Yes to the books. And uncropped. No, no HDR. But I’ve noticed it can exhibit a magenta bias. The church was about 1/2 mile away and I used some clarity and de-haze - perhaps a little heavily.
Actually I tend not to notice the bokeh. I’m only really interested in what’s sharp.
I don't know how many older lenses you've tried but some tend to be a bit funky wide open and although his may not be an issue with some subjects and compositions it can lead to a distinctive look with others that can be a bit Marnite. I have a 50mm f1.2, several 50 f1.4's, 85mm f1.8/2 and a 135mm f2.8 and 35 and 50mm f1.7/1.8/2's I don't think that any of these give the smoother bokeh look you'd get from a good modern lens but they can certainly give a nice look if you're careful with your use of wide apertures and compositions. One option is to stop down a bit and reduce the camera to subject distance. This may give a smoother look without the more funkiness you might get wide open.
Sorry if you already knew all this.
I don't really sort my pictures out and I do forget what gear I used for what picture but I'll post a few examples I do remember and like... The first was taken with a Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2, I think at f2, the second is the Rokkor 135mm f2.8 at f2.8 and the last was taken with a 24mm f2.8.
One thing I do think is maybe often and even maybe largely overlooked is the look you get when stopped down a bit. It's something that doesn't seem to get talked about much and I do think that some lenses give a really nice look when stopped down a bit. It's something to maybe think about anyway.
If you're interested in a particular focal length it may be worth googling for reviews and samples.
Good luck choosing and have fun!
I forgot to mention the Minolta Rokkor 45mm f2. This lens does IMO give nice bokeh but sadly the minimum focus distance isn't great and is as far as I remember a bit longer than the similar 50mm f1.7.
One thing you can do with these lenses if going for pictures of smaller things such as flowers, leaves or your model car collection is use a close up filter. Just in case you've not used these they're a magnifying lens which you screw to the front of your lens. This enables you to get closer and fill the frame more and they allow you to focus at greater than minimum focus distance. This gives two advantages, being able to focus closer and fill the frame more and also enables better image quality as some lenses are not at their best at or near minimum focus distance. Close up filters often come in sets of three or four and you can use them individually or stack them. I've had my set of three a long time and I think they were £27 new. I often take the No.4 filter out with me for pictures of flowers, leaves and the like.
Again, sorry if you already knew all this
Sorry I misread your earlier post.
Shropshire Falls by Philip Higgins, on Flickr
Picked up a bargain a old Leitz 9cm f4 M recently here is a image from last week adapted to my Fujifilm XT4
Contax Zeiss 135 2.8 and Yashica ML 135 2.8 by Ken Dunton, on Flickr
Contax Zeiss 200 3.5 and Yashica ML 200 4 by Ken Dunton, on Flickr
Barcelona, Placa de Catlunya by Ken Dunton, on Flickr
146e by Ken Dunton, on Flickr
I know that modern day lenses are high quality and SHARP but I still prefer the individuality of the old lenses.
I just kept an Auto Yashinon DSM 135mm F/2.8 from, err.... someone else getting it
But who knows what they might have done with it, I shall treat it like it is my own flesh and blood (so long as it outperforms my Super Ozeck 135mm).
DSCF0766 by Neville Watkins, on Flickr
Size comparison for the Industar. It's tiny but doubles in size with an adaptor:I shall have to look out for the Industar. Looks interesting. The Helios lens is absolutely mad though.
Industar 50-2 3.5 by Ken Dunton, on Flickr
Helios 44-2, Sony Nex 6
industar 50-2 50mm f3.5 at f3.5
Sand ripples