If you want to help to bring back the “legendary Trioplan soap bubble bokeh f2.8/100” lens for Sony E-mount than jump over at Kickstarter (Click here). You can see the whole story behind the lens development and image samples on the projects site.
P.S.: The original [shoplink 36757 ebay]m42 mount 100mm Trioplan is available on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
46 Responses
its not cheap!
Add you double incidence chromatic aberrations, false color, low contrast and others to the bubbles and the price does not seem so expensive … are many qualities together!
Why waste Schott glass on this, I’d rather see it in more Zeiss lenses.
Quite an expensive way to ruin a photo..
you know… an opinion is like a rectal opening… everybody can have one… in my eyes, I find the pictures from the modern, computer designed, soul-less lenses with their homogenic, digital blur-like bokeh repelling and disgusting. those pictures look like computer renderings and not living captures of light… so don’t care about you modern zombies enjoying your homogenous, sterile and castrated pictures. i prefer shooting historic glass made by artists making photos with soul
the worst out of focus rendering I’ve ever seen.
and it doesn’t look sharp either.
It’s a trio plan, it’s suppose to look like that
“it’s not a bug, it’s a feature”
Rather see a modern-coated Hexanon or Topogon.
Hexanon what? Too many Hexanons. Topogons seem insanely expensive.
Thinking the Konica 90mm, for example. Topogons are insanely expensive because they are rare though.
Konica are my favourite lenses, having a budget only for all focal lengths I wish for of course, and constitute my two most expensive vintage items, I see that you have turned to that now. And for the actually near enlightened, bokeh edges are still better than totally neutral bokeh and in fact towards ideal without over correction surely. These guys are politicians and nihilist ones at that: the ultimate hipsters. I know who they are. If you want to emulate them think anarchy and remove enlightenment. They are like my brother https://medium.com/@thisisdare/small-big-d3fc46d086e8
the same one idea from 10 years ago that was the condition against all you did (accidental modernist), which one finally realized to actually constitute them wholly and vapidly like an air borne plague killing off meaning. Best check out Contax too. And this thing called the internet, don’t laugh, I seem to have learnt more than them in as short a time as learning photography. My way. In science we finally reject old ideas and modalities, sometimes the husk is used for a while before being totally discarded, so too lenses and lens choices. Use your understanding. Be extremely selective sure! but put as much as you can into them, they may well be the most important thing in your photography afterall, and regards your learning. Don’t learn the wrong things, heavy tele can produce interesting results even if unwanted in the vintage second hand, zooms too, can be almost as good as primes, learn it, expect it! Ignore the reviews, criticize the images supplied with them…
Nevermind the lenses, consider subject, everyone should move to the southwest of England for photography!, it includes the House made famous by Downton Abbey series, in Wiltshire, just avoid the nilos further south west.
That bok….WTF IS THIS? o.O
What an expensive way to ruin a photo… -_-
Bloom’n onions!
And I thought that doughnuts bokeh was bad.
Why such garbage gets funding on kickstarter…
what else people who back it up spend money on too…
*FATAL ERROR*
That is HORRIBLE!
very soft at 2.8, horibble bokeh and a price tag of 1.000 USD.
Sure, there are some motives, that could benefit from this “special” bokeh. So for 100 USD it would be a funny lens. But for 1.000 USD? Really bad joke.
I even like the look and might use it for a handful of photos. But buying the lens at 1000 EUR regular price? Never in my life.
I’d like to hear Thom Hogan talk about this. :))
For vintage lenses with funky bokeh, I prefer the Helios 44 (58mm f/2, can be had for like $50) and 40 (85mm f/1.5, $3-400), which are based on WW2-era Zeiss Biotar designs.
Pics from some A7 owners:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130584225@N05/16408563816/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130584225@N05/16433603902/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130584225@N05/16247126750/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130584225@N05/16434537335/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/frinodavide/15262778420/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/frinodavide/15426413286/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/frinodavide/15449141302/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/frinodavide/15426419396/
I got seasick just scrolling down as fast as i could.
Ha, didn’t realize this thing would post thumbs. Oh well.
No lens designer could ever set out to make such a lens. This looks like a bad plan gone terribly awry. It’s as if Hillary Clinton’s decision making process was somehow manifested into a lens and we all had to pay higher taxes as a result of her ‘vision’.
Lol… If they get paid for it, why no?
I reported your political comment. Just because last week made you loose hope in your vision of what this country should be, you shouldn’t resort to photography forums to spread it.
Thanks, “Jintoku”. Today I learned something new from the Sony alpha rumors forum: apparently Hillary Clinton is a sacred cow among photography forum trolls.
You took a rather uninteresting metaphor from “Sam” and gave us all some insight into your customs and primitive bridge dwelling beliefs – it was enlightening.
We all know where you live. And whose a photography master purely by building theoretical basis using his passion. Who does and doesn’t invest real time and money in cams and lenses. And yeah, that I recently made headway in potentially ‘improving’ all vintage and partially aberrated glass in processing by simple negation, and how to potentially emulate softness in a sort of doing important things while still finish schooling my photography with double whammies of theory/practice crossing once in a while. Do you guys like talk face to face like you know, you can? I won’t count the days, its too long and significant, but I won’t forget them. The unnecessary filtering operation. Smart people think and act fast, disinterested people act slow and like they are, disinterested. Assuming us real and photographers, we don’t talk about the subject much, do you think the subject talks about us, the photographers? I dread to think because photographic practice is so bad :I I guess they just lie, act like nothings wrong, I mean what can they do? I honestly believe that could be the most negative aspect of photography and that with potentially the greatest improvement once addressed. Ive noticed a few key things, and they relate directly to that ‘imposed’ and photographer redirected passivity upon subject and further, unqualified expectations made of them. ‘Zombie Shooting’ ‘just remember to shoot them in the head at as close range as possible’ Semi automatic canon or double barrel named medium format ‘run and gun’. No stage then, no performer, no actions, no theatre, no expression, no movement…’framed’ no engagement, no self awareness, no meaningful eye contact, no natural emotions. ‘shoot them dead’ ‘Hold the camera still and think of Godot’ ‘Just shoot’. Lift their arm at the wrist, better still have them palm a product for the brand image by way of an unnecessary helper. Photography is about how important the shooter is, his fame and his standing, not even the audience: least of all meaning, inherent visual meaning. The subject and their engagement is as important as camera and lens. With or without entourage. Will the expectation for non-compliance for objectivity/realism and necessity of force for passivity require a fly on the wall approach to shooting them, unawares from a corner in the empty white walled studio/booth, A super telephoto zoom from several blocks away, intruding upon them through a window as they sit waiting for the ‘photographer’ postmodern audience, an ‘experience’ for the viewer, not a performance at all any more. Hitchcock inverted, should it be first? to resolve the…inheritance.
I’d be willing to bet that no one ever reads that incoherent wall of text.
I did……………………………………..n’t
Goodbye
You should become Politician, you have the talent to speak for hours without saying anything.
Yet another reason to pick Sony over Canon and Nikon – You won’t find this stunning combination of incoherence and insanity on their message boards!
looks very tempting
That’s a mightily expensive triplet. It’s possible to get much, much cheaper triplets if hunting on eBay, for example the Meyer-Optik 50/2.8 (Trioplan/Domiplan/Orestor). Or even Isco-Göttingen lenses, the Iscotar 50/2.8 for example.
Yes, the lens for when you want to make sure your subject is completely ignored.
Noooo please, not the jangly guitar music !
I have the Original – it makes more lenses less circles on Bokeh.
From what I can tell based on a brief interment search, an actual company “Net SE, the company which took ownership of the Meyer Optik Goerlitz brand name in 2014” and its “subsidiary, Meyer Optik USA” are selling this lens.
I find it odd that actual companies feel it is legitimate to use Kickstarter to launch products. I find it even more peculiar that photographers are so willing to hand over their money to Kickstarter campaigns. First the Lomography lenses and now this. I just hope the various rumor / news photography sites that cover this get a kickback from either Meyer Optik USA or Kickstarter itself.
Whether you like this lens or hate it, how does it make sense to hand over money to a real company (that could easily get a loan to fund its products) without any reasonable expectation of getting a product in return?
you clearly have no idea what it takes to run a business. Please go back to sleep.
I actually do own and run a business. I wouldn’t ask people to spend their money through Kickstarter for products/services which they might never get. When I needed money, I saved it or took out loans. To me, that’s “what it takes to run a business”. Of course, I could be wrong and Meyer Optik USA and
Lomography may be right. Their owners may live in mansions and drive Bugatti
sports cars filled with supermodels. Success is hard to argue with. I did want to ask you, Mr. “ThatBad”, which was your episode of Undercover Boss? I’m sure I could learn a lot from watching a seasoned business pro like yourself in action.
Sony alpha rumors is awesome for two reasons: 1) Sony actually comes up with interesting new cameras, 2) the message boards are full of people who object to everything and complain about everything. I’m just surprised no one else objects to this use of Kickstarter.
You clearly have no idea of how Kickstarter works. It makes perfect sense for a startup company to crowdfund a product like this through Kickstarter. Hundreds of legitimate companies have successfully raised funds this way and shipped their product to happy customers. I’ve backed several Kickstarter projects myself and have no problem with backing this one. Kickstarter is an ideal way for a new company to gauge the demand for a new product.before committing the capital to get it to market. And it’s a no-risk proposition for those who back these projects. If the project fails to meet its goal, or the product fails to ship on time or if the final product isn’t as described, the customer gets their money refunded. Your objections to Kickstarter are completely unfounded.
I am not a Kickstarter expert. No argument here. However, I question your grasp on the concept too, nemo295. 100% agreement that the rules say if the project fails to meet its goal, no one loses their money. 100% agree that seems like a good and fair thing. I question your other assertions (“productfails to ship on time or if the final product isn’t as described, the customer gets their money refunded”).
On Kickstarter, a funded project may simply never deliver a product = no “reward”. With Kickstarter, you aren’t purchasing a product, you are contributing money to something you want to “back”. If the project comes to fruition, you are supposed to get a “reward”. Often enough, the money is spent and a product is never produced. Based on the rules of Kickstarter, the “backers” are not entitled to any substantive recourse if they do not receive their expected “reward” or if the final product is different from the “reward” anticipated. If I am wrong on this, I would actually be happy to learn something new. However, this is what the Kickstarter website describes:
1) “When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.”
2) “Kickstarter doesn’t issue refunds. Transactions are between backers and creators directly. Creators receive all funds (less fees)
soon after their campaign ends.”
3) “If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards…they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else
explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.”
This doesn’t sound like “backers” get a 100% refund or necessarily
any refund at all. It sounds like the “backers” might get some part of a refund – maybe. I admire your emotional attachment and ardent defense of Kickstarter “creators” Nemo295, but I am skeptical of your grasp on what it really is. Even your choice of terminology is out of line with Kickstarter (“happy customers”). Go ahead and run a quick internet search on the keywords “Kickstarter” and “Fraud”. You will find a lot of unhappy “backers” who are mad they never got a “reward” and failed to understand they were not really “customers” purchasing a product.
I actually have no problem with the concept of Kickstarter or the risk being shifted to the consumer – so long as people understand what
they are getting themselves into. My objection to Meyer Optik USA and
Lomography using Kickstarter is that I did not perceive them as “startup” companies. Again, I could be wrong and would be interested if someone really believed they were “startups”.
I’m a little tempted but honestly that bokeh just reminds me of reflex lenses
as you say, every one on this planet has an opinion, and for each of them the only one that counts are his own. On the end, who cares what you prefer and not. Imagine all the people living for today, how boring that was. Even John Lennon did not realize that.