Jman13 wrote:
There is nothing nervous about that bokeh.
I disagree completely.
Jman13 wrote:
There's not a lens in this world that could make that smoother unless it actually was capable of making more blur. This is about as close to technically perfect bokeh as one can get.
Bokeh is subjective, not fact. It's all opinion. You have yours and others have theirs. No need to get bent out of shape about it.
Jman13 wrote:
BTW, the 135L would not have handled this any better. The 135L has very, very good bokeh, but when I searched through my catalog for a few images from when I had the 135L, with backgrounds from somewhat similar distances and similar mottled foliage/sunlight as in the shot above, it certainly looks no better, and to my eye looks a tad worse, but you be the judge. These are all with the 135L:
Bwahahahaha! Ok. Whatever you say, man. You can certainly prefer more character in your bokeh...there's nothing wrong with that, but saying that 1, 2 and 3 are smoother and less nervous than that Fuji shot is not subjective, it's flat out wrong.
Furthermore, the mere fact that they both have the same FL and maximum aperture but one is on a FF sensor thus keeping it a f2 lens in terms of DOF while the other is on a APSC thus making it....I don't even know...f/2.8? f/4? whatever it is, certainly not f/2, trumps that whole argument of who melts away more.
The Fuji cannot "out-melt" the 135L by any stretch of the imagination, which i believe is what we all rave about when we talk about bokeh...so this is pretty cut and dry. All fact. No subjectivity
135L > XF90 -----> and that is fine because I was never crazy enough to think that the XF90 would do what the 135L could.
Taking nothing off your photography which I actually really enjoy over at Fuji Forum, these shots showcasing the XF90's performance are not impressive for me if I am comparing them to what the 135L does.
Jman13 wrote:
Bwahahahaha! Ok. Whatever you say, man. You can certainly prefer more character in your bokeh...there's nothing wrong with that, but saying that 1, 2 and 3 are smoother and less nervous than that Fuji shot is not subjective, it's flat out wrong.
Furthermore, the mere fact that they both have the same FL and maximum aperture but one is on a FF sensor thus keeping it a f2 lens in terms of DOF while the other is on a APSC thus making it....I don't even know...f/2.8? f/4? whatever it is, certainly not f/2, trumps that whole argument of who melts away more.
The Fuji cannot "out-melt" the 135L by any stretch of the imagination, which i believe is what we all rave about when we talk about bokeh...so this is pretty cut and dry. All fact. No subjectivity
135L > XF90 -----> and that is fine because I was never crazy enough to think that the XF90 would do what the 135L could....Show more →
You are confusing amount of blur with bokeh (which is the quality of the out of focus rendering, not the amount of blur). No doubt the 135L can blur the background more. There's no question of that. I think the two lenses both produce outstanding bokeh...the 135L was one of my favorite lenses when I shot Canon. But I strongly disagree that the rendering of the Fuji is nervous in any way shape or form.
Jman13 wrote:
You are confusing amount of blur with bokeh (which is the quality of the out of focus rendering, not the amount of blur). No doubt the 135L can blur the background more. There's no question of that. I think the two lenses both produce outstanding bokeh...the 135L was one of my favorite lenses when I shot Canon. But I strongly disagree that the rendering of the Fuji is nervous in any way shape or form.
The statement was, that that one particular image had nervous bokeh, not the entire series you posted. The vast majority of the images posted looked, to my eyes, just fine.
rattymouse wrote:
You continue to confuse opinion with fact.
I would have to agree with that.
135L is able to achieve less DOF. Fact.
XF90 renders nicer OOF areas (bokeh). Opinion.
Being that less DOF field, to most, equals MOAR BOKA!!, most will say the 135L renders better bokeh than the XF90....maybe bc like me they have "no idea what the different between bokeh and DOF are" lol.
Lastly, if you're going to crop out bokeh samples from said photograph, crop out the bits that pertain to the topic of us saying it has "busy bokeh"
Saying that this is the closest thing to perfect bokeh is ludicrous.
I don't think the bokeh has nervousness either, but I do think it is high contrast and that means that when the background has a lot of dynamic range like in the shot of the man on the bench there will be a lot of detail in the bokeh. That is what I think misternikko and ratty are seeing. It isn't double edged or onion rings that are obvious, but it is pretty high contrast. This issue is subjective as some love higher contrast in the bokeh and others do not. So, I do think this comes down to a difference in preference rather than a difference in fact.
Steve Spencer wrote:
This issue is subjective as some love higher contrast in the bokeh and others do not. So, I do think this comes down to a difference in preference rather than a difference in fact.
Jman13 wrote:
I think you two are insane. There is nothing nervous about that bokeh. There's not a lens in this world that could make that smoother unless it actually was capable of making more blur. This is about as close to technically perfect bokeh as one can get.
This is a 100% crop of the bokeh area. There is no outlining, no double edges, no hard ANYTHING. Is it a challenging situation for bokeh? Absolutely, but it's the nature of the background at this depth of field, and this lens did about as well as can possibly be done with such a background. http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/fuji90_bokeh.jpg...Show more →
Don't know why you'd dignify ratty's comment by responding, other than your uncommon patience. Less said the better when the rat shows up.
Was hoping this lens could be handheld at 1/80-1/100 but seems not. Like the 135L, XF 90 is not really a lowlight lens with only 1/160 minimum s/s and f/2, I guess.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Was hoping this lens could be handheld at 1/80-1/100 but seems not. Like the 135L, XF 90 is not really a lowlight lens with only 1/160 minimum s/s and f/2, I guess.
X-T2 will be with image stabilization, I guess, so problem solved...
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Don't know why you'd dignify ratty's comment by responding, other than your uncommon patience. Less said the better when the rat shows up.
For the other viewers, this was my comment that generated Mike's brazen personal attack: "I had the same reaction to that shot....ugly, nervous bokeh. The Canon 135L's bokeh would have melted that a lot more, reducing the nervousness to nothing."
Anyone who is insulted by such a comment like this is antithetical to what FredMiranda.com is all about. Apparently Mike is only comfortable in an environment where everyone agrees with each other, pats each other on the back, and lavishes empty, useless praise upon everything and anything.
It is to this forum's benefit that the likes of Mike are powerless to impose their sterile viewpoint here and are forced to be exposed to viewpoints different than what they are comfortable with. Should even this be too much, Fred has kindly offered tools to prevent their sensibilities from being offended by using the ignore button. I strongly urge Mike to take use of this tool so he never need be bothered again.
