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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> That certainly does "pop"! > >>>>> > >>>>> Dan Matyola > >>>>> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery > >>>>> <https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery>* > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine <[email protected]> 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/#&gid=1&pid=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 > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> 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 > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> 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 > >> [email protected] > >> 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
