Ben I reckon most of those shots if not all were shot wide open, and it behaves very much like the Rokkor 58/1.2 wide open. Amazing frames!

Here are my latest shots with the Rokkor, except I kept it at f2.8 and footzoom for DOF control , I only do WO shooting occasionally now.

this thread has been off the 1st page for a tad to long - thought i'd bump it. here are some shots from the konica hexanon 40mm f/1.8. somewhere recently i saw it listed as having the worst bokeh of any fast normal lens. i'll let you be the judge.

wide open:

I like the drawing style of your 40 1.8.
I wonder how that one could be converted to EOS since the aperture ring is in the way of the to be removed mount. Well, somebody on flickr managed it.

Here is the Konica Hexanon AR 57mm 1:1.2.
converted to EF, shots are taken on an EOS 300D

sebboh ... I llike the 'balance' shot as well

m-a-x ... love the corridor shot, nice low angle draws you into it nicely

RustyBug wrote:
m-a-x ... love the corridor shot, nice low angle draws you into it nicely
Thanks!

lacksative wrote:
One of the oldies. Not sure if i've posted this before.
Not alternative. Canon EOS 40D with 85mm f/1.2L II near MFD
Notice the "bullseye" on the bokeh.

Could it be the electrical contacts?

helimat wrote:
Could it be the electrical contacts?


Unfortunately it happens with lenses without electrical contacts as well

I'll try to update the index during the coming weekend. I'm happy with the thread going a bit slower now, and with less close-ups...

/Jonas

efgm wrote:
helimat wrote:
Could it be the electrical contacts?


Unfortunately it happens with lenses without electrical contacts as well

Internal baffles to reduce flare would be my likely guess.

From my understanding, It's optical vignetting. The Noctilux does it. It can also be caused by the shape of the rear element ala Noct-Nikkor or by something obstructing the rear element like the electrical contacts in the 85L.

Yes, it is some sort of optical vignetting. I would guess from the mirror box of the camera. This is very common with this lens on cameras with such a small mirror box.

The "bullseye" AKA "onion" effect is thought by many to be due to the aspherical element.

Yes it is caused by the size of the exit pupil and mechanical obstructions from the hanging mirror. Nate, I've never seen it in noctilux (or my nokton) shots? I do see the cats eye caused by mechanical vignetting of the lens itself.

Optical vignetting is usally just falloff not usually an abrupt cutoff as it refers to vignetting caused by the glass.

thrice wrote:
Optical vignetting is usally just falloff not usually an abrupt cutoff as it refers to vignetting caused by the glass.

Well, the traditional definition of optical vignetting is not limited to light falloff; it includes the cats eye effect as well: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html since it is due to the lens itself.

Also, light falloff can be caused by "natural vignetting". (see same link).

The traditional definition of mechanical vignetting (again, as per the same link) is related to objects in the periphery of the front of the lens (such as lens hoods).

I suppose objects interfering at the other end of the lens ought to be included as well, since they are not a part of the lens itself. So, yeah, lets call this "cut-off" of the highlights mechanical vignetting.

Maybe Toothwalker (author of the site referenced) can comment on this "post-lens mechanical vignetting"; perhaps add it to his already excellent site?

Fair enough.

5D + Nippon Kogagu 50mm 1.4

This was taken with a bit of front focus so sam's eye could be a bit
sharper.

Dont know if this classifies as Admirable but it is a bit crazy.

5D + mamiya secor c 80mm 1.9

5D + mamiya secor C 80mm 2.8

thrice wrote:
Fair enough.
You're right. The Lux still suffers from optical vignetting, but it doesn't cut the top of the circles of confusion off. I was slightly confused; however, I don't think any of this has to do with the mirror box. That shouldn't be anywhere in the optical path if your camera is working right. Clearly the reason the 85L has hightop bokeh is because of some light being obstructed by the electric contacts. Is the 85L's rear element perfectly round? The Noct-Nikkor has a strangely shaped rear element which also causes butchered bokeh on the corners of the frame.

TWoK wrote:
thrice wrote:
Fair enough.
You're right. The Lux still suffers from optical vignetting, but it doesn't cut the top of the circles of confusion off. I was slightly confused; however, I don't think any of this has to do with the mirror box. That shouldn't be anywhere in the optical path if your camera is working right. Clearly the reason the 85L has hightop bokeh is because of some light being obstructed by the electric contacts. Is the 85L's rear element perfectly round? The Noct-Nikkor has a strangely shaped rear element which also causes butchered bokeh on the corners of the frame.

Your explanation doesn't make any sense to me because the electric contacts are not square edged, they are round just like the rear element and you would not expect flat-top bokeh but a round cut off instead. Also it occurs on manual lenses with perfectly round rear elements missing these contacts all together.

I share the view that when the mirror is up (as well as the camera housing on the opposite side) the rear element image circle can be obscured because the housing is too small thus causing this flat-top and flat-bottom bokeh.

My next queston is, why would you pay thousands of dollars on a lens for butchered bokeh on DSLR?

efgm wrote:


My next queston is, why would you pay thousands of dollars on a lens for butchered bokeh on DSLR?


Doesn't happen on my 5D. Not with any lens, including multiple f1.2s.

I'd be surprised if you all haven't read Toothwalker's site thoroughly:

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

Vincent Laforet had 1 chopped off bokeh shot with EF 200/1.8 as well.

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/REVERIE%20Still%20Photos/Vincent_Laforet_5D_MKII_MG_0470.jpg

Leon Noel wrote:Vincent Laforet had 1 chopped off bokeh shot with EF 200/1.8 as well.


That rules out the contacts then...

Leon Noel wrote:
I'd be surprised if you all haven't read Toothwalker's site thoroughly:

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

Vincent Laforet had 1 chopped off bokeh shot with EF 200/1.8 as well.

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/REVERIE%20Still%20Photos/Vincent_Laforet_5D_MKII_MG_0470.jpg



Thank you Leon that confirms what I suspected. This is an annoying artifact that makes me want to switch to a Leica digital should a wad of cash fall from the sky.

Granted not all lenses experience this but geez you would think you could design a body that doesn't stuff up some of your best lenses (85mm 1.2L?!) with camera clipping like this.

end rant

alternatively, you could just decide that it doesn't bother you at all. It never occurred to me to be bothered, and still doesn't.