I am glad it wasn't only me. I thought the bokeh look a little shaky from all the review but everyone keep rambling on how great the lens is.
To be fair, I don't think any of the Fuji X lens have "buttery" bokeh. I supposed that is what gives it character but if they are anything like the first photo, I can do without thanks!
killersnowman wrote:
Yikes that does look very nervous and contrasty for oof areas. I don't think a change of aperture blades would matter as these are wide open. I think its tge over use of aspherical elements that makes the bokeh go nuts
I would go with that too. As far as my rudimentary lens design knowledge goes, Aspherics are good for size/sharpness/contrast/correction of optical problems, but are problematic for bokeh. Which is why the pre-asph Leica 35 Summicron is called "the king of bokeh" over the modern asph one. Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?
It seems every new Fuji lens is waited for with baited breath and they went to maximize sharpness and contrast while minimizing size by using aspherics.
absolutic wrote:
you might hit the nail on its head there.
Yeah but Fuji always uses aspherics and for the most part, their bokeh is not all that bad. Certainly not as bad what we see with this new lens. I quite like the bokeh from the 23, 35m and 56mm lenses.
cope07 wrote:
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.
jcolwell wrote:
...No.
absolutic wrote:
well Zeiss used to say that VR and AF screw with optical quality. Then they made AF lenses. And now they make VR lenses (well Sony Zeiss does)
Nikon used to say there's no need for a full frame sensor.
rattymouse wrote:
Yeah but Fuji always uses aspherics and for the most part, their bokeh is not all that bad. Certainly not as bad what we see with this new lens. I quite like the bokeh from the 23, 35m and 56mm lenses.
I think the 35 has a really beautiful rendering, and the 56 is quite nice as well (though I like the 35 better of the two) and actually found the 60 was a bit smoother than he 56.
The 23 wasn't bad, but I often found it to be a little nervous at times. Good lens, but not among Fuji's best.
All photos posted were at 2.8. As for FL, well it's a zoom lens so there are many possibilities. Follow the first link in the OP for more terrible bokeh examples - when you have so many examples...it's not hard.
millsart wrote:
I think the 35 has a really beautiful rendering, and the 56 is quite nice as well (though I like the 35 better of the two) and actually found the 60 was a bit smoother than he 56.
The 23 wasn't bad, but I often found it to be a little nervous at times. Good lens, but not among Fuji's best.
Al_10D wrote:
How can one judge the bokeh of the lens without knowing what focal length and aperture pictures were taken at?
it is. For example the second example (with waterfall) is shot at 140mm tele end and at at 2.8. All photos have links to their pages where respective EXIFs are provided.
absolutic wrote:
it is. For example the second example (with waterfall) is shot at 140mm tele end and at at 2.8. All photos have links to their pages where respective EXIFs are provided.
Not only that, but even if we did not know the shooting data, we can certainly still judge the bokeh of a lens.
Its as simple as looking at a photo and asking myself "what do I think of how this lens renders"
I don't know what most images in the Leica thread were shot at but certainly can still form opinions regardless if they were shot at f2.8 or f5.6 etc
Bokeh is simply a term to describe the quality of the OOF rendering, its totally subjective
swirly too...
I had a look at the first link, they're not all bad, it seems that the character of the lens changes with focal length and distance. But yeah some are terrible bokeh-wise.
