Makten Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
mjm6 wrote:
Seriously, though, from everything you say, it feels like you should be shooting film with LF lenses. They, more than any of the modern over-corrected optics, have the characteristics that you are looking for.
Go back to LF, or if you haven't used it before, try a 4x5 and some good quality lenses (relatively modern, but not the uber-corrected digital LF lenses) with some color print film or maybe Astia in the QL packs.
I believe that will get you everywhere you want to go with respect to this specific issue.
I've shot enough with film to realise that it takes too much time. But yes, older lenses often perform nicer regarding the transition zone. They do often have worse bokeh, though.
The best compromises I've found in modern lenses are the Zeiss Classic ones, and the Loxias.
highdesertmesa wrote:
You have no responsibility to do so, but it would be helpful to the rest of us who don't see it: Something like, "In the example link, it's the area of the background between the model's waist and knees".
Also I guess I got confused along the way – is this something you only see at f/2 or stopped down? I thought you originally said when stopped down at mid-distance, but then later in response to my truck example, you said it looked ok because I stopped it down.
I wonder if what you're seeing is the effect of photographers using Clarity, Dehaze, or Contrast (or any combination thereof). Even modest adjustments to these can completely change the character of background bokeh. The example link you provided looked like it had been post-processed with some sort of film style.
Editing this post to add some examples shot at varying distances at f/2 to see if you can help me see examples of a bad transition zone (beginning with macro/ext tube distance then going through to mid-distance). In the last example, which is f/2 at mid-distance, is it the area of bokeh nervousness just above the rocks that you're seeing as a bad transition zone? The Contax 100 f/2 C/Y is definitely a better performer in this situation, but I'm not sure the bokeh of this shot would disqualify the lens for me. I simply don't find this focal length interesting at this distance, but if you do, I can see you wanting another option....Show more →
All of those images are closeups and/or have nothing in the transition zone. Your definition of "mid distance" is obviously not the same as mine (a few meters, at least). I don't even know what you mean with the "area of bokeh nervousness" in the last image. The transition zone is probably somewhere right in the shadow on the ground.
Edit: Now when looking again I can see it in the last shot, but not very clear. There is some nervousness on the ground right behind the shadow, but since there is not much structure there, it's not very noticeable. But, imagine you had foliage or similar at that distance behind the focus plane.
This discussion should have a thread of its own.
Edited on Jul 25, 2019 at 02:27 AM · View previous versions
|