Crappiest semi-wide or normal focal length M or LTM lens

[clayh]

So, suppose I want the option of turning my marvelous piece of German engineering into a

Holga clone when the spirit moves me. What soft, low contrast, vignetting piece of crap

should I put in my pocket?

[peter_white2]

A piece of sandpaper and a Marks-a-lot?

[clayh]

A piece of sandpaper and a Marks-a-lot?

 

 

The thought has crossed my mind. Anybody have a 50 lux asph they want be to

experiment with?

[Rob F.]

Try a pre-ASPH 35 Summilux. But you have to use it wide open. For best results, have the diaphragm removed. If you don't, you will be tempted to stop down. That would not be acceptable, as my pre-Lux already takes on a nice soft rounded quality by f/1.7. So shoot it wide open, and keep the main subject out of the central 12mm image circle. You'll be fine.

[andrew_lee2]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009fqB" >http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009fqB</a>

[randy_santos]

Try this:

 

http://www.lenoxlaser.com/pinholephotos/SLR_Pinhole_Camera_Kits.html

 

I just did a quick google search "leica pinhole cap". It's not a Holga thing but still interesting, There's lots

of cool stuff out there to play around with. Be creative, don't let nobody tell you what's right or wrong.

[al_kaplan1]

Probably a pre war uncoated Summar, and a bit of fungus and lots of cleaning marks (fine scratches) on the front element will help. Unfortuately there were very few really crummy lenses made for the Leica.

 

Angenieux makes, or did make, a series of f/2 lenses in various focal lengths designed to cover the 35mm movie frame. Years ago I got just the lens head of one in 100mm focal length and with the salvaged remains of a Focaslide focussing mount, a Pentacon-Six extension tube, and some epoxy got it to fit and focus on my Pentacon-Six. The very central area was reasonably sharp but the sharpness rapidly fell off moving away from the center. All the specular highlights had a pleasant diffuse glow about them.

 

This effect was largely lost when I used the lens with an adapter on a 35mm Pentax, cropped out of the image area on the smaller negative. Maybe you could locate a 50/2 Angenieux lens from this series and get somebody to graft it on to a rangefinder coupled focussing mount with the correct cam angle? Not a piece of crap, perhaps, but interesting! Maybe Huw can come up with some ideas?

[randy_santos]

One thing to keep in mind, A Holga isn't just a cheap plastic lens, part of the effect is because the camera is so cheap it doesn't hold the film flat. In fact each frame will have different kinds of blurs. Just get a Holga, you can find them around for like $15. They're great fun, I've made a lot of money over the years with some of those images.

[david_clark4]

I have a prewar Summar I use, a prewar uncoated Summar with cleaning scratches and another with somekind of white cloudy gunk in it. But they can also deliver some pretty good images to, and I never know when it is going to be funky or good. On a scale, the Elmar is in the middle sharp, good contrast, and nice mid tone grey scale. Then the Summar, low contrast and halo on white. Then Jupiter 3 which is sharp but contrasty, which means it doesn't reach into the shadows like the Elmar so shadows are dark without detail but the highlights are OK. I suppose if I were in the mood, I would dimple the surface of the Summar with dots of clear enamel like the Hasselblad soft focus filter. Good luck. Or, I've though of taking a Russian lens, then remove the iris and replace with a disk that imitates an Imogon disk - or like the tool you see at the eye doctor's were there is a large hole in the middle surrounded by little holes.

[peter_white2]

All kidding aside, you could just use a skylight filter and smear some canola oil on it, then sprinkle on a bit of dirt. The possibilities are endless. No need to go looking for a lens.

 

And if you don't care about the filter, get out the sandpaper! ;-)

[peter_white2]

The Marks-a-lot is for the vignetting. Just draw fill in the outer edge of the filter. The more you fill in, the more vignetting.

[kajabbi]

Take a nuetral-colored piece of a nylon stocking, fix tightly with an alastic band open 2-3 stops(reduce the shutter speed, and you've got your "crappy" definition.

[max_fun]

I'd been playing with the Summar, and even though doesn't give results like the Holga

(come on! how can a Leica look like a Holga!), the quality is still gorgeous! Here's a sample

with the lens:

<p>

<a><img src="http://www.pbase.com/supperman/image/36101403.jpg"></a>

[clayh]

Max:

 

Nice photo. That is certainly the sort of thing I am looking for. People seem to have the

idea that the 'look' is only diffusion. It is more complicated than that. Even a single

element holga lens is sharp in the center if focused properly, but it goes to pieces off of

the optical axis. It also has a lot of flare, which gives you that compressed shadow tonality.

Glowing highlights are just icing on the cake. And the vignetting is, I suppose, the candle?

 

Of course a little photoshoppery can do a lot of that as well.

 

I know just carrying the holga is the simplest answer, which I already do. But they are

pretty limited in terms of shutter speeds and suck in any low light situation unless you

'mod' one to have a bulb setting.

 

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

[peter_white2]

If you want it sharp in the center, leave the center of the filter clean. Just muck up the perimiter and stop the lens down enough that light rays passing through the perimiter are disturbed by the muck on the filter, but light rays passing through the center aren't. As long as the grunge on the filter is only blocking your view of the aperture blades, it won't affect center sharpness.

 

So you need to coordinate the amount of mucking up you do to the filter with the aperture setting to keep the center clear.

[feli]

6.3/28 Hektor - Needs to be shot stopped all the way down to make a decent picture. But then again this lens was designed in the 1930's and was among the first 28's.

 

3.5/35 Elmar - Forget it below f8.

 

1.5/50 Xenon - Highly flare prone, soft at anything below f5.6.

But they are rare and expensive. The 1.5/50 Summarit is basically

a coated version of this lens, with somewhat better performance.

 

2.5/50 Hektor - Never shot one, but from everything I've read it sounds like the dog it was named after.

 

2/50 Summar - Soft below f4, flare prone, but a very 3D look. Almost liquid bokeh.

 

1.9/73 - A dog from all reports.

 

1.5/85 - Similar to the 73.

 

By modern standards all of these lenses are pretty bad, BUT they are perfect if you want that period romantic look and they make woman look terrific.

 

F

[ronald_moravec1]

1,2, or 3 layers of food wrap over the lens. Any kind of lens or wrap.

 

Cost is little or nothing and is reversible. How can you beat it?

[mark_ng]

I can only imagine how easy it is to make something that will

give you a crappy effect. Take a filter and crack it. I'm interested in

how that would turn out.

[johnmarkpainter]

As already stated...get a Summar. Try to get a hood if you can. I LOVE mine.

 

jmp

[anthony_brookes5]

Pre war uncoated Summar - Soft ? poppycock<div></div>

[love4leica]

YOU MUST BE BORED WITH LIFE

[al_kaplan1]

I had a 50/2.5 uncoated Hektor years ago. It really wasn't all that soft although it lacked contrast. A few years later some collector talked me out of my $15 lens for about 5 times that amount. Stupid me. I sold!

[davidv1]

Look around for a Russian 35 or 50 in bad shape. Shouldn't be too hard to find - I've got a few myself. They're the ones described as "looks like it was never used" on eBay. Plenty cheap, too, so you won't feel bad about going the sandpaper route.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Anthony I'll bet the print from that pic is gorgeous.

[clayh]

YOU MUST BE BORED WITH LIFE

 

No, mostly I am just bored with inane cyber-shielded hostility from people with nothing

positive to add. Hope you have a great day.