If you are saying that the samples immediately above your post don't look good to you, then I'm not sure I can understand your idea of nice bokeh. Please show us samples from a lens that you think is better.
Either that or just admit that it is "simply stunning". You know it is.
Bokeh is subjective and the Rokkor is surely a fine tool. I don't comment either way on Rokkor bokeh, if the owners are happy, then it's really all that matters. However, it's ironic that some Rokkor owners will get so defensive yet take any opportunity to slam the Canon 50 1.0L or Noctilux...
mh2000 wrote:
hmmm... I guess this character is no more tedious than the guys that keep trying to say the "bokeh is simply stunning," in spite of photos that clearly show *difficult* bokeh... don't you think?
We also have to assume that bokeh posts that come with glowing words are the *best* shots coming from the lens... doesn't look that good to me.
All lenses have different qualities and uses, so I'm not slamming the Rokkor... in fact, I'd buy one and try it out if I found a bargain somewhere, but I'm not so wowwed by all the "stunning" bokeh samples floating around here to pop for one at the current going rate... and if I thought the bokeh was actually that beautiful I would in a second.
I'm sorry, but your slam against anyone not loving the Rokkor's bokeh prompted this reply... You can think the lens is "simply stunning," fine, but allow for others to have a different oppinion.
Keep posting examples that you think are stunning, but accept that not everyone will see them that way.
pookipichu wrote:
Bokeh is subjective and the Rokkor is surely a fine tool. I don't comment either way on Rokkor bokeh, if the owners are happy, then it's really all that matters. However, it's ironic that some Rokkor owners will get so defensive yet take any opportunity to slam the Canon 50 1.0L or Noctilux...
pookipichu wrote:
Bokeh is subjective and the Rokkor is surely a fine tool. I don't comment either way on Rokkor bokeh, if the owners are happy, then it's really all that matters. However, it's ironic that some Rokkor owners will get so defensive yet take any opportunity to slam the Canon 50 1.0L or Noctilux...
Based on shots I've seen from the Flickr Noctilux pool, I would say the Noctilux can create shots that no other lens can match. But I have also seen some shots with horrendous bokeh from it that made me want to puke.
I would say that bokeh is not something cranked out from a lens as if it were a factory, it is as much the photographer as it is the lens.
I am not a fan of the Rokkor because i feel its bokeh is TOO soft and diffused, at least in most of the shots i've seen from it. Yes, it has wonderful Minolta colors/tones, and great sharpness... but i just don't like the way it renders OOF areas into mush.
I prefer more agressive shit, like the Nikkor 1.2's...
ISO1600 wrote:
I am not a fan of the Rokkor because i feel its bokeh is TOO soft and diffused, at least in most of the shots i've seen from it. Yes, it has wonderful Minolta colors/tones, and great sharpness... but i just don't like the way it renders OOF areas into mush.
I prefer more agressive shit, like the Nikkor 1.2's...
As you can see in several of JimU's shots (and elsewhere in the thread), the Rokkor can be funky/aggressive too. That's the best thing about it, to me... its versatility.
JimU wrote:
I would say that bokeh is not something cranked out from a lens as if it were a factory, it is as much the photographer as it is the lens.
I agree 100%, but there are some lenses that make it easier than others. I guess guys like me need that bit of extra help
(on the other hand, I secretly suspect that if I spend as much time with any lens as I have with the Rokkor, I would soon discover that maybe I have more to do with it than the lens - as a test, I bought a slow normal zoom recently - now... to figure out how to force myself to use it... sell everything?)
cogitech wrote:
Some more Rokkor 58/1.2 bokeh, just to be sure there is enough to go around.
Anyone who still thinks this lens has bad bokeh and/or is not sharp must have a seriously sub-par sample of the lens.
Nice photos, and the bokeh is pleasant to my eye, in the lower diffused light settings, but how can you ask for agreement on sharpness? I'll go with apparent sharpness, as most of the frame is OOF and the thin plane of focus does contrast with the rest of the scene. How can we be sure you are telling us the truth about sharpness? Viewing a web jpeg, without any 100% comparision crops, doesn't really prove sharpness.
Here are few concert photos made with the Canon 50/1.2 L. Shots are wide open. To me the illustrate one of the lens's strong parts, resistance to flare.
Yeah I have to admit the 50 L's flare performance is pretty amazing, especially after using a rokkor in similar situations! But, does it justify the $1000+ price increase....
JimBuchanan wrote:
Nice photos, and the bokeh is pleasant to my eye, in the lower diffused light settings, but how can you ask for agreement on sharpness? I'll go with apparent sharpness, as most of the frame is OOF and the thin plane of focus does contrast with the rest of the scene. How can we be sure you are telling us the truth about sharpness? Viewing a web jpeg, without any 100% comparision crops, doesn't really prove sharpness.
I've posted plenty of 100% crops from the Rokkor. You want more?
ISO1600 wrote:
I am not a fan of the Rokkor because i feel its bokeh is TOO soft and diffused, at least in most of the shots i've seen from it. Yes, it has wonderful Minolta colors/tones, and great sharpness... but i just don't like the way it renders OOF areas into mush.
I prefer more agressive shit, like the Nikkor 1.2's...
isn't the mush/aggressive slider a function of how large you set the aperature?
can you show an example of what u mean? I'm just curious.
Actually, Byron- i was thinking about it... i don't really much prefer ANY ~50mm F1.2's bokeh over another. Overall, i am not a big fan of them for bokeh, because most of them (@1.2) blur the background more than i like. I prefer the look from a good 1.4, because it does not generally diffuse the OOF objects as much... plus the good thing about a 1.4, they are generally smaller and cheaper. 1.8's are good too. The only thing i love about 1.2's is the ability to soak in loads of light.
