Olympus Trip 35 w/ 40mm Zuiko f2.8





OM Zuiko 50mm 1.8 + 40D

No PP




Fair amount of PP including clarity tool.

Pentax SMC FA*250-600/5.6

Taken with Sigma 150/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro on 5D:

A few samples made with the Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt, all at f/4:













Edited by telyt on Jul 05, 2008 at 09:53 AM GMT

Jonas B wrote:
Andi Dietrich posted a 50mm zf image:

That is an, to my eyes, appealing image. I like the curve the leave (or what it is) describes and how the light and tone is changed when it meets the curtain. The focus is not at the center petals but I guess there is a reason for that. I like this image.

Technically I would describe the bokeh as decent but not stellar. The curtain isn't gently rounded off but there are distracting lines at the bottom end of it and the salt and pepper cellars are also a little distracting (the bright bottoms).

Thanks, actually the focus is on the center, its even sharp enough 200% uprezzed, amazing it still has what people describe as zeiss 3D

How about a double blur? Background blur and motion blur from panning.

Canon 1Ds3 + Leica 280/4 + 1.4x APO

JayT, the Pentax SMC FA*80-200/2.8, and its shorter sibling, are good examples of lenses loved by many and at the same time leaving others, like me, cold.
After having followed the discussion in this thread and in the Siggy 50 thread it is clear that some don't actually like smooth (or silky or buttered or...) backgrounds.

Andi Dietrich wrote:
posted this wonderful image

I think it's mostly about the relative subject to background distance, lens quality is a close second.
Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX @ F4 on eos 1d mk1

A processed one with the Pentax FA31/1.8:

koenrutten wrote:
I think it's mostly about the relative subject to background distance, lens quality is a close second.


Worried (?) faces, nice image.
I agree about the "relative distance" -factor. Then the strong second "lens quality" in some cases can make a good image instead of a mediocre or worse one as another lens would have done in the exact same situation.

The original post is updated.

You can't forget the Noctilux, king of Bokeh

These two are at f1.0

Jonas B wrote:
For Braniac; some Leica samples that may be edgy enough?

Thanks a lot Jonas. Just found the thread. I think it really is a matter of taste. Having said that, there are circumstances where few will like the bokeh. Personally I'm not too keen on the lack of 3D in your very well taken bluebell shots. A number of Leica lenses I have tried have looked like that. They probably aren't all like that though. Very rich colour, smooth bokeh and a painted look are what some people are looking for. It really depends how you want your pictures to look.

Spyro's hydrant shot is wonderful, but I suspect that more often that lens's bokeh is intrusive. Asabet's godzilla boy is, I think, an example of bokeh detracting from a great picture. The Nikon f1.2 shot of the dog seems problematic too. So I have no doubt that harsher bokeh can spoil a shot, for me.

On the other hand, there are some shots of very smooth bokeh here which seem to have no impact as a result. I think there is a fine line between smooth/boring/flat and harsh/informative/serendipitous. There are special lenses which I think one can rely on to produce pretty and intersting bokeh. The Rokkor 58 f1.2 seems to manage to do both. So do the Oly 40 f2 and Canon 200 f1.8.

135 f/2L @ f/2

Zeiss 35 f1.4 at f2. Most people won't like the octagonal highlights, but it doesn't bother me at all, because the bokeh still manages to be alluring and the lens has a strong 3D feel:

BTW - I see no problem with a few examples of Canon/Nikon bokeh here. One of the reasons for using alt gear is because some of it supposedly does things that Canon/Nikon gear and lenses doesn't. For the sake of objectivity it's important that those lenses are represented here, otherwise this thread will be a less useful resource. How else can we make the comparison?

Here's the 17-40 at 40mm:

Brainiac; I posted some unprocessed Leica images for you in the very first reply at page 1. I think it was in the Siggy50 thread you commented on the Leica bokeh to be too soft, or too little edgy. Do the posted samples make you happier?

This is from the Zeiss N 100mm f2.8 Marko Sonnar. It reverses what you would normally or conventionally choose to have in focus and what you would have out of focus.

Jonas B wrote:
Brainiac; I posted some unprocessed Leica images for you in the very first reply at page 1. I think it was in the Siggy50 thread you commented on the Leica bokeh to be too soft, or too little edgy. Do the posted samples make you happier?

Like I said, thanks a lot, but no. They are very nice, but that's not what I look for in a lens. Lotus's shot above is the look I like. And the other one he showed around the same time on the alt img thread. I think it's more 3D. But like I also said, it really is a matter of taste. Some people can't abide the contrastier 3D look and are much more concerned about rich colour and soft bokeh.

In the case of the bluebell images, it may just be the contrast, or the fact that they are quite small. I would like to see them a bit bigger.


Oly 28 f2:

brainiac wrote:
Zeiss 35 f1.4 at f2. Most people won't like the octagonal highlights, but it doesn't bother me at all, because the bokeh still manages to be alluring

It's not that the highlights are octagonal, it's the hard edges they have that distract my attention from the subject. Is the subject of the photo the bokeh? If so the photo is a smashing success because I can't keep my eyes off the background. If the subject of the photo is the person, the photo is not as successful because the hard edges of the octagons keep drawing my eye away from the subject. Same for the Oly 28/2 photos.

telyt wrote:
brainiac wrote:
Zeiss 35 f1.4 at f2. Most people won't like the octagonal highlights, but it doesn't bother me at all, because the bokeh still manages to be alluring

It's not that the highlights are octagonal, it's the hard edges they have that distract my attention from the subject. Is the subject of the photo the bokeh? If so the photo is a smashing success because I can't keep my eyes off the background. If the subject of the photo is the person, the photo is not as successful because the hard edges of the octagons keep drawing my eye away from the subject. Same for the Oly 28/2 photos.

Guess you're not a fan of orchestral music then. The cellos never shut up to let you listen to the violins... ;-)

Actually I agree with you that in the shot of the DJ the Oly emphasizes the edges of the highlights too much. I prefer an evenly illuminated disc with sharp edges. That way it's less distracting but still dances when you want to look at it. That bee shot of wee's is perfect.

I'm not too keen on the Noctilux. It seems to go too far the other way, and over-soften so that the bokeh contains no layers at all. Maybe it's just that those shots don't have any strong highlights in the background.

I guess that's pretty much what it says here:

From all the samples it seems 135mm and anything goes.

Pentax DA* 50-135/2.8 @ 135/5.6:

What about these? Is this a good bokeh?

brainiac wrote:
In the case of the bluebell images, it may just be the contrast, or the fact that they are quite small. I would like to see them a bit bigger.


I'm sorry. I missed your earlier reply, I had no intent to nag you. Anyway; contrast and processing are of course changing everything. I took the blubell f/4 image and applied a fairly normal, maybe overdone, routine for web display and then it came out this way: