.)
> They were able to model bokeh mathematically (analytically) and compare
> to the actual bokeh produced by lenses with a reasonable accuracy.
> Here is one of their results:
> http://42graphy.org/misc/BokehCalculated-SivokonThorpe.jpg
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Igor
> 
> 
> Toine Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:56:03 -0700 wrote:
> 
> Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
> glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
> Zooms have a busy bokeh.
> 
> 
> https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
> 
> I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
> 
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:
>> 
>> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
>> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you 
> more
>> control over DOF.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> > On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > That certainly does "pop"!
>> >
>> > Dan Matyola
>> > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
>> > *
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
>> >> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
>> >>
>> >>
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
>> >>
>> >> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe 
> because
>> it
>> >> pops.
>> >>
>> >> Do I need new glasses?
>> >>
>> >> Toine
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: More on bokeh (Was: Re: PESO: 3D pop?)

[Toine]

Igor,

Thanks for the references. I should be able to access the full text of
the DOI through my university account. Maybe I need to refresh my
physics and optics courses from 40 years ago :)

It's difficult to reproduce the 3d pop. I think foreground and
background should be blurred.

Toine

>
> > On Oct 5, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Toine,
> >
> > First, let me say that you've got a very nice image!
> >
> > Paul has given a very simple explanation for the visual effect you (we) 
> > observe. The further difference is (as Paul and a few others pointed out) 
> > comes from the quality of the bokeh for the particular lens.
> >
> > As you probably know, the lead (actually, lead oxide!) in the lens glass 
> > raises its refractive index. This allows for thinner lenses for a given 
> > focal length. However, glass with a higher refraction index has higher 
> > dispersion that needs to be corrected to make the lens achromatic (i.e. to 
> > minimize chromatic [and spherical] abberations).
> > So, the combination of these factors *can* affect the bokeh.
> >
> > I've found this informative write-up on B website:
> > https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh
> > It gives a nice overview of what and how plays a role in the bokeh - with 
> > some nice illustrations.
> > In particular, I didn't know that there are lenses with adjustable bokeh.
> >
> > Now, I was curious about how much is known scientifically about bokeh.
> > It is clear that at least some lens manufacturers pay attention to it.
> >
> > While I didn't do a deep comprehensive search in the scientific literature, 
> > it seems, - not much seems to be published on that topic.
> > I've been able to find a few research articles adressing the theory and 
> > theoretical calculation of the bokeh, but there are literally handful of 
> > those. (And there was some research on how to fake bokeh, - I assume aimed 
> > at creating "creative filters" for the phone-shooters.)
> >
> > Of those, one paper I looked at was  Viktor P. Sivokon, Michael D. Thorpe
> > Optical Engineering, 53(6), 065103 (2014). 
> > https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.6.065103
> > (Sorry, it requires paid access. Feel free to contact me directly for 
> > detail.)
> > They were able to model bokeh mathematically (analytically) and compare
> > to the actual bokeh produced by lenses with a reasonable accuracy.
> > Here is one of their results:
> > http://42graphy.org/misc/BokehCalculated-SivokonThorpe.jpg
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > Toine Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:56:03 -0700 wrote:
> >
> > Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
> > glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
> > Zooms have a busy bokeh.
> >
> >
> > https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
> >
> > I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
> >
> >> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:
> >>
> >> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
> >> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you
> > more
> >> control over DOF.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> > On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That certainly does "pop"!
> >> >
> >> > Dan Matyola
> >> > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> >> > *
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> >> >> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> > https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> >> >>
> >> >> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe
> > because
> >> it
> >> >> pops.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do I need new glasses?
> >> >>
> >> >> Toine
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> > follow the directions.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

More on bokeh (Was: Re: PESO: 3D pop?)

[Igor PDML-StR]

Toine,

First, let me say that you've got a very nice image!

Paul has given a very simple explanation for the visual effect you (we) 
observe. The further difference is (as Paul and a few others pointed out) 
comes from the quality of the bokeh for the particular lens.


As you probably know, the lead (actually, lead oxide!) in the lens glass 
raises its refractive index. This allows for thinner lenses for a given 
focal length. However, glass with a higher refraction index has higher 
dispersion that needs to be corrected to make the lens achromatic (i.e. to 
minimize chromatic [and spherical] abberations).

So, the combination of these factors *can* affect the bokeh.

I've found this informative write-up on B website:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh
It gives a nice overview of what and how plays a role in the bokeh - with 
some nice illustrations.

In particular, I didn't know that there are lenses with adjustable bokeh.

Now, I was curious about how much is known scientifically about bokeh.
It is clear that at least some lens manufacturers pay attention to it.

While I didn't do a deep comprehensive search in the scientific 
literature, it seems, - not much seems to be published on that topic.
I've been able to find a few research articles adressing the theory and 
theoretical calculation of the bokeh, but there are literally handful of 
those. (And there was some research on how to fake bokeh, - I assume aimed 
at creating "creative filters" for the phone-shooters.)


Of those, one paper I looked at was  Viktor P. Sivokon, Michael D. Thorpe
Optical Engineering, 53(6), 065103 (2014). 
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.6.065103
(Sorry, it requires paid access. Feel free to contact me directly for 
detail.)

They were able to model bokeh mathematically (analytically) and compare
to the actual bokeh produced by lenses with a reasonable accuracy.
Here is one of their results:
http://42graphy.org/misc/BokehCalculated-SivokonThorpe.jpg

Cheers,

Igor


Toine Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:56:03 -0700 wrote:

Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.


https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  
wrote:



What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you 

more

control over DOF.

Paul

> On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
wrote:
>
> That certainly does "pop"!
>
> Dan Matyola
> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> *
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
>>
>> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
>> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
>>
>>


https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit

>>
>> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe 

because

it
>> pops.
>>
>> Do I need new glasses?
>>
>> Toine


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Bruce Walker]

Mark, I bought an early Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version of that
lens. Mainly because they're the cheapest of that design used, and Rob
Studdard recommended it. (I watched eBay for a few weeks until I saw
one in good shape for under $400 US.)

I like how it performs and the images look. Very, very sharp indeed.
It's easy to manual focus with the really long throw it has. I haven't
pushed the backlit scenes so far, but in those few I have done I
haven't seen CA.

I think you'd find great results with your 67 glass, but of course
it'd be much the same shift for you as using 35mm glass on the crop
APS-C bodies.


On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:58 PM Mark C  wrote:
>
> I agree re creamy bokeh - if people are going to notice the bokeh you
> don't want them noticing the details of stuff in the bokeh...
>
> Sounds like the 105mm f2.4 is doing well on you your 645Z. Sharp with
> minimal chromatic aberrations? An upgrade path to digital MF using my
> 6x7 lenses is an option I've been trying to keep open, though I wonder
> how well they will perform. And in most cases I have the
> Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7 lens, vs the later SMC 67 versions. On
> film I don't think the difference is huge, but on digital I'm not sure...
>
> Mark
>
> On 9/28/2020 8:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> > I like cream with my bokeh.
> >
> > I've been using that 67 105mm f:2.4 with my 645Z and the results are
> > wonderful. It makes a terrific portrait short tele on the 645 format.
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:25 PM Mark C  wrote:
> >> Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been
> >> shooting film almost exclusively this year, a lot with a Pentax 6x7 and
> >> 105mm f2.4. That lens  seems to have been designed to produce the most
> >> beautiful creamy bokeh possible. I also use a Ricoh Diacord TLR, a 6x6
> >> TLR with a f3.5 Tessar design lens.  The results are incredibly sharp
> >> but you really can't get a smooth bokeh. Forms clump together and
> >> highlights in particular render as circles with almost crisp
> >> circumferences. Each lens has its own purpose. The Pentax lens lets you
> >> easily isolate a subject against a soft background, giving the nice 3d
> >> look. But the Diacord is almost magical in creating the appearance of
> >> infinite depth of field, even when only stopped down to f8 or even f5.6.
> >>
> >> I think one issue is that there is no real agreement about what makes
> >> for a "good" bokeh. The lens in the Diacord seems to have pretty typical
> >> Tessar type characteristics, including the "clumpy" bokeh. But a lot of
> >> folks seem to like that - especially in the rendering of specular
> >> highlights.  Others look for a creamy bokeh with everything running
> >> together.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On 9/27/2020 1:54 PM, Toine wrote:
> >>> Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
> >>> glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
> >>> Zooms have a busy bokeh.
> >>>
> >>> https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
> >>>
> >>> I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
>  primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you 
>  more
>  control over DOF.
> 
>  Paul
> 
> > On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
>  wrote:
> > That certainly does "pop"!
> >
> > Dan Matyola
> > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
> >>
> >> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> >> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> >>
> >>
>  https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> >> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because
>  it
> >> pops.
> >>
> >> Do I need new glasses?
> >>
> >> Toine
> >>
> >> --
> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> PDML@pdml.net
> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> >> follow the directions.
> >>
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>  follow the directions.
> 
> 
>  --
>  PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>  PDML@pdml.net
>  http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>  to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>  follow the directions.
> 
> >>
> >> --
> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Mark C]

I agree re creamy bokeh - if people are going to notice the bokeh you 
don't want them noticing the details of stuff in the bokeh...


Sounds like the 105mm f2.4 is doing well on you your 645Z. Sharp with 
minimal chromatic aberrations? An upgrade path to digital MF using my 
6x7 lenses is an option I've been trying to keep open, though I wonder 
how well they will perform. And in most cases I have the 
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7 lens, vs the later SMC 67 versions. On 
film I don't think the difference is huge, but on digital I'm not sure...


Mark

On 9/28/2020 8:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

I like cream with my bokeh.

I've been using that 67 105mm f:2.4 with my 645Z and the results are
wonderful. It makes a terrific portrait short tele on the 645 format.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:25 PM Mark C  wrote:

Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been
shooting film almost exclusively this year, a lot with a Pentax 6x7 and
105mm f2.4. That lens  seems to have been designed to produce the most
beautiful creamy bokeh possible. I also use a Ricoh Diacord TLR, a 6x6
TLR with a f3.5 Tessar design lens.  The results are incredibly sharp
but you really can't get a smooth bokeh. Forms clump together and
highlights in particular render as circles with almost crisp
circumferences. Each lens has its own purpose. The Pentax lens lets you
easily isolate a subject against a soft background, giving the nice 3d
look. But the Diacord is almost magical in creating the appearance of
infinite depth of field, even when only stopped down to f8 or even f5.6.

I think one issue is that there is no real agreement about what makes
for a "good" bokeh. The lens in the Diacord seems to have pretty typical
Tessar type characteristics, including the "clumpy" bokeh. But a lot of
folks seem to like that - especially in the rendering of specular
highlights.  Others look for a creamy bokeh with everything running
together.

Mark

On 9/27/2020 1:54 PM, Toine wrote:

Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.

https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:


What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
control over DOF.

Paul


On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 

wrote:

That certainly does "pop"!

Dan Matyola
*https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
*




On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:

I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:



https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit

I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because

it

pops.

Do I need new glasses?

Toine

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and

follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Bruce Walker]

I like cream with my bokeh.

I've been using that 67 105mm f:2.4 with my 645Z and the results are
wonderful. It makes a terrific portrait short tele on the 645 format.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:25 PM Mark C  wrote:
>
> Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been
> shooting film almost exclusively this year, a lot with a Pentax 6x7 and
> 105mm f2.4. That lens  seems to have been designed to produce the most
> beautiful creamy bokeh possible. I also use a Ricoh Diacord TLR, a 6x6
> TLR with a f3.5 Tessar design lens.  The results are incredibly sharp
> but you really can't get a smooth bokeh. Forms clump together and
> highlights in particular render as circles with almost crisp
> circumferences. Each lens has its own purpose. The Pentax lens lets you
> easily isolate a subject against a soft background, giving the nice 3d
> look. But the Diacord is almost magical in creating the appearance of
> infinite depth of field, even when only stopped down to f8 or even f5.6.
>
> I think one issue is that there is no real agreement about what makes
> for a "good" bokeh. The lens in the Diacord seems to have pretty typical
> Tessar type characteristics, including the "clumpy" bokeh. But a lot of
> folks seem to like that - especially in the rendering of specular
> highlights.  Others look for a creamy bokeh with everything running
> together.
>
> Mark
>
> On 9/27/2020 1:54 PM, Toine wrote:
> > Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
> > glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
> > Zooms have a busy bokeh.
> >
> > https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
> >
> > I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:
> >
> >> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
> >> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
> >> control over DOF.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>> On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
> >> wrote:
> >>> That certainly does "pop"!
> >>>
> >>> Dan Matyola
> >>> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
> 
>  I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
>  should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> 
> 
> >> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
>  I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because
> >> it
>  pops.
> 
>  Do I need new glasses?
> 
>  Toine
> 
>  --
>  PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>  PDML@pdml.net
>  http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>  to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>  follow the directions.
> 
> >>> --
> >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>> PDML@pdml.net
> >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> >> follow the directions.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> PDML@pdml.net
> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> >> follow the directions.
> >>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Alan C]

BBB

Alan C

On 27-Sep-20 08:53 PM, mike wilson wrote:

On 27 September 2020 at 18:54 Toine  wrote:


Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.

https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider


I started to read that article and my first thought was that it was one of 
those pieces that starts from such a warped logistical premise that it is 
impossible to argue with.  I got about 1/3rd of the way through.  But I read 
the last paragraph, as suggested at the beginning.  Did you?




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[mike wilson]

> On 27 September 2020 at 18:54 Toine  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
> glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
> Zooms have a busy bokeh.
> 
> https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
> 
> I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
> 

I started to read that article and my first thought was that it was one of 
those pieces that starts from such a warped logistical premise that it is 
impossible to argue with.  I got about 1/3rd of the way through.  But I read 
the last paragraph, as suggested at the beginning.  Did you?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Mark C]

Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been 
shooting film almost exclusively this year, a lot with a Pentax 6x7 and 
105mm f2.4. That lens  seems to have been designed to produce the most 
beautiful creamy bokeh possible. I also use a Ricoh Diacord TLR, a 6x6 
TLR with a f3.5 Tessar design lens.  The results are incredibly sharp 
but you really can't get a smooth bokeh. Forms clump together and 
highlights in particular render as circles with almost crisp 
circumferences. Each lens has its own purpose. The Pentax lens lets you 
easily isolate a subject against a soft background, giving the nice 3d 
look. But the Diacord is almost magical in creating the appearance of 
infinite depth of field, even when only stopped down to f8 or even f5.6.


I think one issue is that there is no real agreement about what makes 
for a "good" bokeh. The lens in the Diacord seems to have pretty typical 
Tessar type characteristics, including the "clumpy" bokeh. But a lot of 
folks seem to like that - especially in the rendering of specular 
highlights.  Others look for a creamy bokeh with everything running 
together.


Mark

On 9/27/2020 1:54 PM, Toine wrote:

Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.

https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:


What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
control over DOF.

Paul


On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 

wrote:

That certainly does "pop"!

Dan Matyola
*https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
*




On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:

I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:



https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit

I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because

it

pops.

Do I need new glasses?

Toine

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and

follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Toine]

> But I read the last paragraph, as suggested at the beginning.  Did you?

Yes :) It's so full of pseudo science you cannt read it normally to
the end. The before after slider picture is the funniest

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 21:01, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
>
> Of course there’s an illusion of 3D. But it’s not the result of lens design 
> secrets. Just limited DOF on big glass.
>
> Paul
>
> > On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> >
> > That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D.
> >
> > Dan Matyola
> > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Paul Stenquist 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
> >> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
> >> control over DOF.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> > follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Paul Stenquist]

Of course there’s an illusion of 3D. But it’s not the result of lens design 
secrets. Just limited DOF on big glass.

Paul

> On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> 
> That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D.
> 
> Dan Matyola
> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> *
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Paul Stenquist 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
>> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
>> control over DOF.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Toine]

I tried to quote that website. Yes some zooms have busy bokeh

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 20:35 Daniel J. Matyola,  wrote:

> That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D.
>
> Dan Matyola
> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> *
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Paul Stenquist 
> wrote:
>
> > What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
> > primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you
> more
> > control over DOF.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Daniel J. Matyola]

That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D.

Dan Matyola
*https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
*



On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Paul Stenquist 
wrote:

> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
> control over DOF.
>
> Paul
>
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Paul Stenquist]

Some zooms have busy bokeh. My 150-450 has lovely bokeh.

Paul

> On Sep 27, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Toine  wrote:
> 
> Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
> glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
> Zooms have a busy bokeh.
> 
> https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
> 
> I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
> 
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:
>> 
>> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
>> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
>> control over DOF.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>>> On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That certainly does "pop"!
>>> 
>>> Dan Matyola
>>> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
>>> *
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
 
 I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
 should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
 
 
>> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
 
 I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because
>> it
 pops.
 
 Do I need new glasses?
 
 Toine
 
 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.
 
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Toine]

Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.

https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist,  wrote:

> What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
> primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
> control over DOF.
>
> Paul
>
> > On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
> wrote:
> >
> > That certainly does "pop"!
> >
> > Dan Matyola
> > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
> >>
> >> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> >> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> >>
> >>
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> >>
> >> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because
> it
> >> pops.
> >>
> >> Do I need new glasses?
> >>
> >> Toine
> >>
> >> --
> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> PDML@pdml.net
> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> >> follow the directions.
> >>
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Paul Stenquist]

What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because primes 
generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more control 
over DOF.

Paul

> On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> 
> That certainly does "pop"!
> 
> Dan Matyola
> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> *
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
>> 
>> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
>> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
>> 
>> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
>> 
>> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it
>> pops.
>> 
>> Do I need new glasses?
>> 
>> Toine
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Daniel J. Matyola]

That certainly does "pop"!

Dan Matyola
*https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
*



On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:

> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
>
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
>
> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it
> pops.
>
> Do I need new glasses?
>
> Toine
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Stanley Halpin]

Very nice. In your image I think the effect is helped by the light fall off 
from near to far and also the contrast of dark tree trunks near vs. the two 
lighter colored ones in a bit further. But the “look” of the lens is also there.

I’ve been using my DA*300 a lot lately, at first because I found that the SDM 
was not working, and then I got it to work but I read that a “cure” was to keep 
exercising the motor often and so I try to take it out for a few shots every 
day.  Through this process, I have been finding I quite like the look this lens 
produces!  I’ll need to look for a stand of trees like yours and see what I can 
do with such a scene.

stan

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Toine  wrote:
> 
> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> 
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> 
> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it 
> pops.
> 
> Do I need new glasses?
> 
> Toine
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[John]

On 9/26/2020 14:53:22, Toine wrote:

I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:

https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit

I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it pops.

Do I need new glasses?



No.

--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Larry Colen]

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Toine  wrote:
> 
> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
> 
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
> 
> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it 
> pops.
> 
> Do I need new glasses?

Nope, I think maybe I need to borrow yours.


--
Larry Colen
l...@red4est.com




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

[Bruce Walker]

I love that!

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine  wrote:
>
> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
>
> https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
>
> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it 
> pops.
>
> Do I need new glasses?
>
> Toine
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

PESO: 3D pop?

[Toine]

I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:

https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit

I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it pops.

Do I need new glasses?

Toine

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.