This is a try to collect opinions on bokeh of all sorts (and also a try to save the Sigma 50 -thread from getting carried away). When I say bokeh of all sorts I mean it, the ugly as well as the beautiful. Noone knows how somebody else sees it.

"oh come on. This has to be simply the most subjective and pretentious thread i've seen in years."
(ISO1600)

The clickable Index is now updated and moved to page 90.

Images posted after the index was posted are, as we stick to logic as well as to blur, not included.

Would you like to post images with more or less admirable bokeh but lack access to any good long term image host? PM me and we can work something out. I have some space at my host if needed.

There is still room for a lot more!

============= Note of October 11 2009 ==================
This thread has been a joy for the most part of it. Now it can either be forgotten and dropped - or improved?!

May I kindly ask you all to hold back on your macros and extreme close-ups? Background blurred to beyond recognition isn't really a problem for any lens capable of close enough focusing, and a task for any P&S as well as for an SLR camera.

Instead, now let us focus on quality rather than quantity, OK?

Background OOF highlights or strong contrast are of interest
Subject isolation and background rendering is of interest (subject somewhat bigger than a bird at least then)
Rendring of areas going from the focal plane and out from it is of interest
...and some more I have forgotten.

I hope you macro guys don't take any offence.

Please also remember to tell us what lens and camera (sensor size) you used when taking your admirable image. And remember, an admirable image here is not necessarily a piece fo art - but an image giving us an idea about hoe the lens handles OOF areas.

kindest,

/Jonas
================= End of Note ======================

And don't hesitate to ask or comment, words don't demand a lot of bandwidth...

--
Jonas

For Braniac; some Leica samples that may be edgy enough?

I don't know about "admirable", but I took this today with Rokkor 58/1.2 on 5D in a bookstore, @ f2.0

See Leon, it is "better" at f2. No?

5D+OM55mm @f1.2

Anden wrote:
Vivitar Series 1 90 2.5 macro at 2.5 on 40D


Very dreamy Anden!

Anden wrote:
Linhof Selected Voigtländer APO Lanthar 105/4,5 for 6*9 on a Minolta Auto Bellows III on 40D. Wide open.


That's a cool setup. Everything goes...
I'm not sure I like the edgy effect around the top flowers/petals/whatever. Aren't they a little distracting compared to smooth creamy Siggy blur?

See Leon, it is "better" at f2. No?
it is true for focusing to close objects - say 2-3 meters and background consist of relatively small objects, but after that distance f1.2 is fine







Here is the case where i would choose f2

Only alternatives? I'll stretch the definition and include some from my Sigma 150 as well.

Not super creamy, but there's something about the rendering of the bokeh from my Zeiss 85mm that I love

85mm f/2.8 Sonnar, f/2.8:

Jman13 wrote:
Only alternatives? I'll stretch the definition and include some from my Sigma 150 as well.


No, not alternatives only. But Sigma is not a stretch at all. And I like the blur in the portrait shots.

good bokeh (135L at f3.2, sorry, not alternative, but one of the best lenses for bokeh):

and a bokeh I don't like sometimes: Olympus 50 1.2 wide open, only bokeh, with distracting double lines...

i like the 430. liked it liked it liked it!

Yeah, the 135L is hard to beat, but I find the bokeh from my Sigma 150 to be as good.

Here's one from when I owned the 135L:

Ulff wrote:
and a bokeh I don't like sometimes: Olympus 50 1.2 wide open, only bokeh, with distracting double lines...


The EF135/2 is one of the best for anything, isn't it?

I agree about the OM 50/1.2. I have owned it and it had to go (together with the OM55/1.2 and Minolta 58/1.2 and Summilux 50/1.4 and a couple of other 50mm lenses).

cogitech wrote:
See Leon, it is "better" at f2. No?

Something Rokkor users have been aware all along Paul, f2.0 and f2.8 produce very creamy bokeh. But there's some pride in being able to do so at wide open, which could get very tricky sometimes.

I'm kinda glad the new Sigma 50mm seems to have soft bokeh wide open, so we all don't need to buy Leica Nocti for that. But then again, some will still say it's not an f1.0 lens.

Many sweet shots in this thread.

Edit: so the next person doesnt throw a fit .. i deleted the photos



Edited by teh_rebel on Jul 03, 2008 at 10:52 AM GMT

When did the 85L and 135L become alternatives?

As nice as they are, the shots are out of place in this forum.

Not every mans cuppa tea but there's some more of that unusual bokeh from the OM55...

Does this look like Johnny 5 or what?

Pentax SMC-P 50/1.2 @ f/1.2

Jonas B wrote:
The EF135/2 is one of the best for anything, isn't it?


Ummm.... about half of the 135/2 L photos posted in this thread are showing bokeh that I'd say was distracting.

Edited by telyt on Jul 15, 2008 at 12:13 AM GMT

I like the bokeh from the Zuiko OM 40mm f/2:



I also like the bokeh from the M-Hexanon 50mm f/2:



The Sigma DP1 renders pleasing background blur on close-up shots:



The Zuiko OM 50/1.2 bokeh can be a bit freaky (distracting or interesting depending on your take) wide open:

Spyro P. wrote:
Not every mans cuppa tea but there's some more of that unusual bokeh from the OM55...

Does this look like Johnny 5 or what?



I love it!