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

135 f/2L @ f/2

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.

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.

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:

How about some non macro nad non close up shots?

Pixel Perfect wrote:

@ f/2.5

voeboe wrote:
What about these? Is this a good bokeh?

Good or not obviously depends on your taste. To me the bright rings are there and as usual they distract me. They catch my eye when looking at the image and that way they detract from the idea behind taking the image at the first place. But they are not far off and I can image a lot of image I would like a lot more taken with the lens.

The are to the left of the strawberrie is OK, the on to the right is not. The second image is not. I hope that explains my take on it - but remember anyone is entitled to their own opinion.

And - you should let us know what lens you have used here.

Daniel Buck wrote:
here's some that will be difficult on 35mm, a 145mm f2.0 petzval type lens on a 4x5 camera.

Difficult but not impossible if the motif is static and you have the time to make a mosaic and stitch it. The 145/2 has a signature for sure but personally I'm not that keen on the way it draws.
To the left one can see that this lens should be able of making the circular background pattern if the distance and background are right.

Right now I am playing with a Canon 450D, sort of the opposite.

Jonas, I just realised what you did in the OP, thanks for that
What a fantastic thread to have for reference!

Best,
Spyro

s23chang wrote:
How about some non macro nad non close up shots?

I would second that request. More people portraits.

.