 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006speaking of bokeh
It's terribly popular these days--suffering somewhat of a comeback, what. I stumbled upon this article on the very thing (bokeh) at Adorama this morning: http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=academy&article=103006 Here's my favorite article on the subject, though: http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/bokeh.html > It's terribly popular these days--suffering somewhat of a comeback, > what. I stumbled upon this article on the very thing (bokeh) at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here's my favorite article on the subject, though: > http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/bokeh.html Thanks for the links, very informative! Bur I must object to the quote in the first link: "However as you go further back, the lens with the largest physical aperture starts to show the most blur, and by the time you're at infinity, the 135mm lens at f2 lens will give almost twice as much blurring"... ...If you've gone so far back that your at infinity your biggest worry is not bokeh but photographing without getting your own a.s in the picture ;-). P.S. - The "cat's eye bokeh" (reminiscent of the Leica Noctilux f/1 M lens is like being in the middle of a whirly gig - I get nauseas just thinking about it - it makes the chromatic abberations and spherical aberrations look like pretty impressionistic watercolor artist effects in comparison ;-). Thanks again. >> It's terribly popular these days--suffering somewhat of a comeback, >> what. I stumbled upon this article on the very thing (bokeh) at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > is not bokeh but photographing without getting your own a.s in the > picture ;-). If you really, "go back to infinity", no one will ever see you again...... >> ...If you've gone so far back that your at infinity your biggest worry >> is not bokeh but photographing without getting your own a.s in the >> picture ;-). > > If you really, "go back to infinity", no one will ever see you again...... Not so. Annika keeps returning with an alarming regularity. mike > > > ...If you've gone so far back that your at infinity your biggest worry > > > is not bokeh but photographing without getting your own a.s in the > > > picture ;-). > > If you really, "go back to infinity", no one will ever see you > > again...... > > Not so. Annika keeps returning with an alarming regularity. There was an old lady called Wright who could travel much faster than light. She departed one day in a relative way and returned on the previous night.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > It's terribly popular these days--suffering somewhat of a comeback, > what. I stumbled upon this article on the very thing (bokeh) at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here's my favorite article on the subject, though: > http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/bokeh.html Thanks, that is a nice one, I added it to my humble little bokeh page: http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh BTW I'm curious to see if the new Zeiss Nikon mount 35mm/f2 has appreciably better bokeh than the Nikon... particularly the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 has some really awful OOF highlight effects and I've been itching for a suitable normal fast prime for crop frame digital. Will it be worth $824? Maybe. It's a really important focal length, it focus close too so that OOF could really show in closeups & night time street photography. Probably get some extraordinary macros with extension tubes as well. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100103zeissnikonfmount.asp http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IMBr SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >> It's terribly popular these days--suffering somewhat of a comeback, >> what. I stumbled upon this article on the very thing (bokeh) at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100103zeissnikonfmount.asp > http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IMBr It's all hype. They're Cosina lenses, and their build quality and optical performance has not exceeded Nikon's, at least when comparing the 50mm f/1.4 lenses. I was lusting after the ones that are coming out in M42 mount (same lens designs as the Nikon mount) but I got over it after reading this comparison: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/sharpness.htm and http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm The reviewer compares these Cosina-Zeiss lenses to his old "Lentar" lenses from the 70s. Well, I had a couple of Lentar lenses, and they were NO comparison to the SMC Takumars that were available at that time. They felt cheap, they did not have the smooth focusing of the Takumars, their build quality was nowhere as good as Takumars. I believe that Zeiss is merely trading on its name. These new ZF designs are not the same Zeiss quality that we were expecting. And, no, I don't think that a Cosina lens is worth $800+ . . . > "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message >> BTW I'm curious to see if the new Zeiss Nikon mount 35mm/f2 has >> appreciably better bokeh than the Nikon... particularly the Nikkor 35mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100103zeissnikonfmount.asp >> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IMBr > It's all hype. They're Cosina lenses, and their build quality and optical > performance has not exceeded Nikon's, at least when comparing the 50mm f/1.4 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > are not the same Zeiss quality that we were expecting. And, no, I don't > think that a Cosina lens is worth $800+ . . . I won! I won!!! I *knew* you were going to post just that! Rockwell hath spoken --- Amen! Yes, and Rockwell backed it up with test data. You haven't won anything. >> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Rockwell hath spoken --- Amen! > Yes, and Rockwell backed it up with test data. You haven't won anything. > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >> Rockwell hath spoken --- Amen! I must have missed something. Was there some speculation that I was going to post those links from Ken Rockwell's web site, or something? If so, that was pretty juvenile. Rockwell backed up his conclusions with actual testing, and offered comparison shots--as opposed to just spouting off with unsubstantiated personal opinions, as is so often the case with posters here. So why all the criticism of him? One thing he has impressed upon me is that what really matters is to look at the photos, not to rely upon mythical advertising claims. I was one of the ones that was waiting for the release of the CZ M42 mount lenses, but I have lost all interest as a result of seeing those test images on Rockwell's site. I've also gained a new respect for Nikkor lenses, after having thought for decades that Nikon bokeh was significantly inferior to that of Pentax. Without intending to start a battle over this point, I can see how so many professional photographers somehow managed to produce excellent work using Nikkor lenses for decades. Now that CZ and Leica seem positioned to carve out high-end niches for their respective product lines, one must consider whether their respective margins of superiority--if, indeed, they exist at all--are worth the high premiums charged. Should a Nikon or Canon (or Pentax) photographer seriously consider dumping his gear and replace it with Zeiss or Leica lenses? I'm not so convinced that there would be any noticeable difference in their results. Clearly, as an amateur, I would not be inclined to spend the money. But even professionals probably won't rush to "trade-up," either. It's time we all stopped arguing fine points of differences between brands and instead just looked at the photos. Rockwell has done a service by stressing that point. BIG SNIP > One thing he has impressed upon me is that what really matters is to look at > the photos, not to rely upon mythical advertising claims. I was one of the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and instead just looked at the photos. Rockwell has done a service by > stressing that point. I would agree with you, Norman, to a point (or till a circle of blur/confusion if I spin around in my chair fast enough ;-)). In the end the images is all that matters but there are subtleties which add to or detract, some markedly on a conscious level, and some slightly on a sub-conscious or at least borderline conscious level to the "look" and hence the "feel" of an image. Not that you said this but saying who needs bokeh (or good or bad bokeh lenses) is like saying who needs negative space or oxygen or sunlight, things so obvious and blatantly there (yes, my stomach is powered by hydrogen and Rolaids to form a radioactive form of bioluminescence ;-)) they are constantly taken forgranted for their "thereness". Hear hear! Where where? Their there!!! There is a great radio commercial (forget which product its for, actually, that telss us to "listen to the things that are not there" (my poor paraphrasing - no jokes about "the sound of one hand clapping" or "one butt crapping," please;-)) like the sound of people not getting into accidents (they didn't use this example but this is one thing that comes to mind). Great idea. Its the same with bokeh and other lens qualities. Most people don't give a hoot about the subtleties, "just get me a picture of Uncle Zak in focus, image be damned". But that's not me. Far from bing a lens/brand snob, one of my if not the favorite lens I own is a Nikon reputed for bad bokeh by some posters but which does me just fine and its combination of unique clarity/sharpness wide open and smoothed out bokeh give it a unique look. I also own (and or have owned/used) Leica (R, M and screw mount), Zeiss (Contax MM and AE mounts and even the Zeiss lenses for the Rollei SL35 126 format SLR) (sizzling edge contrast and super punchy color saturation, excellent micro-contrast though not quite as good as Leica's and smooth bokeh fore and aft of the focal plane), Minolta Maxxum (like Nikon in sharpness with better tonality and color balance if not saturation, some good bokeh some not so good), Canon FD and EOS (love them L lenses though the ffl lenses are nothing to sneeze at either in the sharpness department though I've always found the color a little bleh in the saturation department compared to Zeiss/Pentax/Nikon/Minolta, Konica (only shot some black and white for a brief time so can't comment on its qualities very well), Pentax (great bokeh, sharp as Nikons but with better hilight transitions and lovely warm saturated color balance), Olympus (wonderful sharpness stopped down and excellent microcontrast especially on the 100/2.8 and 35/2.8 and 50/1.8 I shot with though sometimes I felt the colors from the lens could stand more saturation, almost a "Leica-look" to some lenses), Sigma/Quantaray (lovely bokeh for the 70-300), Tamron Nikon minus, great sharpness but lousy flare control on the zooms), Star-D (crystal clear sharpness, lousy flare control, color balance just OK), Rokunar (I owned the only soft focus 28-80 zoom in existence, almost ruined a shoot), Schneider (wondeful micro contrast = to the best of them) you say poSchneider and I say poLeica "and I'll be in Scottland before ye") and the list goes on and on (oh yeah, both Pentax and Zeiss had the best anti-flare coatings if memory serves). Each has a unique signature (bokeh, global contrast, micro-contrast, resolution, color balance, vignetting, selective focus effects, etc.) that I use to my advantage when/as I need it. Obsession (or at least, passion) when it comes to one's gear is to be expected and never hurt anybody, the more we know about ou tools the better we can use them to get the optical effect(s) we desire. I probably won't get the new "Neiss" (Nikon F mount Zeiss) lenses either (though the 25 and 50/2 look tempting both because I am already covered in those departments (except for my Pentax gear) and equipment worship and bank accounts only go so far, also, I actually prefer the 40/2 SL and the M mounts 35/2.5 Pancake?, 40/1.4 (hope my memory got the aperture right) and 50/1.5 Nokton lens from Voightlander/Cosina, the same makers of the new "Zeiss" branded lenses. > my stomach is powered by hydrogen and Rolaids to form a > radioactive form of bioluminescence ;-)) I thought light from Rolaids was due to triboluminescence. "'Mysticism and Mesmerism in Madagascar' was a paper I delivered to the Ladies and Taboo Society of Annapolis. It was a sensation. I followed that with 'Tribadism in the Tropics' - which caused quite a stir. Rubbed several spectators the wrong way." _On the Verge_, E. Overmeyer SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > One thing he has impressed upon me is that what really matters is to look at > the photos, not to rely upon mythical advertising claims. I was one of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've also gained a new respect for Nikkor lenses, after having thought for > decades that Nikon bokeh was significantly inferior to that of Pentax. But, Rockwell didn't compare them to Pentax, he compared them to Nikon, and five of them at that. Further, all he compared was the latest Zeiss lenses for Nikon, the CZ lenses produced by Cosina. Further, the only point Zeiss has touted about these, besides fine build quality, is that they are exceedingly sharp. As I recall, they claim the 50mm to be the highest resolution lens in the 35mm world. Nothing was said about bokeh and one might imagine (though perhaps incorrectly so--I'm not optics scientist) that the ultimate resolving power might have to sacrifice some smooth out of focus effects to be achieved. > But, Rockwell didn't compare them to Pentax, he compared them to Nikon, > and five of them at that. Further, all he compared was the latest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not optics scientist) that the ultimate resolving power might have to > sacrifice some smooth out of focus effects to be achieved. I decided to not buy the CZ lens in M42 mount based on build quality and the absence of any significantly improved level of performance over "ordinary" lenses. The price didn't justify it. Rockwell's comparison shots underscored one important truth--that if one wants more resolving power, it is better to change format than change brand of lens. As for bokeh, my existing supply of 7 normal Pentax lenses already suffices. And I really don't care for losing full aperture metering. The CZ lenses would be like going back to the old Super Takumar series--not so great considering the high price of the lens. I'm disillusioned about the legendary (or, should I say, "mythical") properties of Zeiss lenses. > I decided to not buy the CZ lens in M42 mount based on build quality and the > absence of any significantly improved level of performance over "ordinary" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wants more resolving power, it is better to change format than change brand > of lens. While the format argument is very valid, Rockwell's "tests" are based on flawed methodology and laughable conclusions. If lens "performance" to you (& Rockwell) is only the sharpness at the center of a digital capture, then you might be right. If f/8.0 is all you want to use in those conditions, then you are well advised to look into the price of some good Coke bottles. Also Rockwell's "tests" of bokeh - based on only one focusing distance and only one OOF plane - are utterly meaningless. To attempt to measure or evaluate extremely complex characteristics like bokeh (and overall lens performance) with a couple of snapshots is simply ludicrous! Unless all you are interested in is taking such snapshots, in which case his "tests" might actually be good predictors of what you'll get... But then often those who provide simplistic answers to difficult questions are the most admired. > I'm disillusioned about the legendary (or, should I say, "mythical") > properties of Zeiss lenses. Apart from Rockwell's simplistic twaddle, do you actually really know *anything at all* about Zeiss lenses? >> I decided to not buy the CZ lens in M42 mount based on build quality >> and the absence of any significantly improved level of performance [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Apart from Rockwell's simplistic twaddle, do you actually really know > *anything at all* about Zeiss lenses? Anyone who takes Rockwell to be an authority on equipment will get what they deserve. One needs to move beyond simplistic concepts to advance one's photography. Never rely upon any one source for information. The new Zeiss lenses have been reviewed by numerous individuals, and it should be simple to look past Rockwell and find those other reviews (some only in magazines). The newest Zeiss SLR lenses are evolutions of older Contax SLR designs. If you compare them to older Contax SLR lenses, you might find some simularities. I don't think they are that far off from older Contax, or even some Nikon manual focus AI and AIS lenses, so it is a judgement call of whether they are worth the expense. <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/personal/trolley_stone.jpg> <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/SFX/trolley-stone_SFX.jpg> One image with what some might call harsh defocus highlights, and another with smooth defocus areas. The angle of the shots is slightly different in each, and the film was different in each. Both shots were wide open aperture, meaning a round shape not influenced by the number of blades. Perhaps of some interest is that the exact same lens was used for both shots. Draw your own conclusions, if there are any. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> While the format argument is very valid, Rockwell's "tests" are based on >> flawed methodology and laughable conclusions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> If f/8.0 is all you want to use in those conditions, then you are well >> advised to look into the price of some good Coke bottles. I decided against purchasing the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 based on the photos that Rockwell took with the various lenses. The CZ did not exhibit better images than the Nikkors. I also based my decision to avoid the CZ lenses after reading Rockwell's description of their build quality. I don't think that his photographs are flawed. The CZ lens did not produce images that were demonstrably superior to those of Nikkors--and some of the Nikkors were old by comparison. For you to charge him with "flawed methodology" and "laughable conclusions"--and then not to give examples of exactly WHAT parts of his tests were incorrectly done--seems reckless. Please, point out the specific errors, so simpletons like I may learn and understand. Did he doctor the photos? Was his assessment of build quality overly critical? Are Nikkors REALLY inferior to these Cosina-made-and-Zeiss_branded lenses? Does their margin of superiority justify their high price? In fact, IS THERE A MARGIN OF SUPERIORITY AT ALL, or is it just advertising hype? Rockwell has put his test images and techniques out for all to see. If his conclusions were incorrect, please point out specific examples, rather than just dismiss his conclusions, because you are biased against him. Really, inquiring minds want to know . . . >>>While the format argument is very valid, Rockwell's "tests" are based on >>>flawed methodology and laughable conclusions. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Really, inquiring minds want to know . . . Hello Jeremy, I don't know if you are responding to Chris, someone else, or me . . . I did not use the terms you quote "flawed methodology" nor "laughable conclusions". You should consider that you have never met Ken Rockwell in person, and I have done exactly that a few times. Your perception of him might change were you to meet him in person . . . or maybe not. If you are comfortable with taking his advise, then why change. Putting forward a challenge or any other similar confrontation to anyone posting here would be of no use to you. Why bother asking? Were you seriously considering purchasing a new Zeiss lens? You seem to know that older manual focus lenses from many companies are often mechanically well made, and last for many years with little to no service needed. None reading reviews by anyone should only regard one point of view. I highly recommend investigating several points of view, and I have often mentioned exactly that. Those who don't care to investigate further, on their own, should be satisified with whatever conclusion they get. If you trust Rockwell's opinions, then don't read any further. None should expect huge differences in camera gear in tests. I almost laughed when I saw a comparison on the internet between 33 MP and 39 MM medium format digital backs . . . there is no way to find a "best" choice, nor even a "winner" in the majority of comparisons. In many comparisons, even the lowest placed equipment can be used to produce compelling images . . . anyone who has used enough different gear knows this. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > I don't know if you are responding to Chris, someone else, or me . . . I > did not use the terms you quote "flawed methodology" nor "laughable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mechanically well made, and last for many years with little to no service > needed. I merely want to see if those lenses are worth considering. Ken Rockwell was the only one whose review I could find. Was his review inaccurate? Or were the derogatory comments the result of a bias against Rockwell personally? He put his procedures and his comparison shots out for all to see. If those lenses are really superior to Nikkors, I wish that someone would show us the facts, rather than dismiss Rockwell's tests with just a wave of the hand. >> I don't know if you are responding to Chris, someone else, or me . . . I >> did not use the terms you quote "flawed methodology" nor "laughable [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > show us the facts, rather than dismiss Rockwell's tests with just a wave > of the hand. Yes. Before I purchased a good, professional camera, I investigated the lens sets of the various manufacturers on the market, so that I would not be spending my money on a "pig in a poke". I knew enough to understand that the lens is a very important part of the final photograph, and I would need a camera that could mount a large set of reasonably priced, but good quality lenses. I knew about the Zeiss and Leica lenses, but I found out that I would have to pay 3 to 5 times as much for them than I would for Nikon or Canon, and the difference in the quality of the pictures I could take with them wasn't going to be 3 to 5 times better, so I decided on the cheaper systems. I have not been disappointed. I still don't see 3 to 5 times better photographs coming from people who own Leicas or cameras that mount Zeiss lenses. Are they any better? Well, perhaps, but not 3 to 5 times better. A Ferrari is better than my Subaru, too, but I don't have one in my garage, and I'm glad I don't for the same reason. > >> I don't know if you are responding to Chris, someone else, or me . . . I > >> did not use the terms you quote "flawed methodology" nor "laughable [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Ferrari is better than my Subaru, too, but I don't have one in my garage, > and I'm glad I don't for the same reason. >From my own personal experience I find the Zeiss' tonality and color saturation/liveliness and micro contrast to be better than the Nikkor/Nikon lenses but I use them both. Not all Zeiss lenses are astronomically priced (at least for the used Contax range, I'm not so sure about the ZF range) and are quite reasonable in price between 28-135mm. Leica is always (by my reckoning) expensive but one would be a fool to spend new for them when so many are available at a discount used... There are other "compromises" - I find Pentax's lenses to have similar bokeh to Leica, at least the sharpness of Nikon and better color saturation and anti-flare characteristics relative to Nikon, not that Nikon is particularly lacking in these departments, but for me, Pentax does it better. And as far as I am concerned, the penax Limited lenses are Leicas in sheeps clothing ;-) P.S. - I prefer Toyatas (economically) to Ferraris and most other cars but have yet to figure out a way to mount them to my Pentax MZ-S ;-). >> >> I don't know if you are responding to Chris, someone else, or me . . . >> >> I [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > P.S. - I prefer Toyatas (economically) to Ferraris and most other cars > but have yet to figure out a way to mount them to my Pentax MZ-S ;-). Yes....Well, another consideration in any expensive piece of machinery is upkeep. People who own Ferrari's spend a lot of time in the waiting rooms of repair shops, and their escapes from them aren't cheap, either. I don't think the same is true of Leica and Zeiss lenses....If anything, they are probably less likely to develop problems. I was really not too familiar with the differences between Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax lenses......My ultimate "decision" was chiefly determined by the fact that I already had a Nikormat ELW, and three fairly good Nikors. So, I had little to gain by switching brands...... BIG SNIP > Yes....Well, another consideration in any expensive piece of machinery is > upkeep. People who own Ferrari's spend a lot of time in the waiting rooms of > repair shops, and their escapes from them aren't cheap, either. I don't > think the same is true of Leica and Zeiss lenses.... One of my Zeiss lenses had a loose housing and I had to get that Fixed by Kyocera, Leica M4P body also had shutter problems that needed repairing, Nikon lens needed repairing, its luck of the draw sometimes, regardless of brand, no matter how well they're built... If anything, they are > probably less likely to develop problems. See above. I was really not too familiar with > the differences between Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax lenses......My > ultimate "decision" was chiefly determined by the fact that I already had a > Nikormat ELW, and three fairly good Nikors. So, I had little to gain by > switching brands...... Understood. > BIG SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Understood. I have found that most of my old glass has either zooms and/or focusing that is either too loose or too tight. I think the manufacturers should put friction adjustment screws on their lenses that allow the user to adjust these two things. I don't take many pictures looking up or down, but when I do, I have to hold the zooms firmly with my left hand.....:^) I've not had that trouble with the Aetna Rokunar 70 to 210 zoom I use with both my Topcon and my Exa. SignatureThe Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info The Church of Eternity http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html > I have found that most of my old glass has either zooms and/or focusing > that is either too loose or too tight. I think the manufacturers should > put friction adjustment screws on their lenses that allow the user to > adjust these two things. I don't take many pictures looking up or down, > but when I do, I have to hold the zooms firmly with my left hand.....:^) > > BIG SNIP > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > these two things. I don't take many pictures looking up or down, but when I > do, I have to hold the zooms firmly with my left hand.....:^) In this age of plastics and planned obsolescence, unless the zoom is a pro zoom I doubt anybody would bother to add a tightening screw to prevent zoom slippage. The old Kiron zooms (80-210 approx. and maybe others?) had a "Zoom Lock" feature that if memory serves was more like a switch than a scre but it served the same function of preventing zoom slippage. Canon's current longer EF L zooms may also have the equivalent of a zoom lock but I've been out of Canon gear for quite some time, possibly it might be on the 100-400 L and 35-3?50 L and/or other long range Canon zooms. By the way, to keep on topic, I've been impressed with Canon's L lens (zoom and fixed) bokeh though I prefer the Pentax glass for its color saturation, lack of flare (SMC coatings) and liveliness/naturalness of color rendition - its "look" if you will. The L lenses are just a whisker under the sharpness of the "old" Zeiss (Contax SLR) lenses with the Contax/Zeiss even outdoing the Canon L in the color saturation, micro contrast and bokeh departments. The Contax N lenses (AF) were/are Humungous in size though built very well - pity the system no longer exists... Digital, with few exceptions, leaves me flat, grain or no grain I prefer the detail, richness and subtleties of film. Hey, but that's just me, to misquote Catherine the Great "Let them chomp on megapixels" :-). P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're always locked on 50mm ;-). >> > BIG SNIP >> > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're > always locked on 50mm ;-). So did my dad, (who was a better photographer than I'll ever be)....He said that any other focal length produced "distorted" pictures....... > "thebokehking" <thebokehking@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're > > always locked on 50mm ;-). > > > So did my dad, (who was a better photographer than I'll ever be)....He said > that any other focal length produced "distorted" pictures....... Of course this has to be adjusted for the format being shot, your dad was no doubt talking about a 50mm on a 35mm camera. With my 1.6 crop factor I would need a 31.25mm be give the same photos. And to an extent he is right but this is a fuzzy area and depends on he size of the print and how far your are viewing it from. For an 8 x 12 inch print you would want to view it from 17 inches to have no distortion, if the photo was shot with a 50mm lens on the 35mm camera. If the photo was taken with a 45mm lens it would need to be viewed from 15 inches. It is unlikely anyone could look at a photo and tell you if a 50 or 45mm lens was used. I have just order a 28mm prime for my camera, which will be the same as a 44.8mm on a 35mm camera, I think this lens will be what I mainly use for inside shots. I have a 50mm, but it is just too long for most inside shooting where you can't back up, given my 1.6 crop factor. The "distortion" from longer lenses is a lot less noticeable then when you go shorter. By the time you are to a 18mm lens things are getting to look pretty odd. A 400mm lens on the other hand can produce an image that look just fine. Scott >> "thebokehking" <thebokehking@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Scott Yes, he was talking about 35 mm cameras, but he didn't just shoot 35 mm stuff.....He used a Rollei TLR a lot, and also a couple of different 4x5 cut film cameras. the only 35 mm camera I remember him using was a Leica IIIf, and while he preferred the 50 mm focal length, he did use other focal lengths when they were called for. He died at the age of 80 in 1968. (Just so you'll understand the era we are talking about.) > Yes, he was talking about 35 mm cameras, but he didn't just shoot 35 mm > stuff.....He used a Rollei TLR a lot, and also a couple of different 4x5 cut > film cameras. the only 35 mm camera I remember him using was a Leica IIIf, > and while he preferred the 50 mm focal length, he did use other focal > lengths when they were called for. He died at the age of 80 in 1968. (Just > so you'll understand the era we are talking about.) So I would guess that 50mm was what he preferred when shooting 35mm but would have gone to a longer lens when shooting the larger formats. Scott > > Yes, he was talking about 35 mm cameras, but he didn't just shoot 35 > mm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Scott Yes.....He liked the "normal" focal lengths best. > I have a 50mm, but it is just too long for most > inside shooting where you can't back up. Great for portraits, though, where you really need to be at least 10' away from the subject, ideally more. > The "distortion" from longer lenses is a lot less noticeable then when > you go shorter. By the time you are to a 18mm lens things are getting > to look pretty odd. A 400mm lens on the other hand can produce an > image that look just fine. Well there should be no "distortion" except aberrations or intended, such as in a fisheye. What is often described as distortion is a function of the subject to camera distance and cropping. All a longer lens does is create a more magnified image with the same perspective, which is then cropped by both the covering power of the lens, but more so by the film/sensor format inside that. Place a camera on a tripod and take a photo at 18mm and then at 54mm. On the computer, reduce the size of the 54mm photo to 1/3 and then copy and paste it over the 18mm photo and you'll see that the perspective is exactly the same. When enlarged to the same print size, the original 54mm photo will need viewing at 3 times the distance as the 18mm photo to get the same perceived perspective. > > I have a 50mm, but it is just too long for most > > inside shooting where you can't back up. > > > Great for portraits, though, where you really need to be at least 10' away > from the subject, ideally more. It does very well, although I like to use a lens even a bit longer. > > The "distortion" from longer lenses is a lot less noticeable then when > > you go shorter. By the time you are to a 18mm lens things are getting [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > viewing at 3 times the distance as the 18mm photo to get the same perceived > perspective. And this is the problem since the photo with using the 18mm lens need to be viewed much closer then most people ever would. Assuming a full 35mm frame a 8 x 12 inch print would have to be viewed from 6 inches away to look right, closer then most people would view it. And if we are talking about a 4 x 6 inch print now you have to view it from 3 inches away. When we view a print from the correct distance it recreates the view, as we would have seen it if we were where the camera was. If you change the viewing distance to the print the image is not distorted. As an extreme case in point take this photo http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57068468/original That is what you would see with an 8.4mm lens on a 35mm camera. Now the image looks very distorted, but this is because you are viewing it from too far back, if you put you eye about 3.5 inches from your monitor the image will no longer look distorted. Scott BIG SNIP > As an extreme case in point take this photo > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57068468/original That is what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Scott Nice shot/perspective, Scott. Which lens and camera did you take this with? Thanks in advance. > BIG SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks in advance. That was taken with the Sony F828, a number of photos where taken and then stitched using PTGui. With PTGui I can render the final photo as if a recliner lens was used or it can be mapped into cylindrical or spherical mapping, which will often look better when the image gets to be very wide angle. Spherical mapping looks like this. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57068470 which makes any where on the image look more normal but at the expense of curved walls. I have also written my own program that lets me map part way between the two extremes. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70277474 Scott > > BIG SNIP > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Scott Thanks Scott. The colors and the lighting were really nice. Was this also taken with the Sony F828, the clarity is unbelievable (Zeiss lens?). http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51742882 Its the kind of scene that is best taken at at least two different exposures, one for the sky and one for the car/folliage/driveway. Have you checked intot the Sony a100 (DSLR) - it also has eiss lenses available (or at least some of them will be shortly :-)). > Have you checked intot the Sony a100 (DSLR) - it also has eiss lenses > available (or at least some of them will be shortly :-)). Make that _Z_eiss not _eisss_ ;-). > Thanks Scott. The colors and the lighting were really nice. Was this > also taken with the Sony F828, the clarity is unbelievable (Zeiss > lens?). > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51742882 That was taken with the 20D and the 50mm f/1.8 lens, a really nice lens BTW. The F828 does well enough for what it is but it is no match for a DSLR. Even the kit lens on the 20D blows the F828 out of the water, of course the kit lens has a much smaller zoom range then the F828. > Its the kind of scene that is best taken at at least two different > exposures, one for the sky and one for the car/folliage/driveway. Yeah bad lighting for sure. Any more and I would shoot that using raw which would give me much more range, thas was taken with JPEG so I am pretty much stuck with it. The car is a convenient test subject because it has some high contrast text on it as well as deep shadows underneath it. > Have you checked intot the Sony a100 (DSLR) - it also has eiss lenses > available (or at least some of them will be shortly :-)). Having started down the Canon path years ago that is what I have ended up with. We now have a 20D and 350D and will likely stick with Canon since we continue to build our collection of lenses. Scott > > Thanks Scott. The colors and the lighting were really nice. Was this > > also taken with the Sony F828, the clarity is unbelievable (Zeiss [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That was taken with the 20D and the 50mm f/1.8 lens, a really nice lens > BTW. I know, I owned when I had EOS film cameras. Sharp and good color too. > The F828 does well enough for what it is but it is no match for a DSLR. > Even the kit lens on the 20D blows the F828 out of the water, of course > the kit lens > has a much smaller zoom range then the F828. Also doesn't hurt that the 20D's sensor is probably quite a bit larger than the F828's, that can make quite a difference (in noise and smoothness of tonality/"look"/image quality)! Of course even the best of zooms will have a pretty ahrd time matching or exceeding the ultra high quality of any 50mm ffl lens, "kit lens" or not... > > Its the kind of scene that is best taken at at least two different > > exposures, one for the sky and one for the car/folliage/driveway. > Yeah bad lighting for sure. Any more and I would shoot that using > raw which would give me much more range, thas was taken with JPEG > so I am pretty much stuck with it. Looks great for a jpeg. Almost looks like (aside from the white sky) it was taken in RAW then converted to JPEG. > The car is a convenient test subject because it has some high contrast > text on it as well as deep shadows underneath it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott Thanks, Scott, that makes sense (why you're sticking with Canon DSLRs). You wouldn't remember (or be able to read off the EXIF) data for the ISO, aperture and shutter speed it was shot at), would you?, it has very low noise and crystal clarity. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51742882 Thanks in advance -- again :-). > > > Thanks Scott. The colors and the lighting were really nice. Was this > > > also taken with the Sony F828, the clarity is unbelievable (Zeiss [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > ISO, aperture and shutter speed it was shot at), would you?, it has > very low noise and crystal clarity. Opps, I got my car photos confused, that one was taken with the F828, data as follows f/4.5 1/400 second FL 24.9mm ISO 64. But that is an old image and not that hi-res, this one is shows much more detail http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70289161/original And then this one http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/68468500/original Both were taken with the 50mm f/1.8 at f/11. Scott Scott > > > > Thanks Scott. The colors and the lighting were really nice. Was this > > > > also taken with the Sony F828, the clarity is unbelievable (Zeiss [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > more detail > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70289161/original Yes, that shot was clearly over sharpened by _a lot_. Thanks for sharing. > > > > Thanks Scott. The colors and the lighting were really nice. Was this > > > > also taken with the Sony F828, the clarity is unbelievable (Zeiss [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > data as follows > f/4.5 1/400 second FL 24.9mm ISO 64. You're absolutely sure this time that the back of the Toyota RAV4 in driveway shot was from the Carl Zeiss/F828? - I only ask this because of the previous error, so forgive me if I sound pedantic here... > But that is an old image and not that hi-res, this one is shows much > more detail > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70289161/original Very sharp and very finely detailed - however, on my monitor there was slight mottling of the sky due to the jpeg compression/artifacts, its avout 1/5? the way from the upper right corner just to the left of the brown wooden post (its in ither areas too). Its very slight but my eye picks up on these things, you probably wouldn't see it unless it was in a larger print. Sorry, don't have Photoshop to crop/copy/paste so you'll have to take my word on it or look at the image at maybe 2x mag to see it more clearly. Don't sweat it though, even at large sizes its just a minuscule effect that my eye is sensitive too (like barrek distortion, color fringing, etc. on somelenses). The Zeiss (F828) lens still has a presence (color, clarity and "openess" (maybe tonality) that's lacking in the still excellent Canon 20D with 50/1.8 lens. > And then this one > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/68468500/original [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Scott I heard there was a mini-tsunami (under water earthquake) with 7 foot waves (that could grow higher once they reach land) on the tv news tonight (about 10:30 PM wed. night, Eastern Time). Have you heard about it? It was supposed to extend out to Hawaii. I am saying this as info I'm passing along to you, not to overly worry/concern you. > You're absolutely sure this time that the back of the Toyota RAV4 in > driveway shot was from the Carl Zeiss/F828? - I only ask this because > of the previous error, so forgive me if I sound pedantic here... Yup, brought up the source file and that was what was used. > > But that is an old image and not that hi-res, this one is shows much > > more detail [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > still has a presence (color, clarity and "openess" (maybe tonality) > that's lacking in the still excellent Canon 20D with 50/1.8 lens. I re loaded the image in it full size and lower compression, it is now a really big file so some may have problems viewing it. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70289161 In it full size it is around 116 MP For a quicker load and something to compare to this is what it would look like if it were 35mm film scanned at 4000 ppi, this knocks the image size down to about 21MP. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70308627 > I heard there was a mini-tsunami (under water earthquake) with 7 foot > waves (that could grow higher once they reach land) on the tv news > tonight (about 10:30 PM wed. night, Eastern Time). Have you heard about > it? It was supposed to extend out to Hawaii. I am saying this as info > I'm passing along to you, not to overly worry/concern you. Small kind tsunami, no problems really. One person got her leg cut and a parking lot got flooded. For our Island I never hear the warnnings go off so I don't think we got them. The warnning are loud enough that you would not miss them. Scott > > > > You're absolutely sure this time that the back of the Toyota RAV4 in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70289161 > In it full size it is around 116 MP The Canon 20D is only an 8.2 MP camera, that would make it the worlds sharpest Canon! ;-) And 116 MB instead of MP would still be an impossibly large file to generate from this camera -- sure you don't mean 116 KB (kilobytes)? > For a quicker load and something to compare to this is what it would > look like if it were > 35mm film scanned at 4000 ppi, this knocks the image size down to about > 21MP. See above :-) > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70308627 Virtually no artefacting in the sky here. What was the compression set at? Were both of these files taken originally as JPEGS in the camera? Thanks for taking the trouble to make these up/send them, by the way... > > I heard there was a mini-tsunami (under water earthquake) with 7 > foot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Scott Good to hear (that the damage was minimal) - I guess its not a good idea to wear earplugs at night (so you don't hear the sirens) ;-) > The Canon 20D is only an 8.2 MP camera, that would make it the worlds > sharpest Canon! ;-) And 116 MB instead of MP would still be an > impossibly large file to generate from this camera -- sure you don't > mean 116 KB (kilobytes)? No the file is 116 MPixel, remember these are stitched photos. The file is a bit over 28 MB in sized, when I had it in a 16 bit/color tiff it was right about 700 MB in size. > > For a quicker load and something to compare to this is what it would > > look like if it were > > 35mm film scanned at 4000 ppi, this knocks the image size down to about > > 21MP. > > See above :-) Just to be sure you are seeing the whole image click here, it is huge so it may take a while to load. Right click on it and you will see the size. > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70308627 > > Virtually no artefacting in the sky here. What was the compression set > at? Because this image is a lot smaller I could set the compressing much lower, I think I save this as quality 10. > Were both of these files taken originally as JPEGS in the camera? I take all my photos are RAW and then either convert to jpeg to tiff for stitching. In > Good to hear (that the damage was minimal) - I guess its not a good > idea to wear earplugs at night (so you don't hear the sirens) ;-) They never did set off the alarms, at least not on our island. Mostly it was just a heavy current. There was more damage on the mainland then we got. Sharks had and still have people spooked here a lot more. http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/15/news/story06.html Scott While the N series Contax lenses are humungous in size and built very well, they are not all immune to the zoom creep problem. 17-35 does not creep because the overall length does not change 70-300 does not creep despite being a 3-section zoom. It is just very well built. 24-85 does not creep when new, but most eventually do. 70-200 and 28-80 are mostly ok, and way better than 24-85. True, the system no longer exists, but the remants live on by transplanting to Canon EF mount. Yes it is possible now and it even autofocuses! See this for details: http://en.conurus.com/ Bo-Ming Tong of conurus > In this age of plastics and planned obsolescence, unless the zoom is a > pro zoom I doubt anybody would bother to add a tightening screw to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're > always locked on 50mm ;-). > While the N series Contax lenses are humungous in size and built very > well, they are not all immune to the zoom creep problem. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're >> always locked on 50mm ;-). I would think it would be absurdly easy to design a generic locking ring that could be attached to almost any zoom lens that would lock it firmly at whatever zoom length is happened to be at when you "snapped" it closed....I wonder why no one has built such a thing? > http://en.conurus.com/ > > Bo-Ming Tong of conurus OT: speaking of Conures: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neigh borhoods/2006-10-30-parrots-of-tel-hill/parrots&PG=2&PIC=8> >> http://en.conurus.com/ >> >> Bo-Ming Tong of conurus > > OT: speaking of Conures: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neigh borhoods/2006-10-30-parrots-of-tel-hill/parrots&PG=2&PIC=8> A few years back part of a local flock Ocean Beach, San Diego, California) took advantage of our small stand of giant sunflowers, flying in twice a day for a week or so until the big heads had been thoroughly stripped. http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/pictures/parotf0s.jpg Where did these birds come from, you ask? Aside from ordinary escapes, the numbers are here because of a lucrative trade in illegal birds. Normal import channels require expensive quarantines, one of the reasons legitimately imported birds in shops are so costly. Bird smugglers sedate the young birds they've captured and brought to Tijuana (the International Border is about 30 miles south of our place), either with drugs or cold. When the smugglers approach the border, they evaluate their chances of getting caught. If it seems to them there is a high inspection ratio in effect, or the sleeping contraband begins to awaken, they just dump the birds before they get to the inspection station. When the birds revive completely, those that are not otherwise confined fly away. There are hundreds and hundreds of these escaped birds in San Diego neighborhoods. A large flock in Ocean Beach includes military macaws and other large, rare, expensive species. These birds are attractive but noisy and messy, as are most hookbills. SignatureFrank ess > Where did these birds come from, you ask? Aside from ordinary escapes, > the numbers are here because of a lucrative trade in illegal birds. > Normal import channels require expensive quarantines, one of the > reasons legitimately imported birds in shops are so costly. Nice of you to mention the horrors that smuggled birds endure - as I write this I have a three-pound macaw sleeping peacefully in my lap. A couple of minor observations, though: - The 1973 CITES Convention and the 1992 Wild Bird Conservation Act effectively banned the importation of almost all parrot species. There are basically no legitimately imported birds for sale in stores; they're either domestically bred or illegally imported. - While it might possibly have happened, I've never heard of a "fly away after being dumped" scenario. Smuggled birds are universally tightly bound, the equivalent if sliding them into a small sock. I can't visualize the smuggler, afraid of capture, taking the time to individually free them. - Under the "best" smuggling circumstances, the majority of birds - perhaps 75% or more - die in transit from the abuse they suffer in drugging, restraining, and concealing them. Visualize 20-30 parrots drugged (with whatever is cheapest), wrapped, and stitched into the lining of a suitcase. It's believed that the vast majority of feral parrots in the US are escaped or released pets. There are far more of them than most people think. > In article <o8idnYJsgLA2JR3YnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@giganews.com>, Frank > ess [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > people > think. Thank you for the elucidation. My information was from a former Customs agent who may have been describing third-hand knowledge of a conversation pretty far back in history. Still, an ugly part of border life that many won't ordinarily be aware of. SignatureFrank ess >>> Where did these birds come from, you ask? Aside from ordinary >>> escapes, the numbers are here because of a lucrative trade in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> write this I have a three-pound macaw sleeping peacefully in my lap. A >> couple of minor observations, though: > Thank you for the elucidation. My information was from a former Customs > agent who may have been describing third-hand knowledge of a > conversation pretty far back in history. Still, an ugly part of border > life that many won't ordinarily be aware of. Maybe this is a dumb idea, but couldn't these wild exotics be trapped here in the states & used for breeding? Either for pets or for eventual re-introduction to their native habitats? > Maybe this is a dumb idea, but couldn't these wild exotics be trapped > here in the states & used for breeding? Either for pets or for eventual > re-introduction to their native habitats? The overwhelming majority of these "naturalized citizens" are of species that aren't rare in the wild, so capture for breeding isn't necessary. Capture as pets? First, wild caught birds don't usually make the best pets. Most pet stores aren't going to take the chance of selling a bird that might be illegally imported; ironic, as the protection laws don't apply to introduced species like this. Further, most of the species we're talking about aren't particularly valuable. There are recent reports of teenagers capturing Quaker parrots in New York and trying to sell them in pet stores; local residents want "their" wild parrots left alone and are objecting. Non-OT addendum: Feral parrots make good telephoto lens subjects. <GRIN> And lo, thebokehking <thebokehking@yahoo.com> emerged from the ether and spake thus: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're > always locked on 50mm ;-). Yes, the Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS does have a zoom friction adjustment ring, which can be adjusted from "extremely loose" to "won't move even if you want it to." But of course it's an L lens, not everyone needs or can afford that luxury. Smaller zooms with a zoom ring (that you turn) rather than the push/pull zoom tend to have enough tension to stay zoomed in any orientation. SignatureAaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.