This is a try to collect opinions on bokeh of all sorts (and also a try to save the Sigma 50 -thread from getting carried away). When I say bokeh of all sorts I mean it, the ugly as well as the beautiful. Noone knows how somebody else sees it.
"oh come on. This has to be simply the most subjective and pretentious thread i've seen in years."
(ISO1600)
The clickable Index is now updated and moved to page 114. There will be no further updates of the index.
The 90Cron ASPH isn't optimized for close-ups but works reasonably well. These samples are shot raw and then developed using ACR with curves set to linear and everything else to zero or default. Resized and Smart Sharpen (100, 0.3).
Anden wrote:
Linhof Selected Voigtländer APO Lanthar 105/4,5 for 6*9 on a Minolta Auto Bellows III on 40D. Wide open.
That's a cool setup. Everything goes...
I'm not sure I like the edgy effect around the top flowers/petals/whatever. Aren't they a little distracting compared to smooth creamy Siggy blur?
See Leon, it is "better" at f2. No?
it is true for focusing to close objects - say 2-3 meters and background consist of relatively small objects, but after that distance f1.2 is fine
Ulff wrote:
and a bokeh I don't like sometimes: Olympus 50 1.2 wide open, only bokeh, with distracting double lines...
The EF135/2 is one of the best for anything, isn't it?
I agree about the OM 50/1.2. I have owned it and it had to go (together with the OM55/1.2 and Minolta 58/1.2 and Summilux 50/1.4 and a couple of other 50mm lenses).
cogitech wrote:
See Leon, it is "better" at f2. No?
Something Rokkor users have been aware all along Paul, f2.0 and f2.8 produce very creamy bokeh. But there's some pride in being able to do so at wide open, which could get very tricky sometimes.
I'm kinda glad the new Sigma 50mm seems to have soft bokeh wide open, so we all don't need to buy Leica Nocti for that. But then again, some will still say it's not an f1.0 lens.
