mfurman wrote: I have to admit that I was to edit my previous post to add bokeh to the most important aspects of the lens IQ. As a matter of fact it is almost the most important to me.
Question: why is bokeh so important to some photographers?
When I take a photograph or look at others people's pictures, if one part is very sharp and the background is quite out of focus, it is quite clear to me where the important part of the picture is. The photographer is telling you, THIS is what I want you to notice. It is the sharply focused part. I tend to have tunnel vision on this type of picture, and l concentrate mainly on the focused part. The bokeh would have to be really bad to get my attention. Why should I be fixated on the unimportant part, the background?
This is not a criticism of other's taste, but I just don't see why bokeh is so overpowering in importance.
Don Clary wrote:
Question: why is bokeh so important to some photographers?
When I take a photograph or look at others people's pictures, if one part is very sharp and the background is quite out of focus, it is quite clear to me where the important part of the picture is. The photographer is telling you, THIS is what I want you to notice. It is the sharply focused part. I tend to have tunnel vision on this type of picture, and l concentrate mainly on the focused part. The bokeh would have to be really bad to get my attention. Why should I be fixated on the unimportant part, the background?
This is not a criticism of other's taste, but I just don't see why bokeh is so overpowering in importance....Show more →
Look near the center of the paged link, where it says "defocused star image".
Gary,
The Bob Atkins page referenced makes sense to me. Looking at your test shots that include the Christmas lights, they are well off axis with an angle view of the "circle" of the aperture, and at 1.2 exhibit the oval effect. There are no lights in the center for comparison.
Edit: the light patiially hidden by the vase in the center appears fairly round, missed that one on first look.
Thanks for the link
Edited by Harvey Moore on Dec 07, 2006 at 01:13 PM GMT
Canon called (irvine repair center)
They said my lens (50-1.2) cant be fixed and they are going to replace it. When is the last time they ever replaced a lens? They always try to fix them dont they?
Looks very smooth to me, so this is good bokeh? Nice capture btw. Looks like pics from my 500 f4. But in this pleasant flat lighting, I don't see any hots spots that could cause flare or bad bokeh.
Maybe Canon repair centers don't have any 50 1.2L parts yet? Given that the lens isn't even available for purchase in any quantity yet, the repair centers might not be geared up for any action.
Nonetheless, this is very disturbing. A new design on a brand new lens and it can't be fixed. This combined with the suspicions raised by the delays in release are pushing me closer to abandoning my preorder position at a major retailer.
looscanon wrote:
For some reason, ever since the Canon 50 f/1.2 was announced there seems to be some sinister desire for this lens to be a failure so that the people who predicted this failure even before seeing a single photo can say "see I told you so". I just don't understand what perverse satisfaction some people get out of the failure of Canon lenses to live up to "expectation" -- seems to make their day.
I don't know about all that. I think Canon used to have a really good 50 1.2 FD lens, or at least I heard it was really good, I never used one. I would have been happy, like others have said, with a 50 1.4 with ring USM, or heck even a 50 1.8 with ring USM, which would have been more practical to make me thinks, since anything faster in Canon primes, seems to have to be made huge in order to get ring USM in it. I'm not willing to put out anything for a prime that isn't sharp wide open, in the center, so if that is what is being asked of us, then deal me out. The out of focus highlights are a bit odd as well, but I might be able to live with that, because I can't see myself shooting lights all the time. So, I hope this soft wide open is just a sample variation issue, because I wouldn't mind having one of these.
The issue surrounding the lights isn't a problem with "shooting lights" it's indicative of the larger issue of bokeh. This "issue" is just much more apparent and illustrative when lights are in the photo.
Sam Bennett wrote:
The issue surrounding the lights isn't a problem with "shooting lights" it's indicative of the larger issue of bokeh. This "issue" is just much more apparent and illustrative when lights are in the photo.
Well, Sam, what do you think Canon is going to do? Do you think it's a bad sample issue, or do you think that is just the way this lens is right now?
Sam Bennett wrote:
As I said before, I'm holding off on my final judgement until I get to use it in the environments I need it for - the big test being a RollerGirls bout Sunday night.
I'm sincerely hoping to see a couple of test shots from that environment.
cactusclay wrote:
Well, Sam, what do you think Canon is going to do? Do you think it's a bad sample issue, or do you think that is just the way this lens is right now?
I have no idea. I'm definitely not a big proponent of the "bad copy" theory that seems so popular in some circles, but this is a first production run so it's possible they still haven't dialed production in sufficiently.
As for samples from shooting this weekend, I will definitely be sharing.
Sam Bennett said: The issue surrounding the lights isn't a problem with "shooting lights" it's indicative of the larger issue of bokeh. This "issue" is just much more apparent and illustrative when lights are in the photo.
Yeah, this demonstrates well what I was saying earlier about there being a substantial difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. This is noticeable even in the shots of the dogs I posted earlier where the OOF areas have a much more "ethereal" look to them - particularly at the top of his head. Unfortunately the crop I chose didn't really display that very well.
The effect may even grow on me. It may be one of the things that define this lens being special in the way that the 85/1.2L is special. At this point it just strikes me as odd, and different than anything I've seen in any of my lenses.
I find the comparison of (a assume it is 50 f/1.4) the two 50 mm lenses (newspaper shots) particularly interesting.
Michael, thanks for the comments on the tests. I think mine appears to be a good copy also. The shots in the link referenced appear to be out of a phone book. I may try some in my phone book tomorrow evening and post them. I will leave them without any sharpening.
?
