I LIKE THIS LENS

 

There are several reasons why I like the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Oreston f1.8 50mm.

One reason is the over the top manner in which it renders bokeh – set as wide open as the lens allows and the bokeh rivets the viewers attention.

Depending on the desired effect bokeh can either be subtle or bold – neither of these photos demonstrate the opposite poles, but the first one hints at the way it which can address DOF.

I have some examples of the bokeh I’ll root around on the external and find to post as a follow up.

Another is depending on aperture and or post editing this is a lens capable of producing an ethereal softness related to the primary subject of focus.

Like all lenses as you stop down up to a certain point it becomes progressively sharper, and it can get plenty sharp – at times I’ve actually dialed back focus a notch or two to achieve a desired effect though that isn’t the norm.

The Meyer is an all manual lens that some will shy away from due to it’s manual nature, but it is also a superbly constructed lens made when plastic was seen as a poor substitute for metal and can be purchased for a song relative to it’s capabilities.

My copy is several decades old and functions smooth as silk – that speaks to quality control and craftsmanship.

 

IVY AND BOKEH

 

I had done some work on a house a few years ago that required loading up and driving about three hundred miles.

A two story house in need of multiple repairs – ivy had grown over a large portion and while that can add a nice touch it can also lead to damage if left unchecked

So among other issues to address a decision was made to either trim back or remove a fair of portion it.

As usual among the tools I was taking was also a camera as you never know what opportunities might arise.

This photo was taken from an upstairs room I was working in – I always kind of liked it due to the color and bokeh.

Including a cropped copy as well.

 

 

 

NOT A FULL BLOWN “ZEBRA” BUT STILL A KEEPER

When the opportunity arose I got this lens for one reason and one reason only – it’s over the top bokeh.

If that’s a characteristic you’re looking for then I’d highly recommend it – if tack sharp is the consideration I’d suggest looking elsewhere.

That isn’t to say this lens isn’t sharp once you move beyond f1.8, only that it isn’t that sharp.

An oft suggested alternative is the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm 1.8 – noticeably sharper and good bokeh, but not as pronounced as the Meyer, so either way there is something of a trade off if you’re opting for one or the other.

Bokeh is a matter of personal taste, some prefer a sort of unobtrusive “dreamy” background, but I’m of the opinion that there are times when the kind of bokeh the Meyer is known for actually serves to make an image noteworthy.

I’m fortunate enough to have the Meyer – Optik Gorlitz Orestegor 200 mm f.4 that also produces an over the top kind of bokeh, if I had to relinquish a lens or two neither would be candidates.

A common meme is the essential nature of having a 50mm lens and I wouldn’t argue that, but a 50mm becomes a 75mm on an aps-c sensor and considerably more on a micro four thirds.

If a 75mm were produced for full frame I have little doubt people would say it’s an odd lens and stay away in droves, yet a lens that is effectively a 75mm on an aps c is sought after – could get a little confusing for a neophyte.

Granted film is still being produced and 50mm’s are the original and true companion of film cameras, but film isn’ t going to rise again anymore than the South will.
It will remain what it has become, a niche market.

I own a Pentax Spotmatic and enjoy both film and the mechanics of an slr for the lack of forgiveness.

Make a mistake and there’s no option to delete, a mistake you won’t be aware of until the film is developed and then it’s too late.

Photography is evolving, the next step in this evolutionary process is mirrorless cameras – the marketing strategy that lighter is better and plastic is as good as metal has and will facilitate this evolution.

So much so that like the Borg resistance may be futile depending in large part on what manufacturers produce and promote.

Additionally the effort to make cellphones an all in one will have an impact as well.

Ultimately the beauty of photography and associated gear is in the eye of the beholder, and that’s exactly as it should be.

If film is your thing, pronounced bokeh, enough gear to require bearers as if going on safari, cellphones, or a small mirrorless then that’s what it’s all about and we shouldn’t be dissuaded from our individual pursuits by memes or market strategies – it’s a big world and there’s room enough for all in the world of images.

As to the Meyers I’ll say what I always say, don’t take my word for it, opinions are subjective and you should arrive at you own conclusions – but if you get a chance to try one out I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

MEYER-OPTIK GORLITZ ORESTEGOR 200mm f/4

 

With fifteen aperture blades and a nearly perfectly round aperture you can be sure the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Orestegor 200mm f/4 produces some fantastic bokeh, but I’m not going to go there and claim it’s the overused term “king of bokeh”.

At f4 those who may think anything over f1.8 is too slow or that a fifty or sixty plus year old lens isn’t worth taking a look at I’d suggest they’re missing out on a well built optically sharp lens that will surprise them.

It’s heavy in comparison to the current meme that lighter is better but the weight is due to not skimping on materials.

I’m on my second copy after having lost the first a few years ago when it fell out of a back pack over the side of a mountain – I was able to recover it after rappelling a couple of hundred feet down the mountain but it was beyond repair.

The passage of time did little to undermine my appreciation for this lens and I always believed I would run across a really good copy again at some point – life is good and I have.

I use it on a Sony mirrorless with an adapter – just a straight up no frills adapter that a comes with a straight up price tag that doesn’t border on insanity.

Looks pretty cool what with the zebra motif but also accentuates the diminutive size of my camera, not a problem though as the lens is long enough to act as a good handheld stabilizer.

Every vintage lens I acquire the first thing I do is cla them, this one didn’t require that as the previous owner made an obvious effort to maintain the lens.

Fifteen aperture blades is beginning to make something of a comeback in a few modern lenses and the reason for that should be obvious, but of course also reflected in the price tag.

Bokeh isn’t the primary selling point for me when it comes to a lens, though with certain lenses and what I’ll use them for it is a consideration – if it is a primary concern for you check this lens out if you get a chance.

I expect I may ruffle a few feathers in saying so but I believe there is enough opportunity in modern photography software to manipulate that it shouldn’t have to come to faux bokeh, which some software is beginning to offer – if that works for you well and good but it doesn’t for me.

I like and employ what editing software affords, especially in view of the fact that for me RAW is the way to go, but I don’t want to have to depend on it to address the shortcomings of a lens.

Having reacquainted myself with this lens should it too careen down a mountain I won’t wait as long to find a replacement.

Heard a lot of talk, predominantly good, about another vintage lens that is also noted for it’s bokeh , the TAIR 11A 135mm F2.8.

A Russian made lens featuring no less than twenty blades, never seen or used one but a friend told me they can be found mostly in foreign markets featured on eBay – said for what they are capable of the price generally isn’t out of line.

Lot of very fine lenses being produced now and some dogs as well, but of the vintage lenses that have crossed my path no more than a couple didn’t receive good marks from me.

Bokeh is a matter of taste – bubbles, hexagons, or whatever – depending on the subject I like it well pronounced, though subtle has it’s place.

If there are “rules” associated with it I’m either blissfully unaware of or fail to observe them – just doing what I like.

 

REVIEWS AND ASPARAGUS

I’ve always advised people when it comes to camera lenses not to rely on internet reviews as gospel since such reviews are in many ways subjective – they serve a purpose but shouldn’t be seen as absolutes.

What works for one person may not for other,what one person finds acceptable another may not.

If possible pre purchase a person should borrow a friends copy or perhaps rent a lens.
Most camera stores will allow a grace return period, you buy it, don’t like, no harm no foul, return it.

A friend who shares the same opinion as I sent the below link – in reading it I couldn’t help but nod my head at the part about if you want to go with reviews give a greater credibility to the most recent ones rather than those that appear pre or immediately following release – the reasons for that should be obvious.

If you read the article you will see what I mean.

Now I don’t know anything about Lensrentals or Roger Cicala for that matter but I believe he makes some very valid points worth consideration.

In addition I’ve always felt “unboxing” videos are a complete waste of bandwidth – what information do you actually gain by watching someone take a lens out of box and roll it over and over?

The thrill or whatever it is is vicarious at best – you aren’t the one unboxing, it isn’t in your hands, there is zero tactile experience, and personally I don’t care what a lens or tool looks like only how it performs.

Isn’t that some part of the equation when it comes to a lens – how it feels, the personal experience of fiddling with focus or aperture adjustments, the heft of it?

There are a few lenses I’ve droned on about in the blog, but I also mention that in doing so I’m expressing a personal opinion and encourage people to do the math for themselves.

It isn’t possible to ask in this venue by a show of hands how many people have purchased a lens based singularly on reviews only to be disappointed – if it were possible I’m sure there would be more than few.

People may search and strive for perfection, but the truth is perfection is elusive, and like beauty resides in the eye of the beholder – so it can only follow that perfection is subjective depending on individual perspective.

Some may feel as though the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece and others a whatever – some may favor a particular brand of camera and lenses while others opt for a different brand.

Is this a matter of right and wrong or personal taste and what works for a person?

I personally believe mirrorless cameras are becoming to dslrs what dslrs were to film cameras and readily acknowledge more than a few would be willing to dispute that.

Yet the fact that Hasselblad has recently released a mirrorless medium format camera to me at least lends credibility to my belief and resistance may be as futile as the film buffs original resistance to digital cameras, time will tell.

There is a tremendous amount of hype associated with photography just as there is with any other industry.

Everything from a “king of bokeh” to the latest absolute must have camera, lens, and accessories that will ramp up the users game – maybe so in some instances and maybe not in others.

But the bottom line is that the majority of shooters don’t have sponsors, they don’t have a lens sent to them to review or write a “pre release” review without ever actually had the lens in hand.

Nor do they have a lot of disposable income, so it becomes in some ways a buyer beware proposition – a do the math yourself situation and that’s all I’m basically saying.

Now I’ve been toying with a Zeiss touit lens the last few days courtesy of a friend, reviews alternately rave about this lens as being five stars, some comments going so far as to proclaim it perfection, but I’ve also seen reviews that low balled it.

Low ball ratings that seemed more appropriate for a kit lens, and this is definitely not a kit lens.

Do I covet this lens? I suppose that’s as good a word as any to use, but it isn’t based on reviews, rather my personal experience.

How would I rate it? Too soon to tell but I will say thus far I’m impressed.

Is it a lens I would recommend? Yes I would while encouraging others to do the math.

One persons perspective or experience doesn’t automatically trump another’s – you either like something and it serves your purpose or you don’t, it’s as simple as that.

Some people like asparagus, I tend to view it as being radioactive – am I wrong, are they, or is it merely a matter of personal taste? I’d say the latter.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/pay-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

THE LESTER A. DINE 105 F2.8 MACRO LENS

Weight: 23.1 oz. (656g)
Length: 4.04 in. (102.5mm)
Filter Diameter: 52mm
Min. Focus: 1.15 feet (.351 meters)
Max. Magnification: 1:1 (life size)
Diagonal FOV:
Horizontal FOV: 23.2 degrees
Horizontal FOV on Digital:
Min. Aperture: f32
Optical Construction: 6 elements in 6 groups, multicoated.

Just goes to show you the little surprises life can send your way.

Following a little bartering, a little horse trading I now have a Lester A. Dine 105mm f2.8 from an old man I help out at times with house repairs – I say old man because that’s the way in which he refers to himself and prefers to be addressed.

He gifted it to me. His way of compensating me when I have refused compensation over time. I accepted it knowing that – he’s happy and I’m happy.

Dine lenses have what may be referred to as a legendary reputation and worth a little money, not thousands, but three or four hundred.

This one is pristine, not a scratch anywhere, flawless mechanically, the glass is crystal clear, and also has the original equally pristine box and assorted papers.

Very sharp, since it’s a telephoto there’s a long rotation related to the focus ring but it’s smooth and dials in, it’s a Nikon mount and somewhere in my gear I believe I have an adapter that will allow me to mount it to the Pentax also.

One thing with a macro and manual – you need to be dead on with focus, and probably won’t nail it every time.

For me at least this is a tripod lens – you often hear of handheld shots with telephoto lenses, I’ve seen claims related to big distance lenses, even mirror lenses….maybe so, but my thoughts are why encumber a good lens unnecessarily and I don’t really think of hand holding as a bragging point – what’s important is the best shot possible.

If you acquire one of a different mount than your camera I’d suggest going with an adapter that has a tripod mount like the one Fotasy offers, sturdy and inexpensive – basically just a hollow metal tube and all you need.

I avoid any adapter that has a glass element, unless it’s really high end the glass will degrade overall image quality.

Funny thing is a couple of years ago I saw a copy of this lens for $100 at a yard sale, the only other one I’ve ever encountered.

It was in good shape and I thought it a good deal, but $100 is $100 and I didn’t have that kind of “disposable income” anyway.

I’m both satisfied with the bokeh it produces and thankful it isn’t yet another lens being touted as “the king of bokeh”.

Dine’s have a cult following kind of like Takumars, but I don’t believe there are nearly as many of the Dines floating around as there are Taks.

This is a “dental lens” designed with dentistry in mind, that alone hints at being sharp – but it is also a lens made by Kino and the same lens branded as the Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron were also sold.

As I understand it they are identical in performance, optically, and build quality – of course that may depend on which copy a person owns and whose telling the story.

Some say it may be the best macro lens ever produced, and while I won’t go so far as to say the same I will say I think you would be hard pressed to find a better one without paying multiples more.

Factor in that probably less than one percent of images don’t undergo some measure of post processing and spending huge amounts of money for a lens that isn’t going to take you much farther than a Dine the logic becomes somewhat questionable to my way of thinking.

Being a manual lens might be a turn off for some, but manuals where I hang the great majority of the time so not a problem – it’s also “heavy” in comparison to today’s plastic “lighter is better” lenses, but I like the feel of solid construction.

Bottomline is I’ve got a Dine—-how good is that!

I’ve seen several references to using a remote in addition to a tripod when doing macro with this lens – remotes are nice but unless you have a heavy hand I don’t believe a remote is absolutely essential.

I happened to look at a remote not long ago – ten dollars for a hot shoe adapter and ninety for a control that connected via a wire to the adapter, both made in China and looked and felt like it, mama rezinate didn’t raise no fools and I work too hard for a hundred dollars to spend it in such a manner.

But when I do some macro with this lens sans a remote I’ll post a couple of examples and let the viewer be the judge……promise not to say I handheld it or the photos were taken while on a horse going full gallop and slinging arrows …..nea’ese ma’hahkeso

Addendum:

Since the initial writing of this and while waiting for an opportunity to spend some daylight hours outside with this lens as I’ve been busy working and haven’t really had the time to the next best thing was to shoot a couple of indoor macros.

No special lighting and no tweaking as it was meant to be a “test”.

Now the dedicated pixel peeper might immediately assume this lens produced the distortion in GW’s head, which it did not – they are the result of the bill being crumpled in my pocket, not laying flat, and no desire on my part to iron it.

What’s interesting to me is when looking at a bill a person is impressed with how precise everything looks – blow it up a little and you can see blotches and such in the printing.

Another impression is that money after having passed through who knows how many hands becomes a little dirty, stains and discoloration you might not notice if not magnified.

As luck would have it I fell into a Sony Remote Commander.

I’ve used remotes previously, the wired or cabled kind kind that connect to the camera, and while they do serve a purpose depending on situations I’ve pretty much ignored them.

The argument has always been using a remote to compensate for camera shake, some even saying the mere activation of the shutter produces sufficient shake to affect a photo.

Other than older film cameras I don’t think enough movement/vibration results from activating a shutter to produce a noticeable effect when mounted on a tripod, which in theory at least is when a remote would be employed.

What’s being missed here is that if that’s the case it really doesn’t matter how the shutter is activated, unless as I’ve said a person is heavy handed.

Since acquiring this remote and testing it my opinion hasn’t changed.

It works very well from either in front of the camera or behind it, has it’s uses, and since all remotes are limited in range it isn’t as though I’d be sitting the camera up and concealing myself some distance away for up close wildlife shots.

I could have but didn’t use it for the above shots employing a tripod.

To say I’m pleased with this lens is something of an understatement, I suspect as I become more familiar with it my appreciation will only increase.

As I understand it some cameras can be accessed including all functions via cellphones – I can see where that could be a good thing at times but my preference is always to encumber myself with the least amount of tech gadgets.

Different strokes, and a person ought to go with what they believe best serves them.

So here’s a couple of photos taken with the Dine minus any special lighting and a few shots of the Dine itself, you might want to give some thought to acquiring one.