5 ms·

Radioactive Lenses and Everything About Them

42 points by prismatic 5y ago

sprafa 5y ago
wow this is mind blowing I own several of these and I had no idea.
- dangerboysteve 5y ago
  I own the exact Minolta Rokkor lens in the photo but I knew of its radioactive nature. I picked it up on eBay over 10 years ago.
Sunspark 5y ago
There is a possibility I might have one, I'll have to look for it sometime to check, I have never actually used it because the camera it came with is a cloth shutter and isn't accurate anymore and I doubt there's anyone who reconditions 1960s slrs to like-new anymore. The thing about these lenses is that they are manual focus. I wear glasses. Realistically, am I ever going to want to use a manual focus lens again? Likely not, and my assumption is that this probably applies to most people. This is not the first time I have read about old lenses making for a more pleasing picture, but I have to question, how true is that really? And how much of it is just expectation of how a photo should look? People today are accustomed to accurate colors and in-focus photos. They probably wouldn't care for photos taken with vintage lenses as much.
- grawprog 5y ago
  When I was in school, we had a teacher who was really into photography. He liked to show us collections of slides of photos he'd taken throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's with his vintage camera equipment. Honestly, we all groaned every time he'd bust out a slide reel, but the pictures were beautiful. Some of the best pictures I've ever seen. I'm not a huge photography buff or anything, I've learned some of the basics of photography, but that's about it. I'm really not even sure why, but, they were just nice to look at. Not just the composition of the pictures, but the colours and the saturation, they just felt good to the eye. I'm not really sure how exactly to describe it.
  - Sunspark 5y ago
    I'm thinking zoom factor may have played a role. 50-58mm lens with a 35mm film negative is not far from what you see yourself. Lenses that are wide angle (e.g. 28mm) make things look farther away and distorted, and lens that are telephoto compresses things and makes them look closer. A lot of photos taken today are "wide". It's true about the colors though. Kodachrome and Velvia had very distinct looks.
  - dreamcompiler 5y ago
    Your description sounds like Kodachrome. Nothing in nature looks as great as the saturated colors of Kodachrome slides.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > This is not the first time I have read about old lenses making for a more pleasing picture, but I have to question, how true is that really? Partly myth partly reality. Older lenses used simpler designs, simpler coatings and simpler glass elements. These simpler designs mean that these lenses have poor optical performances, they're usually (at wide apertures) only sharp in the center, have more vignetting, chromatic aberrations, spherical aberrations, optical vignetting in the out of focus areas, they can flare, have less contrast, &c. all of these elements can give a distinct look to the images created by a lens. New lenses are designed through computers to correct all these aberrations to offer edge to edge sharpness, no vignetting, &c. but at the same time it makes them look very boring (to some) from an artistic standpoint. The recording medium also has a big importance, film, be it b&w, color negatives or color positives all produced different looks that we now instinctively associate to certain eras. The color science behind these is pretty complex and very subjective, hence the large number of different film emulsions that existed back when film was mainstream.
- asdff 5y ago
  >Realistically, am I ever going to want to use a manual focus lens again? Likely not, and my assumption is that this probably applies to most people. Manual focus lenses are popular again thanks to some updates with digital technology. You can have the plane of focus highlighted in color show up on the screen in many cameras. If your subject is in focus they will appear fringed in some color like red. For mirrorless cameras you can see the plane right in the eyepiece, and can hit a button and zoom in at the focal point to confirm you are hitting your subjects eye rather than their nose.
  - Sunspark 5y ago
    Oh, this is interesting. I didn't know they had introduced this feature. I was imagining people watching the LCD screen to see if the crosshatches were lining up or not. The lens I have was dropped at least once because it has a dent on it. I know the old lenses can also take some rough handling.. do you know if there is a digital way to tell whether or not it is still focusing and adjusting the aperture properly short of shooting a bunch of test charts on a tripod?
    - skhr0680 5y ago
      > The lens I have was dropped at least once because it has a dent on it. I know the old lenses can also take some rough handling.. do you know if there is a digital way to tell whether or not it is still focusing and adjusting the aperture properly short of shooting a bunch of test charts on a tripod? Take some picture of something flat like a brick wall and if one side is in focus and the other isn’t then you have a misaligned element. It’s really easy to spot. To check the aperture turn the aperture ring and check that the blades aren’t sticking or obviously f*ked up. . If your photos are exposing properly according to the Sunny 16 rule then it’s good enough. Old lenses have a lot of sample variation so it might be a special lens.
- abruzzi 5y ago
  the history of photographic lens design starts with simple single element meniscus and bi-convex lenses. Those early lenses were awful at accurately focusing what was in front of it, and over the next 170 years or so, there were hundreds or even thousands of lens designs many of which were trying reduce or eliminate all the different types of aberrations. By the time the 70's hit and software was starting to replace manual ray tracing for lens design, we started getting very accurate lenses, but manufacturing was a limiting factor. Today that is much less of a limitation and you'll find lenses with 20 elements, aspherical elements, and tons of stuff lens designers from the 70's could only dream of. By eliminating aberrations to the extent that they have, some people will call the new lenses "characterless". In some cases that may be an issue, but with modern digital cameras and photoshop, its probably better to start with an accurate lens, and tweak your look in software, something you'd have much less flexibility to do if you started you capture with, for instance, a petzval lens. But there are some of those old designs where their imperfections, are to many people, beautiful. And for me, I shoot only film, and lately only large format film, so I need to capture the image the way I want to see it. Yes, in a darkroom I can burn and dodge, and use other tricks to change how the final print looks, but there is a lot of stuff I can't add back in, so for me, capturing images with those imperfections allows me to create interesting scenes and looks. NOTE: I actually know very little on the technical side about optics and optical design, consider the above more of a historical thumbnail with opinion mixed in. I would love to find an "optical design for dummies" book, because its something I'd love to learn.
- skhr0680 5y ago
  > I doubt there's anyone who reconditions 1960s slrs to like-new anymore. I can think of two people online who CLA Pentax and Nikon SLRs and there is a shop in Tokyo that specializes in fixing old gear. From time to time Nikon will service old gear too. Old normal lenses are still great for taking pictures of people. New huge normal lenses have edge to edge sharpness, can shoot in strong backlighting, and can shoot in daylight wide open without exposing every little optical flaw and in the lens design. Some of the flaws can look good in a photo: spherical aberration can give highlights a pleasant glow. So yeah as a studio lens or for picture of people vintage lenses 35mm-135mm can deliver the goods even now.
sunshineforever 5y ago
This made me extremely excited that they had discovered how to reflect gamma particles or something like that.

42 points by prismatic 5y ago

sprafa 5y ago

wow this is mind blowing I own several of these and I had no idea.

dangerboysteve 5y ago
I own the exact Minolta Rokkor lens in the photo but I knew of its radioactive nature. I picked it up on eBay over 10 years ago.

Sunspark 5y ago

There is a possibility I might have one, I'll have to look for it sometime to check, I have never actually used it because the camera it came with is a cloth shutter and isn't accurate anymore and I doubt there's anyone who reconditions 1960s slrs to like-new anymore. The thing about these lenses is that they are manual focus. I wear glasses. Realistically, am I ever going to want to use a manual focus lens again? Likely not, and my assumption is that this probably applies to most people. This is not the first time I have read about old lenses making for a more pleasing picture, but I have to question, how true is that really? And how much of it is just expectation of how a photo should look? People today are accustomed to accurate colors and in-focus photos. They probably wouldn't care for photos taken with vintage lenses as much.

grawprog 5y ago
When I was in school, we had a teacher who was really into photography. He liked to show us collections of slides of photos he'd taken throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's with his vintage camera equipment. Honestly, we all groaned every time he'd bust out a slide reel, but the pictures were beautiful. Some of the best pictures I've ever seen. I'm not a huge photography buff or anything, I've learned some of the basics of photography, but that's about it. I'm really not even sure why, but, they were just nice to look at. Not just the composition of the pictures, but the colours and the saturation, they just felt good to the eye. I'm not really sure how exactly to describe it.
- Sunspark 5y ago
  I'm thinking zoom factor may have played a role. 50-58mm lens with a 35mm film negative is not far from what you see yourself. Lenses that are wide angle (e.g. 28mm) make things look farther away and distorted, and lens that are telephoto compresses things and makes them look closer. A lot of photos taken today are "wide". It's true about the colors though. Kodachrome and Velvia had very distinct looks.
- dreamcompiler 5y ago
  Your description sounds like Kodachrome. Nothing in nature looks as great as the saturated colors of Kodachrome slides.
lm28469 5y ago
> This is not the first time I have read about old lenses making for a more pleasing picture, but I have to question, how true is that really? Partly myth partly reality. Older lenses used simpler designs, simpler coatings and simpler glass elements. These simpler designs mean that these lenses have poor optical performances, they're usually (at wide apertures) only sharp in the center, have more vignetting, chromatic aberrations, spherical aberrations, optical vignetting in the out of focus areas, they can flare, have less contrast, &c. all of these elements can give a distinct look to the images created by a lens. New lenses are designed through computers to correct all these aberrations to offer edge to edge sharpness, no vignetting, &c. but at the same time it makes them look very boring (to some) from an artistic standpoint. The recording medium also has a big importance, film, be it b&w, color negatives or color positives all produced different looks that we now instinctively associate to certain eras. The color science behind these is pretty complex and very subjective, hence the large number of different film emulsions that existed back when film was mainstream.
asdff 5y ago
>Realistically, am I ever going to want to use a manual focus lens again? Likely not, and my assumption is that this probably applies to most people. Manual focus lenses are popular again thanks to some updates with digital technology. You can have the plane of focus highlighted in color show up on the screen in many cameras. If your subject is in focus they will appear fringed in some color like red. For mirrorless cameras you can see the plane right in the eyepiece, and can hit a button and zoom in at the focal point to confirm you are hitting your subjects eye rather than their nose.
- Sunspark 5y ago
  Oh, this is interesting. I didn't know they had introduced this feature. I was imagining people watching the LCD screen to see if the crosshatches were lining up or not. The lens I have was dropped at least once because it has a dent on it. I know the old lenses can also take some rough handling.. do you know if there is a digital way to tell whether or not it is still focusing and adjusting the aperture properly short of shooting a bunch of test charts on a tripod?
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    > The lens I have was dropped at least once because it has a dent on it. I know the old lenses can also take some rough handling.. do you know if there is a digital way to tell whether or not it is still focusing and adjusting the aperture properly short of shooting a bunch of test charts on a tripod? Take some picture of something flat like a brick wall and if one side is in focus and the other isn’t then you have a misaligned element. It’s really easy to spot. To check the aperture turn the aperture ring and check that the blades aren’t sticking or obviously f*ked up. . If your photos are exposing properly according to the Sunny 16 rule then it’s good enough. Old lenses have a lot of sample variation so it might be a special lens.
abruzzi 5y ago
the history of photographic lens design starts with simple single element meniscus and bi-convex lenses. Those early lenses were awful at accurately focusing what was in front of it, and over the next 170 years or so, there were hundreds or even thousands of lens designs many of which were trying reduce or eliminate all the different types of aberrations. By the time the 70's hit and software was starting to replace manual ray tracing for lens design, we started getting very accurate lenses, but manufacturing was a limiting factor. Today that is much less of a limitation and you'll find lenses with 20 elements, aspherical elements, and tons of stuff lens designers from the 70's could only dream of. By eliminating aberrations to the extent that they have, some people will call the new lenses "characterless". In some cases that may be an issue, but with modern digital cameras and photoshop, its probably better to start with an accurate lens, and tweak your look in software, something you'd have much less flexibility to do if you started you capture with, for instance, a petzval lens. But there are some of those old designs where their imperfections, are to many people, beautiful. And for me, I shoot only film, and lately only large format film, so I need to capture the image the way I want to see it. Yes, in a darkroom I can burn and dodge, and use other tricks to change how the final print looks, but there is a lot of stuff I can't add back in, so for me, capturing images with those imperfections allows me to create interesting scenes and looks. NOTE: I actually know very little on the technical side about optics and optical design, consider the above more of a historical thumbnail with opinion mixed in. I would love to find an "optical design for dummies" book, because its something I'd love to learn.
skhr0680 5y ago
> I doubt there's anyone who reconditions 1960s slrs to like-new anymore. I can think of two people online who CLA Pentax and Nikon SLRs and there is a shop in Tokyo that specializes in fixing old gear. From time to time Nikon will service old gear too. Old normal lenses are still great for taking pictures of people. New huge normal lenses have edge to edge sharpness, can shoot in strong backlighting, and can shoot in daylight wide open without exposing every little optical flaw and in the lens design. Some of the flaws can look good in a photo: spherical aberration can give highlights a pleasant glow. So yeah as a studio lens or for picture of people vintage lenses 35mm-135mm can deliver the goods even now.

sunshineforever 5y ago

This made me extremely excited that they had discovered how to reflect gamma particles or something like that.