 |
 | 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 / January 2006What has good Bokeh
Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including canon fd, etc., etc.).  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com With any prime lens which do not have any aspherical elements, the bokeh is usually good. I love the bokeh of my Pentax FA* 85/1.4 which is the best amongst all my (12+) Pentax lenses. But it should be noted that bokeh is a subjective thing, though. Best Regards, RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh >Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I >can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some >pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric >lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including >canon fd, etc., etc.). Without a doubt my favorite is the Canon FD 135 f2 ...... oops.... nevermind. ;) RP© > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far > as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; > and, b) some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ > intersted in esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from > the fifties etc., (including canon fd, etc., etc.). Here's a shot taken with Canon's 100-400 IS L (which I no longer have, but wish I did): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216 Smooth, pleasing bokeh. Here's a another shot that would have been a bokeh disaster with most lenses, but was handled extremely well by Canon's 24-70 2.8 L (Hmmm...maybe I shouldn't sell this lens after all...): This shot of leaves was illuminated from BEHIND (sunbeam shining through them), with very bright sky spots and other very busy, messy leaf-highlights behind these (see upper left portion of frame). This sort of background usually leads to total crap bokeh, but this is darn good--especially considering that it was shot at f13 (!), which is hardly an aperture usually associated with good bokeh. Note the LACK of hard-edged circles around the highlights directly to the left of the main subject. http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602 -Mark > > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far > > as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > left of the main subject. > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602 Gotta disagree with you here. That bokeh looks harsh to me. Both pics. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >>> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Gotta disagree with you here. That bokeh looks harsh to me. Both pics. I'm not saying it's perfectly smooth, but most lenses would render it very very badly. Just about any lens can produce decent OOF elements when shot wide open, but this was f13. Big difference there. > > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far > > as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > left of the main subject. > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602 Here's some great bokeh, from a P&S no less. http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9491 &cat=502 (may need to unwrap that URL, sorry.) SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >>> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > (may need to unwrap that URL, sorry.) This is why I see very little point in comparing shots taken under ideal circumstances (large aperture, no bright background highlights). What we really need to know is how lenses deal with problematic scenes, where (for example) a small aperture is needed, and where the background typically leads to major problems. My leaf shot isn't an example of a "perfect background" but it is an example of a lens that dealt with a scene and aperture that would be total crap with many lenses. > This is why I see very little point in comparing shots taken under ideal > circumstances (large aperture, no bright background highlights). There needs to be a 'bokeh target', as there is a USAF resolution target and an MTF target. TME [To My Eyes - we have too few GDA's], an out of focus checked flannel shirt/radiator grill/picket fence shows up bad bokeh worse that sunlight and dappled leaves; the size of the bokeh 'spot' needs to line up with the size of the pattern on the shirt/grill/fence. In my ignorance, I propose two targets: Impulse response: A bright pinhole on a black field. Frequency response: An MTF target; I think a standard USAF resolution target should work OK/may work better and is easy to spit out on an IJ printer. One would take pictures from 10 feet with the lens focused at infinity and again focused at 5 feet [or some such - the resident optics mavens may have a better suggestion.] A series would be taken at f-stops of interest. To evaluate the impulse response you would need a mircodensitometer [small area photodiode in a microscope, not that hard to lash-up] to properly measure the bokeh spot and determine if it is parpetted [the worst], flat-topped [ho-hum] or humped [the best]. I would wager a print made on #5 paper may also show the shape of the spot. Bokeh-like effects on regular patterns already show up in resolution tests: the bars merge and then after a few smudges the bars are separable again -- the lens' whatzit size [COF/Bokeh/1st interference fringe size - someone else can argue about it] is the same as bar size and together they, for lack of a better simple word, "resonate". The frequency response test would work the same way excepting the bars are bigger. We are looking for the out-of-focus resolution results. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >>This is why I see very little point in comparing shots taken under ideal >>circumstances (large aperture, no bright background highlights). > > There needs to be a 'bokeh target', as there is a USAF resolution > target and an MTF target. A row of street lights or christmas lights or shiny beads that lead from foreground to background with the focus on the middle. I suppose you could have different sized lights and the test should be done at various apertures. > TME [To My Eyes - we have too few GDA's], an out of focus checked > flannel shirt/radiator grill/picket fence shows up bad bokeh worse [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > > There needs to be a 'bokeh target', as there is a USAF resolution > > target and an MTF target. > > A row of street lights or christmas lights or shiny beads My street lights and beads are different from your lights and beads. The distance to the beads is different. The lens is focused to a different spot. etc. etc. etc. My 'good' is someone else's 'poor'. My 'fuzzy' is someone else's 'sharp as a tack'. etc. etc. The purpose of standardized test and evaluation is so that everyone gets the same _numbers_ from the same lens. And it has to be numbers, not words: one can argue forever what words mean ["It depends on what 'is' is." - Pres. Clinton]. Comparing pictures of taken by different people of different subjects under different circumstances with different camera settings and possibly with an unknown lens [was this picture taken with the 50/2.0 or the 35/1.4, hmmm, I don't trust these notes ...] is for entertainment value only. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >One would take pictures from 10 feet with the lens focused at infinity >and again focused at 5 feet [or some such - the resident optics mavens >may have a better suggestion.] A series would be taken at f-stops of >interest. You need at least three targets: you focus on the middle one and then one the target should be in front on the plane that is in focus and one should be behind it. What you propose is good for landscapes with sone unsharp items in the foreground for framing. If you want to study unsharp backgrounds, you have to make sure that the target is actually in the background. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >>>> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216 >>> Smooth, pleasing bokeh. There's nothing wrong with the background on your two birds, "singin' ", a couple of pictures further along in the same series, either....... > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some > pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric > lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including > canon fd, etc., etc.). Nikon 105 mm f2.5 AIS . . . just to name one. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I >> can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Nikon 105 mm f2.5 AIS . . . just to name one. CZJ Sonnar 180mm f2.8 >>>Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I >>>can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > CZJ Sonnar 180mm f2.8 I have to admit to being a little curious about that one. However, I have a quite nice Nikon 180 mm f2.8. I could have named that one, but I think the 105 mm is better. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >>>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >>>> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have a quite nice Nikon 180 mm f2.8. I could have named that one, but I > think the 105 mm is better. The Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm is the the legendary "Olympia Sonnar" made for the 1936 Olympics. The original version was made for the Contax (IIRC). Post-war versions were made for the Exakta & (Most) the Pentacon Six. I'd be curious to know exactly what differences (also due to different coverage) there are between different versions. I have a P-6 one, which does give very good results (via adapter) with 35mm (also great bokeh!), though not as stellar as the best modern 180/200mm lenses. It is a big & heavy beast, although that could actually improve hand-held shots at low speeds. I should make an effort and use it more... It might yield some surprises >> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far >> as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nikon 105 mm f2.5 AIS . . . just to name one. pbase samples (reload for more): http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/105_28_ais_micro http://www.pbase.com/image/20139876 >>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far >>> as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >pbase samples (reload for more): >http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/105_28_ais_micro The 105mm f/2.8 AI(S) Micro Nikkor is a **very** different lens to the 105mm f/2.5. For one thing, it has just about the harshest bokeh of any Nikkor. It is a very unpleasant portrait lens, the type you would use to make a very unflattering image of a subject. None of the Micro Nikkors has good bokeh. They all render OOF backgrounds very harshly, typically with unpleasant sharp- and bright-edged highlights that detract from the subject. But they are good macro lenses, with superb sharpness at close focusing distances, which is of course precisely what they were designed for. Horses for courses. Tony Polson wrote: >>>Nikon 105 mm f2.5 AIS . . . just to name one. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The 105mm f/2.8 AI(S) Micro Nikkor is a **very** different lens to the > 105mm f/2.5. OOPS! my mistake > For one thing, it has just about the harshest bokeh of > any Nikkor. It is a very unpleasant portrait lens, the type you would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > focusing distances, which is of course precisely what they were > designed for. Horses for courses. I've decided to go with the Tamron 90 instead for a macro. >Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I've decided to go with the Tamron 90 instead for a macro. Good call. The Tamron 90mm *is* a macro lens, and a very good one, but it is also a superb portrait lens, thanks to an outstanding combination of excellent sharpness and very smooth bokeh. My Tamron 90mm f/2.5 was my favourite portrait lens for many years. I recently sold it, and replaced it with a new Leica 90mm f/2.8. I think the jury's out on which is the better lens, but the Tamron would not fit my Leica M7 *and* couple with the rangefinder. The guy who bought my lens did a comparative test with four other 85~105mm lenses. For sharpness, the Tamron beat all except a Carl Zeiss (for Contax) 85mm f/2.8. For bokeh, it beat them all. > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) > some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in > esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., > (including canon fd, etc., etc.). I'm sorta curious what constitutes "good 'bokeh.'" I've seen bad, but I've seen several lenses that produce what I feel is a smooth, soft out of focus area, like my Canon 100 f2: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/53329055 my 24-70 f2.8L: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/53453738 and my 70-200 f2.8L: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/54035194 All are better than my 28-135 IS and Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8, but are they "excellent?" It's tough for me to judge... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > soft out of focus area, like my Canon 100 f2: > http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/53329055 IMO, most any lens shot using that huge an aperture will do reasonably well--especially with no bright background highlights...so it's perhaps not the best sample shot (that's NOT to say anything negative about that lens, rather that this shot might not be the best indicator). I think what usually what sets good bokeh example apart is the way they show the handling difficult backgrounds. Your model is only partially in focus, so it's pretty easy to render the background WAY out of focus. But what happens when you use an aperture that gets more DOF on the model? Can it still render a background that isn't overly defined? Perhaps another shot would show that... Here's a shot with your same 24-70 2.8 L lens, but with a very tricky background...and at a pretty small aperture. I think it passes with flying colors, especially considering that the scene and small aperture combination that would usually lead to ugly OOF qualities: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602/original To me, this shot shows that the lens produces nice bokeh where others might fail. -No overly defined circles around the bright spots, and no converging, bloby circles where the messy backgroud leaves cross. -Mark >> I'm sorta curious what constitutes "good 'bokeh.'" I've seen bad, >> but I've seen several lenses that produce what I feel is a smooth, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the best sample shot (that's NOT to say anything negative about that lens, >rather that this shot might not be the best indicator). I think what Agreed on all of the above. There isn't much in the background that would change between a lense with "great bokeh" and one with "okay bokeh". A lense with really horrible bokeh probably would make some of the vertical lines in the background look very annoying with double edges, but that's about it. However, "good" bokeh seems to be *very* subjective... >usually what sets good bokeh example apart is the way they show the handling >difficult backgrounds. Your model is only partially in focus, so it's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >-No overly defined circles around the bright spots, and no converging, bloby >circles where the messy backgroud leaves cross. For example, I don't agree with that analysis of this image. I see what appears to be a six bladed aperture, and especially the brighter backgroud highlights have noticable "donut" characteristics. My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would make no difference. But a lense with 8 or 9 blades would have been significantly better! And it appears that spherical aberations is slightly over corrected, and that a lense with under corrected aberations would have produced a nicer background. The lower left is rather rough looking, a would have been helped significantly by either a different lens or a wider aperture setting. I would expect that Photoshop could cure anything wrong with that photo that would have been better with a different lense. (And note that switching to a different lense would probably have lost the shot entirely, so I see nothing to be negative about; and it *is* a very pleasant image!) Here is a really great series of articles on lense characteristics related to bokeh. Jumping to the third one gets to the point faster, but reading the first two provides a background. http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/spherical.html http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/astigmatism.html http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html This one isn't the best explaination around, but some of the details it demonstrates are really interesting. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml Here is a URL showing what can be done using Nikon's "Defocus Control" lenses (105mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor). http://www.stacken.kth.se/~maxz/defocuscontrol/ SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> I'm sorta curious what constitutes "good 'bokeh.'" I've seen bad, > >> but I've seen several lenses that produce what I feel is a smooth, [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > http://www.stacken.kth.se/~maxz/defocuscontrol/ Thanks Floyd--great links. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>> I'm sorta curious what constitutes "good 'bokeh.'" I've seen bad, >>> but I've seen several lenses that produce what I feel is a smooth, [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > significantly by either a different lens or a wider aperture > setting. That's my whole point, though. Just about any lens can do nice OOF with a large aperture. -That this one did as well as this with a very small f13 is quite decent. If only ideal shots are used as examples, then there's little point in asking the question, since nearly any lens will do where conditions are good. What you need is a lens that will still do well in poor conditions, or conditions that typically lean to horrible bokeh. >> My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of >> blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Just about any lens can do nice OOF with a large aperture. >-That this one did as well as this with a very small f13 is quite decent. No, that is *not* what I'm saying. Note that I gave *two* alternatives, one of which is indeed a wider aperture. But I think a lense with better bokeh would have produced a better image too. And I listed the specific reasons, one being the 6 bladed aperture and the other being the slight over correction for spherical aberation. >If only ideal shots are used as examples, then there's little point in >asking the question, since nearly any lens will do where conditions are >good. What you need is a lens that will still do well in poor conditions, >or conditions that typically lean to horrible bokeh. On that we agree 100%. Others have posted images with what they say is "wonderful bokeh", but there are no straight lines or points that are highlighted against a darker background either, so how can anyone tell what the lense contributed to it? It's just a great background, not a great lense! Your image is appropriate for determining the effects from the lense, but I don't think the lense did all that well. Not that it looks horrible, but it isn't anything near "great bokeh", and a better lense (in that one respect) would have improved the image. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of >>> blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > a better lense (in that one respect) would have improved the > image. That's certainly a possibility. I didn't pick my image because it was perfect, but because it was a highly problematic scene that was rendered in a way that made it acceptable to me, rather than becoming a candidate for my delete button. I think we are basically in agreement... >>>> My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of >>>> blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >problematic scene that was rendered in a way that made it acceptable to me, >rather than becoming a candidate for my delete button. You picked a fairly good example for an image. I just disagree with your interpretation of what you see in the image. I see "flaws" in the lense that show up when that sort of an image is used. >I think we are basically in agreement... We do agree that an image without the prerequisite characteristics says nothing at all about the lense. Others have provided images with nice smooth backgrounds, but that was a characteristic of the subject matter, not the lense. We do not agree on the quality of the bokeh from your lense. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>> My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of >>>>> blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > We do not agree on the quality of the bokeh from your lense. At what point (i.e. small apertures) do ALL lenses show these signs though, under problematic circumstances? I don't say that because I have the answer in mind, but simply because I'm wondering. I'd be very interested to see other highly reputed lenses at f13 or smaller. That's not a challenge. I really don't feel the need to be "right" or to have my lens be deemed great, blah blah blah. I just wonder if perhap all lenses reach a point where aperture begins to effect even the "best-reputed-bokeh lens" for bokeh. Do you have a thought there? Anyone? :) > >>>>> My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of > >>>>> blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > Do you have a thought there? Anyone? > :) Mark, the whole point of bokeh is not about aperture size - in fact if you're stopping down a lens you defeat the whole objective of having good bokeh in the first place. The point is about isolating your foreground subject from the background. You can't do that properly at small apertures. Lenses with good bokeh are the ones we find make the background insignificant when shooting wide apertures (on purpose). SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >>>>>>> My subjective opinion is that a lense with an odd number of >>>>>>> blades in the aperture is nicer, though in that image it would [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > you're stopping down a lens you defeat the whole objective of having > good bokeh in the first place. I really don't agree with that, Dallas. -Just because you stop a lens down does NOT mean that you don't care about...or have to give up isolating the subject by creating OOF elements. There are zillions of shots where you have to stop down in order to obtain subject focus (my somewhat flawed leaf shot is an example), but that doesn't mean you can't still blur the background...so it follows that the quality of that blurred background (which is what "bokeh" means) is a consideration...at ALL apertures. If anything, it is even MORE important at smaller apertures, since if you can maintain a decent rendition within that constraint, your options are opened up. > The point is about isolating your foreground subject from the > background. You can't do that properly at small apertures. Lenses with > good bokeh are the ones we find make the background insignificant when > shooting wide apertures (on purpose). > I really don't agree with that, Dallas. > -Just because you stop a lens down does NOT mean that you don't care [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > good bokeh are the ones we find make the background insignificant when > > shooting wide apertures (on purpose). Then I guess we can agree to disagree. Obviously if you stop a lens down your DOF increases, thereby affecting the bokeh and in reality making it less of an element in your picture. Photographers who are stopping their lenses down as far as f/11 are trying to preserve as much DOF as possible, thereby negating the need for good bokeh. Bokeh is pretty much something that is topical at wide apertures, not small ones. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >> I really don't agree with that, Dallas. >> -Just because you stop a lens down does NOT mean that you don't care [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Bokeh is pretty much something that is topical at wide apertures, not > small ones. You don't seem to have the correct definition for the term. Bokeh simply refers to the *quality* of OOF elements. -Not a state of being "smooth" or "round" or anything specific. "Bokeh" doesn't cease to exist with small apertures. >> I really don't agree with that, Dallas. >> -Just because you stop a lens down does NOT mean that you don't care [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> smaller apertures, since if you can maintain a decent rendition within that >> constraint, your options are opened up. Precisely true. >> > The point is about isolating your foreground subject from the >> > background. You can't do that properly at small apertures. Lenses with >> > good bokeh are the ones we find make the background insignificant when >> > shooting wide apertures (on purpose). Lenses with the *best* bokeh are ones that have great bokeh at other than wide open apertures. If lense A has good bokeh only wide open, and lense B has good bokeh even when stopped down to f/11... all other things being equal, lense B is far more versatile than lense A (to someone who shoots images where the looks of the background is significant). >Then I guess we can agree to disagree. It doesn't appear to be that simple. Your perspective is not wrong, but it might be too narrow to cover the scope needed. >Obviously if you stop a lens down your DOF increases, thereby affecting >the bokeh and in reality making it less of an element in your picture. It is not less of an element in your picture *unless* your DOF extends beyond anything in the image that will exhibit high contrast. Which is to say that for landscapes, you are correct, but not so for portraits, photomacrography, sports, nature, and many (most?) typical types of images. >Photographers who are stopping their lenses down as far as f/11 are >trying to preserve as much DOF as possible, thereby negating the need >for good bokeh. Whether DOF is 3mm, 3cm, 3m or 3000m there can *still* be high contrast objects in the background. >Bokeh is pretty much something that is topical at wide apertures, not >small ones. Lense bokeh is significant any time there is an out of focus background that has high contrast detail, particularly if it is low key with points of bright highlights. It is true that in some situations (portraiture being the obvious one) we can usually take advantage of any given lense's /better/ bokeh at large apertures. But that doesn't mean bokeh at small apertures does not affect images! With photomacrography, as one example, it is common to need very small apertures (even f/32 or f/45), despite the various lesser lense qualities at small apertures, simply to get greater depth of field. The effects of lense quality in those cases might be much more significant than where large apertures are useful; which is true if for no other reason than bokeh from a large aperture will hide many of the faults that show up from less quality lense design. For example, at wide open *every* lense has a nice round aperture. But at f/11 the difference between a diaphragm with 5 straight edged blades and a lense that has 9 rounded blades will be *very* significant. Hence a 90mm lense with poor bokeh might do just fine for some studio photographers. With selected backgrounds it wouldn't make any difference at all. Hang that same 90mm lense on a bellows and try taking nice pictures of lizards in the wild, and the need for a lens with better bokeh (at f/32) becomes critical. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> I really don't agree with that, Dallas. > >> -Just because you stop a lens down does NOT mean that you don't care [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > pictures of lizards in the wild, and the need for a lens with > better bokeh (at f/32) becomes critical. I hear ya, but what I am trying to explain to Mark is that bokeh only really becomes a consideration when you want highlights in the background to be less distracting - i.e. when you are shooting wider apertures. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >>>> I really don't agree with that, Dallas. >>>> -Just because you stop a lens down does NOT mean that you don't [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > background to be less distracting - i.e. when you are shooting wider > apertures. But Dallas...that's just it. I did want to diminish the distraction of the background (including the highlights), but I also wanted to render the main leaf (in my example, the one most flatly facing me) to be fully in focus (sufficient DOF). Both were considerations, just as they are BOTH considerations in any shot I take the time to think about. I set out to render the leaf...meaning small aperture...but Bokeh was most certainly a consideration too. If it hadn't been, I'd have dropped even smaller to get the two other prominent leaves in full DOF focus. As it was, I was satisfied with both the DOF and the fact that the background was still quite blurred, albeit imperfectly...but decent. I don't understand your insistance that photographers somehow choose to either abandon DOF or the background quality. If you think that way, then more power to ya, but I can't imagine approaching images like that. It is ALWAYS a balance between the two (DOF and background) in any shot where either is difficult, and where both are desired. To present it as though, "as long as you've got one, who cares about the other" just seems strange to me. > But Dallas...that's just it. I did want to diminish the distraction of the > background (including the highlights), but I also wanted to render the main [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > satisfied with both the DOF and the fact that the background was still quite > blurred, albeit imperfectly...but decent. I feel pretty sure that you would have had suffienct DOF to keep the leaves in focus at a much wider aperture than f/13. Probably f/5.6 would have been okay. Had you done that the bokeh in your background would have been less distracting than what it is. > I don't understand your insistance that photographers somehow choose to > either abandon DOF or the background quality. If you think that way, then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "as long as you've got one, who cares about the other" just seems strange to > me. Geez Louise, this is precisely the point. IF you are shooting something where you don't want the background to detract from the subject, shoot wider. If you have a lens with good bokeh then the background becomes irrelevant because you know it won't interfere with your shot, but will lend itself to the aesthetics. If you are shooting for maximum DOF then the background needs to be in focus, not out of focus. I think you need to look at some DOF charts for your lenses so that you will know how much DOF each aperture setting is going to give you. Right now I am off to photograph the A1GP first practise - in the rain. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >> But Dallas...that's just it. I did want to diminish the distraction >> of the background (including the highlights), but I also wanted to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > leaves in focus at a much wider aperture than f/13. Probably f/5.6 > would have been okay. One leaf in the group is fully in-focus at f23...and yet you feel that 5.6 (more than two stops larger) would have done it? That's simply not so. >Had you done that the bokeh in your background > would have been less distracting than what it is. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > something where you don't want the background to detract from the > subject, shoot wider. A larger aperture would have cut DOF too far, and would have, as a result, destroyed my intent for the subject. If you can't understand this most basic thought, then I don't know what to tell ya. >If you have a lens with good bokeh then the > background becomes irrelevant because you know it won't interfere > with your shot, but will lend itself to the aesthetics. > > If you are shooting for maximum DOF then the background needs to be in > focus, not out of focus. Who said anything about maximum??? I shot with **sufficient** DOF to render my subject...and it took f13 to get there. 5.6 wouldn't have even come close, Dallas. > I think you need to look at some DOF charts for your lenses so that > you will know how much DOF each aperture setting is going to give you. I'm hoping you understand that the closer you are to your subject, the greater need for smaller apertures to have sufficient DOF. Rendering a leaf 20 yards away works easily with huge apertures, but the closer the subject is to you, the more you need small apertures. I assume you are familiar with this? > Right now I am off to photograph the A1GP first practise - in the > rain. Your last harrah? >I hear ya, but what I am trying to explain to Mark is that bokeh only >really becomes a consideration when you want highlights in the >background to be less distracting - i.e. when you are shooting wider >apertures. That is *not* the case though! Bokeh is *everything* that is out of focus, not just hightlights in the background. And that is true, of both highlights and non-highlights, whether shooting with large apertures or with small apertures. Any image with an out of focus object has "bokeh", and that may or may not be greatly affected by the characteristics of the lense as opposed to the characteristics of the objects. Hence objects that are out of focus in the foreground, even if they have little contrast and even if the image was shot with an aperture of f/11, exhibit "bokeh". SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >> I hear ya, but what I am trying to explain to Mark is that bokeh only >> really becomes a consideration when you want highlights in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is true, of both highlights and non-highlights, whether shooting > with large apertures or with small apertures. THAT...is what I can't seem to get through to Dallas. > Any image with an out of focus object has "bokeh", and that may > or may not be greatly affected by the characteristics of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they have little contrast and even if the image was shot with an > aperture of f/11, exhibit "bokeh". >>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >>> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602/original Actually, my shot was done with a 100 f2, or at least the on to which you refer. The left quarter of her face is in focus, at that range and at f2, that's probably all that can be expected (nearest camera.) I was under the impression that wide open was the way to check "bokeh", (god, I had that word.) I can see that a smaller aperture might present more of a challenge, though, bringing the iris "into the line of fire." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As >>>> far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Actually, my shot was done with a 100 f2, or at least the on to which > you refer. Right. I see how I implied otherwise... > The left quarter of her face is in focus, at that range and at f2, > that's probably all that can be expected (nearest camera.) > I was under the impression that wide open was the way to check > "bokeh", (god, I had that word.) My understanding of "bokeh" is that the word simply refers to the *quality of OOF elements* within an image. This could then be used for any shot's OOF elements, regardless of aperture. To me, it just seems more telling to see how a lens does with settings that are more problematic (small ap). >I can see that a smaller aperture > might present more of a challenge, though, bringing the iris "into > the line of fire." That's what I am referring to. > My understanding of "bokeh" is that the word simply refers to the *quality > of OOF elements* within an image. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>might present more of a challenge, though, bringing the iris "into >>the line of fire." Are we sure that smaller apertures degrade bokeh? A non-rounded blade design will get polygonal when stopped down but does that effect the softness of edges or increase the donut effect? It was stated here that any lens makes nice bokeh wide open but I'm sure that's not true. Here's a comparison of two very different lenses at about the same focal length, the lesser slow lens wide open: http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare oops, bad link, try this: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare> >> My understanding of "bokeh" is that the word simply refers to the >> *quality of OOF elements* within an image. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > about the same focal length, the lesser slow lens wide open: > http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare > oops, bad link, try this: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> design will get polygonal when stopped down but does that effect the >> softness of edges or increase the donut effect? You seem to be operating on the belief that "bokeh" refers specifically to the shape of highlight circles. That's not what bokeh is. Bokeh, the word=quality of the rendition of out-of-focus elements within an image. The "circles" are only a single aspect of this. Any shot that contains out-of-focus portions/elements can have differing characteristics...good...bad...in-between...on many levels. These rendition of these things is referred to as bokeh. >> It was stated here that any lens makes nice bokeh wide open but I'm >> sure that's not true. Here's a comparison of two very different >> lenses at about the same focal length, the lesser slow lens wide >> open: >> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare The 2.8 shot renders the circle edges much more softly, which is what we're after. Hard-edges circles aren't what you hope for when dealing with highlights. >>>>To me, it just seems more telling to see how a lens does with >>>>settings that are more problematic (small ap). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You seem to be operating on the belief that "bokeh" refers specifically to > the shape of highlight circles. I understand bokeh includes the softness (distribution), shape, size, etc. I'm just not sure the aperture changes anything but size of the disks, and shape if an un-rounded blade configuration. >>>It was stated here that any lens makes nice bokeh wide open but I'm >>>sure that's not true. Here's a comparison of two very different >>>lenses at about the same focal length, the lesser slow lens wide [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which is what we're after. > Hard-edges circles aren't what you hope for when dealing with highlights. I'm pretty sure I stopped down the 2.8 lens to match the slow one otherwise the circles would be a different size. >>>>> To me, it just seems more telling to see how a lens does with >>>>> settings that are more problematic (small ap). [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I'm pretty sure I stopped down the 2.8 lens to match the slow one > otherwise the circles would be a different size. Those renderings are quite different. >It was stated here that any lens makes nice bokeh wide open but I'm sure >that's not true. Here's a comparison of two very different lenses at >about the same focal length, the lesser slow lens wide open: >http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare I agree that what they are saying is strictly not correct. But I think what they really mean to say is that any lense with decent bokeh will have better bokeh at wider apertures. By the same token, horrible bokeh won't be as horrible at the widest apertures. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>It was stated here that any lens makes nice bokeh wide open but I'm sure >>that's not true. Here's a comparison of two very different lenses at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > By the same token, horrible bokeh won't be as horrible at the > widest apertures. I'm just not sure that is true. I haven't read that in any of the detailed web sites about bokeh. The OOF circles will be larger wide open but the smoothness seems to have more to do with relative distance from the focal point. There is some math for calculating the diameter of the circle of confusion which I'm not clear about but might help clarify. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml -toward the bottom "Whether a lens exhibits the 'bright ring' or 'bright core' circle of confusion depends upon the details of how the spherical aberration is corrected. It will in general also change with the actual aperture used. And it can depend upon how the lens is corrected off-axis." They say 'different' but not in what way. If anything, I think larger apertures make a more challenging situation for achieving smooth bokeh. For instance 'cats eye' vignetting: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html#fig3 >> But I >> think what they really mean to say is that any lense with decent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I'm just not sure that is true. I haven't read that in any of the >detailed web sites about bokeh. Amount of blur It is well known that the amount of background or foreground blur is controlled, among other things, by the F-number. Fig. 1 shows a picture taken at a small and at a large aperture. ... Shape of the blur patch It is also well known that out-of-focus highlights (OOFH's) assume the shape of the lens aperture. At reduced apertures the shape of the blur disk is the same as that of the diaphragm opening. For instance, a six-sided diaphragm leads to hexagonal blur patches. Generally, the better an aperture approximates a round opening, the more pleasing the blur. However, when a lens is used at a large aperture, obliquely incident light is confronted with a narrower aperture than normally incident light. Consequently, the blur disk narrows from the image center towards the corner." http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html >The OOF circles will be larger wide open >but the smoothness seems to have more to do with relative distance from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >corrected. It will in general also change with the actual aperture used. >And it can depend upon how the lens is corrected off-axis." From the same URL "Boke, the quality of the out-of-focus image, is determined by the set of brushes: the circles of confusion characteristic of the lens, its aperture and how far out-of-focus it is." >They say 'different' but not in what way. If anything, I think larger >apertures make a more challenging situation for achieving smooth bokeh. >For instance 'cats eye' vignetting: >http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html#fig3 Sure, that's very important for f/1.2 lenses... :-) I would off hand say dealing with the shape of the aperture at f/11 is more of a concern, if for no other reason than most lenses don't have a setting for f/1.2, or even f/1.4 for that matter. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Nikon afn 180mm f2.8 > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) > some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in > esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., > (including canon fd, etc., etc.). >Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I >can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some >pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric >lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including >canon fd, etc., etc.). Let's start with Nikon: FFL: 85mm f/1.4 AI(S) and AF-D Nikkors* 100mm f/2.8 Nikon Series E 105mm f/1.8 AI(S) Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI(S) Nikkor* 105mm f/2 DC AF-D Nikkor* 135mm f/2 DC AF-D Nikkor* 180mm f/2.8 AI(S) and AF Nikkors* Zooms: 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E* I've put an asterisk next to the ones I think have the best bokeh. > >Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > >can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I've put an asterisk next to the ones I think have the best bokeh. Yet you switched from Nikon to Pentax in large part due to their out of focus characteristics. Would I be safe in infering then, that though these Nikons you list have good bokeh, they do not have great bokeh? SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >Yet you switched from Nikon to Pentax in large part due to their out of >focus characteristics. Would I be safe in infering then, that though these >Nikons you list have good bokeh, they do not have great bokeh? No, you wouldn't Matt. (Sorry!) The Nikkor and Series E lenses listed all have very good bokeh, and the ones I starred are exceptionally good. I did change from Nikon to Pentax because of Nikon's poor bokeh, but that's because I tend to use wide angle lenses. My standard lens is a 35mm, and Nikon don't make any lenses with good bokeh in that focal length. My favourite film outfit includes a 24mm, a 35mm and a portrait lens in the 85~105mm range. Nikon does an excellent 24mm and several excellent portrait lenses, but all the Nikon 35mm offerings are optically poor - as are the ~50mm standard lenses. Tony Polson wrote: >>Yet you switched from Nikon to Pentax in large part due to their out of >>focus characteristics. Would I be safe in infering then, that though these [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > excellent portrait lenses, but all the Nikon 35mm offerings are > optically poor - as are the ~50mm standard lenses. How dare you! My standard kit is a 35mm, a 85~105mm and an 18~21mm. You are obviously evil and should be destroyed... : ) P.S. also because: 1) the Nikon 24mm is relatively good, though I agree with you about the 35mms. 2) The Zeiss 25mm has a nice look, but isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. 3) The Leica M 24mm is unaffordable (for some strange reason no one is selling used ones cheap). 4) Zeiss might have some new interesting stuff, but I'm already aiming for the 21mms >Tony Polson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >4) Zeiss might have some new interesting stuff, but I'm already aiming >for the 21mms Interesting ... 1) we agree, 2) we agree (the Voigtländer 25mm is a far better lens than the Zeiss, at a fraction of the price, but is not rangefinder coupled), 3) the Leica 24mm f/2.8 ASPH is probably the finest lens I have ever owned, and certainly the sharpest wide open. It is sharper at f/2.8 than the excellent 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors at any aperture - even f/8, and you are not getting mine, because I don't expect I will ever sell it! If I could own only one lens, this would be the one ... , 4) the Zeiss 21mm is superb - probably as good as the Leica 21mm ASPH from f/4 onwards, and half the price. You won't regret buying it. >>Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I >>can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I've put an asterisk next to the ones I think have the best bokeh. Glad to read this list....I was going to say that my cheap 75-150 mm zoom gave me very nice backgrounds on portraits, but I was kind of afraid to mention it, because of my lack of experience. It is, by far and away, my favorite lens...... >Glad to read this list....I was going to say that my cheap 75-150 mm zoom >gave me very nice backgrounds on portraits, but I was kind of afraid to >mention it, because of my lack of experience. It is, by far and away, my >favorite lens...... The story is often told of the large numbers of pro shooters who pleaded with Nikon to offer this lens as a Nikkor, with pro build quality. The Series E lenses were well made by today's standards - just look at some of the poorly built AF Nikkors - but at that time, they were not considered robust enough for demanding pro use. Nikon refused. Personally, I think it was probably because the light fall-off at f=75mm was considered too great for a pro lens. But the pros *loved* it. >>Glad to read this list....I was going to say that my cheap 75-150 mm zoom >>gave me very nice backgrounds on portraits, but I was kind of afraid to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But the pros *loved* it. Yes. I have no problem with the quality of its construction. It is a little long by today's standards....About 14 Cm....But the quality of the optics is superb..... >Yes. I have no problem with the quality of its construction. It is a little >long by today's standards....About 14 Cm....But the quality of the optics is >superb..... The one mechanical weakness is the fact that the zoom action works loose. The focusing action is unaffected, staying firm and positive, but the zoom action gets so loose that the zoom ring will move all the way to one end if the lens is tilted up or down. The best workaround for this is to use an elastic wristband support half on the zoom ring and half on the barrel. This adds just enough drag to make the zoom action work as it should. >>Yes. I have no problem with the quality of its construction. It is a >>little [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > half on the zoom ring and half on the barrel. This adds just enough > drag to make the zoom action work as it should. Yes. Mine is still tight enough so I don't have to do that. I got it at KEH, and they tell you if that problem exists.....As I remember, they had about three of them, and the other two had the loose zoom problem. They were all three so cheap that I just opted to buy the one that was still tight. But these lenses are getting harder and harder to find. The advent of digital cameras, and time, are making them scarce. My 100 mm f/2.8 "E" type is also a very nice portrait lens that I picked up for less than $100. I don't see very many of these anymore, either........ >Yes. Mine is still tight enough so I don't have to do that. I got it at KEH, >and they tell you if that problem exists.....As I remember, they had about >three of them, and the other two had the loose zoom problem. They were all >three so cheap that I just opted to buy the one that was still tight. That's the value of KEH - honest descriptions. >But >these lenses are getting harder and harder to find. The advent of digital >cameras, and time, are making them scarce. My 100 mm f/2.8 "E" type is also >a very nice portrait lens that I picked up for less than $100. I don't see >very many of these anymore, either........ That's probably because people who buy them soon buy a second, because they cannot be repaired and it is better to own a spare. They are superb lenses, with the sole limitation of an f/2.8 maximum aperture. > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some > pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric > lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including > canon fd, etc., etc.). The ones I have used: Nikon 180mm f/2.8 Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Canon 400mm f/2.8 Leica 50mm 1:2 Summicron Leica 90mm 1:2.8 Elmarit Leica 135mm 1:4 Elmar The ones I know about: Nikon Series E 75-150mm Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro As somebody else has said, it tends to be a subjective thing, but as you say, Leica seems to have a penchant for getting it right. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. > > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > As somebody else has said, it tends to be a subjective thing, but as you > say, Leica seems to have a penchant for getting it right. Thanks Dallas. If "good" and "bad" are subjective--and not everyone agrees they are--then yes, it's subjective. But if you follow Floyd Davidson's third link you'll find some pretty objective criteria with which to measure bokeh by. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) > some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in > esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., > (including canon fd, etc., etc.). Canon EOS 85mm F/1.2, and the f/1.8 is pretty good, too. Patrick > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some > pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric > lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including > canon fd, etc., etc.). I asked this question about a year ago here and here's my notes regarding Nikon lenses: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh> I ended up getting a 45/2.8 P instead of a 50mm prime for the better OOF though it's still got what seems to be the signature Nikon sharp edged OOF circles, they are even and it's possible to get beautiful soft edges under the right lighting, less common to get donut rims. Here's an example, notice the squiggly shapes in the lower right: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-g arden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=11> This can be interesting but it's not soft edged! Now I'm interested in a macro lens so I did a search on pbase for sample images to assess the bokeh of the three Micro-Nikkors. It seems to me the 200 performs best but hard to be sure. I even found a horrible example with the 200. The point of my selections is to show challenging shots where you can see something other than perfectly smooth creamy backgrounds. The best test is a row of street lights or shiny beads running from close to near and focus on the middle of the row. It would be easy to test lenses this way, the samples below are probably too varied to make comparative judgements. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/200_4d_micro http://www.pbase.com/image/49911392 http://www.pbase.com/winsonlim/image/31628952/large http://www.pbase.com/image/31045909 http://www.pbase.com/image/48052655 http://www.pbase.com/paulfrye/image/12168316/large http://www.pbase.com/image/55039271 http://www.pbase.com/image/38908951 http://www.pbase.com/image/37251259 (yikes!) http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/105_28d_micro http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/35245832 http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/38621288 http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/36367578 http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/35245848 http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/35775655 http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/36996557 http://www.pbase.com/yawli/image/40901982/original http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/60_28d_micro http://www.pbase.com/image/53423878 http://www.pbase.com/image/40891947 http://www.pbase.com/image/45761288 http://www.pbase.com/image/40844202 http://www.pbase.com/image/26165258 http://www.pbase.com/image/28228492 http://www.pbase.com/image/17785307 http://www.pbase.com/image/46313079 http://www.pbase.com/image/32980979 > Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I > can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) > some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in > esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., > (including canon fd, etc., etc.). For me, I love the Nikon 85 f/1.4 for this reason. Lovely creamy backgrounds, especially in high key (and tough lighting) shots. The Zeiss/Nikkor version should be interesting too. The Nikkor 50 f/1.4 however is quite awful IMHO. I haven't compared them on digital vs. film though - can't imagine there would be a world of difference. As for zooms, even my Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 has some good background characteristics. I do have a mate whose photography is so um... "cutting edge" that you look for bokeh on his subjects. :-) Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) The Nikkor 50 f/1.4 however > is quite awful IMHO. I haven't compared them on digital vs. film though - > can't imagine there would be a world of difference. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheers, > Dave E (Sydney) Good Lord!!! Imagine my embarrassment!!! -- I have a Nikkor 50 f/1.4 which I bought with my first Nikon F in 1967. Had it AI'd for my F2AS in about 1978, And used it on my F3's until about 1989 when it somehow became part of my son's FM2n kit. I've since used it on an F4, an F5 and the D2 series. And I've never noticed the "quite awful" bokeh. That's it -- where do I turn it in??? ;-) Bob >Good Lord!!! >Imagine my embarrassment!!! -- I have a Nikkor 50 f/1.4 which I bought [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And I've never noticed the "quite awful" bokeh. >That's it -- where do I turn it in??? ;-) Many photographers are completely unaware of harsh bokeh. If you don't shoot portraits against busy backgrounds, or include out of focus highlights in shots taken with the lens wide open, the harsh bokeh may never make its presence felt in your images. If you shoot around f/8 the harsh bokeh won't usually be obvious. Nikon fixed focal length designs tend to be optimised for maximum sharpness and extremely low distortion. Bokeh was rarely a priority. People who placed a higher priority on what used to be called the 'look' of a lens would instead buy Leica, Zeiss or Pentax. > The Nikkor 50 f/1.4 however >> is quite awful IMHO. I haven't compared them on digital vs. film [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's it -- where do I turn it in??? ;-) > Bob Hi Bob, perhaps I was a touch harsh. This lens is a current version so will unlikely exhibit the same bokeh as yours. My new (read "p-l-a-s-t-i-c" - eeerrrgh) 50 f/1.4 is a wonderful piece of equipment in many situations but after all, it's not really a portrait lens. For me, its main use is in low light conditions around markets in the 3rd world - fantastic. A portrait lens IMHO it is not. So my apologies Bob - I'm sure yours will be better made and have better bokeh as well! Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) >Imagine my embarrassment!!! -- I have a Nikkor 50 f/1.4 which I bought >with my first Nikon F in 1967. Had it AI'd for my F2AS in about 1978, And >used it on my F3's until about 1989 when it somehow became part of my son's >FM2n kit. I've since used it on an F4, an F5 and the D2 series. >And I've never noticed the "quite awful" bokeh. >That's it -- where do I turn it in??? ;-) Like many Nikkors, the 50/1.4 has been redesigned a number of times. By todays standards, the 1960s 50/1.4 is not very sharp and has low contrast. This not good for landscapes, but makes the lens more suitable for portrets than the more modern versions. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency The answer is not a brand war but simple physics. *ANY* lens - regardless of who made it and what fable is currently favoured by folklaw - having a circular iris as opposed to one consisting of straight edged blades, will produce a "good" bokeh. The longer the lens, the more unidentifiable the background becomes until it is just a few blurred blobs. Hopefully in amongst all the other components of a lens which go to make up one which will suit your specific judgment of good and bad, will be present the plethora of "things" you need to suit your purpose. It is hardly practical to fit a Leica lens on a Canon or Nikon DSLR although it is possible. You might just as well go back in time and use a manual focus, 35mm camera. SignatureHaving climaxed... She turned on her mate and began to devour him. Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman? ----------- : Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As far as I : can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses; and, b) some : pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_ intersted in esoteric : lenses such as some lens on an old folder from the fifties etc., (including : canon fd, etc., etc.). > The answer is not a brand war but simple physics. *ANY* lens - regardless > of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > possible. You might just as well go back in time and use a manual focus, > 35mm camera. But there is more to bokeh than the aperture blade shape.....Se what Irwin Puts says about it here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ATk >But there is more to bokeh than the aperture blade shape.....Se what Irwin >Puts says about it here: >http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ATk Pearls before swine. ;-) Tony Polson wrote: > Pearls before swine. You posting some train images again? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message