Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 29, 2010, 9:35 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default Vivitar 135 f2.8

I stumbled on this tonight in my old grab bag. I used to love this as an intermediate and portrate lens for my old OM2. At F2.8 I think I'll keep it out, it's easier to work with than the 50 F1.4
I believe it's the first time on the E500. The split screen isn't bad to see, if you can find a vertical line.
They were all pushed for light and shot at 400 ISO so they come with a little noise. Just hand held and shot as a test.

Took the first to keep the great hairy / downey debate fueled..
1/40 @ f4. about 50% crop

The second was just the flowers on the coffee table while 'watching' TV
1/13 @ f4 Full frame

Then my guitar from the same spot
1/15 @ f4 Full frame.
Attached Images
   
__________________
Ken.
"You are who you pretend to be."
Kurt Vonnegut Jnr.

Last edited by Scouse; Aug 29, 2010 at 10:20 PM.
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 30, 2010, 2:23 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Not bad. I'd highly recommend you get Topaz DeNoise 5.0, it'll make the 400ISO on the E-500 look like 100 with a little practice. However I don;t think it works as a stand alone so you'll have to have a program that it works with. But that could be a simple as Irfanview with it's adobe filters plugin (both free). If you have a photoshop product you're all set. I use it with Elements 2 which is god only knows how old now but still works fine.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 10:10 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

In daylight I'm sure the lens will be just fine. I'm liking that 270mm eq.
I do however need an anti noise thingy. (Techie term) I use Lightroom normally but I was just playing last night so I just went though Picasa as a quick resizer. I'll look for something that'll plug into Lightroom or a stand alone I can finish with.
Thanks John,
Ken
__________________
Ken.
"You are who you pretend to be."
Kurt Vonnegut Jnr.
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 2:36 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

A long time ago Zig recommended Noise Ninja. I bought it and I'm very happy with it. It is stand-alone.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 5:07 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
A long time ago Zig recommended Noise Ninja. I bought it and I'm very happy with it. It is stand-alone.

Ted

Thanks for the plug Ted. But, I not sure that it was me who recommended it.

I have tried almost all of the noise reduction packages out there. Now that doesn't make me any expert. It just means I have a bit of aversion to noise in some of my photographs, typically landscapes.

Neat image is the noise reduction package I use most often as it is a plug-in for Photoshop. It is simple, sort of operates on the KISS principle- in that, once you develop a profile for your camera, it operates almost automatically.

To be fair, I also use the noise reduction sliders in Adobe's Camera RAW plug-in v 6.1- which also can be downloaded free and is compatible with Photoshop Elements 6,7,8.

I've most recently, downloaded a trial version of Topaz DeNoise v4 which also works extremely well as a plug-in for Elements. But the trial expired and I really didn't find such an appreciable difference with DeNoise vs what I already had to justify spending money on it.

Zig


Oops, Ken I forgot to comment on your images which are fine the guitar came out especially well and as already been mentioned, a little noise clean-up an Voila! it would be really rather nice.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 5:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I don't particularly like 135mm lenses. I've had several (different brands and mounts) and most were mediocre (I guess that's one reason why they are so cheap). These shots are OK but very noisy and soft.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 5:31 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
I don't particularly like 135mm lenses. I've had several (different brands and mounts) and most were mediocre (I guess that's one reason why they are so cheap). These shots are OK but very noisy and soft.
I haven't had that many different 135mm lenses in my hand, but I do have an OMZ 135mm 3.5 which, I believe, is overall a pretty sharp lens. I also have the Konica Hexanon 135mm 3.5. It is decidedly sharper, IMHO.

I do think that all of them work well in good light or with a flash. Having an OPV i.e. E-1, E-3 or E30 will produce a much higher level of focused images.
Also, starting with the E-510, adding the ability to dial in image stabilization for legacy glass improved the chances of success.

However much fun it is to use old glass, I still think the owner of an Olympus dslr will get more consistent results with the 40-150mm kit lens (either version).

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 11:08 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
I haven't had that many different 135mm lenses in my hand, but I do have an OMZ 135mm 3.5 which, I believe, is overall a pretty sharp lens. I also have the Konica Hexanon 135mm 3.5. It is decidedly sharper, IMHO.

I do think that all of them work well in good light or with a flash. Having an OPV i.e. E-1, E-3 or E30 will produce a much higher level of focused images.
Also, starting with the E-510, adding the ability to dial in image stabilization for legacy glass improved the chances of success.

However much fun it is to use old glass, I still think the owner of an Olympus dslr will get more consistent results with the 40-150mm kit lens (either version).

Zig
I believe the purpose built lens's for didgi cams are superior but as you say the old glass can be fun. I might have to change out my 40-150, I've been unhappy from the start with it and I like the range. The price shouldn't be bad either.

I probably could have had better results with the flash as you said, or waited until the next day. I was just playing...and lazy. Hence the noise.
__________________
Ken.
"You are who you pretend to be."
Kurt Vonnegut Jnr.
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 12:00 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouse View Post
I believe the purpose built lens's for didgi cams are superior but as you say the old glass can be fun. I might have to change out my 40-150, I've been unhappy from the start with it and I like the range. The price shouldn't be bad either.

I probably could have had better results with the flash as you said, or waited until the next day. I was just playing...and lazy. Hence the noise.
Ken,

I think it's great that you're having fun and back posting on a regular basis. So what's a little noise anways

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 12:14 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default Cleaned up

Here's a cleaned up version of the woodpecker pic. Took about 5 minutes to do. For old glass at this size once it's cleaned up it's not bad.

John
Attached Images
 
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:02 AM.