[Brightcolours]

That's the point, indeed.

 

For what concerns Photoshop... I have a number of similar photo taken by me, even though not up to the quality of the Flickr gallery... I never used Photoshop (or else) to produce that look. I've only used it sometimes, as usual, to remove or reduce some distracting elements.

I am not convinced by some of the images. I like them though.

[Phillip Reeve]

Merits? From the review it's apparent that this lens sucks donkey rhino, to put it mildly.

It has a loyal fan base none the less. None of my dozens of other reviews has received nearly as much criticism.

 

It seems that some people like that soap bubble bokeh but I think it is totally ridiculous to pay $500 for a Trioplan when other lenses show a similar behavior for much less. Any classic 1.4/50 will give you plenty of "character" and nervous bokeh wide open for 50 bucks.

[Brightcolours]

It has a loyal fan base none the less. None of my dozens of other reviews has received nearly as much criticism.

 

It seems that some people like that soap bubble bokeh but I think it is totally ridiculous to pay $500 for a Trioplan when other lenses show a similar behavior for much less. Any classic 1.4/50 will give you plenty of "character" and nervous bokeh wide open for 50 bucks.

No 50mm f1.4 gives a narrow FOV of a 100mm lens...

[Phillip Reeve]

No 50mm f1.4 gives a narrow FOV of a 100mm lens...

Of course not but does that matter? It's the "character" which matters. Not the subject or FOV.

[stoppingdown]

It has a loyal fan base none the less. None of my dozens of other reviews has received nearly as much criticism.

 

It seems that some people like that soap bubble bokeh but I think it is totally ridiculous to pay $500 for a Trioplan when other lenses show a similar behavior for much less. Any classic 1.4/50 will give you plenty of "character" and nervous bokeh wide open for 50 bucks.

 

Some things go viral for unknown reasons, and maybe for a high degree of randomness. For what concerns my interest, it has become very popular in some italian photography forums, where it has been referred as one of the tools by Sandra Bartocha (actually, the Flickr gallery I've linked above is part of her work). Sandra won some prizes at Veolia with photos taken with the Trioplan (some are in that Flickr gallery) and this boosted the popularity of the lens. AFAIK the price quickly went up after this moment of popularity, so it happened that you read a few earlier, positive review of the lens when it costed less than 200€, and by the time you decided you *had* to buy it the price was more than doubled. It also came with a special boost of interest for legacy lenses given by the mirrorless ad campaigns, and I suppose quite a few people bought it as their first legacy lens - without a lot of knowledge of the other possibilities. Actually, I've started reading blogs such as yours or others that deal with legacy lenses just after I found that I was happy with the experience of my first legacy lens.

 

Of course not but does that matter? It's the "character" which matters. Not the subject or FOV.

 

 

 

Well, it does matter because most of the photos taken with this lens are of flowers. This might be also another form of imitation of Sandra's work, but that's life. And 100mm vs 50mm make also for a more convenient working distance. I've started doing some experiment with similar photos using a 50mm and in practice I find it's much easier to work with 100mm.

[Brightcolours]

100mm has a much narrower FOV than 50mm, of course that matters a lot. If you don't understand why that would matter... then you lack the eye of a god photographer.

 

Especially with flower and bug photography FOV choice together with DOF choice make or break images.

[Rover]

It's not like 100mm is an exotic focal length any way you slice it... Any decent 100mm macro is going to give you the same and much, much more. Say, the Canon 100/2.8L IS Macro is the sharpest lens I've ever used (could even be sharper than the 16-35/4L that I have now), and there are lots of cheaper options in the range like the non-IS Canon 100mm or even an old Tokina 100/2.8.

 

While I can understand the appeal of lo-fi and ugliness - heck, I've been dabbling into the area of long exposure semi-abstract looking shots myself - I've done everything with the same tools I'm using for my daily work, without having to buy overhyped (and thus overpriced) old junk.  Or the even more ridiculously and gratuitously overpriced modern replica thereof.

[stoppingdown]

Ok, so for sure there's a public example of any photographer that shows a "trioplan-like" photo taken with a different lens. Let's show it.