Very nice hibiscus shot, David, but perhaps it should be repeated that in this thread we try to avoid posting macro shots, because practically any lens can show admirable blur if it's focused close enough, so such shots teach us very little about the qualities of the lens. This thread was intended to show the blur character/bokeh quality of different lenses, not simply to be a collection of images with nice blur.
This isn't specifically aimed at you, but for anyone who joins this thread now that Jonas B is no longer maintaining it. I think it would be nice if this thread keeps it's educative value.
AhamB wrote:
Very nice hibiscus shot, David, but perhaps it should be repeated that in this thread we try to avoid posting macro shots, because practically any lens can show admirable blur if it's focused close enough, so such shots teach us very little about the qualities of the lens. This thread was intended to show the blur character/bokeh quality of different lenses, not simply to be a collection of images with nice blur.
This isn't specifically aimed at you, but for anyone who joins this thread now that Jonas B is no longer maintaining it. I think it would be nice if this thread keeps it's educative value. ...Show more →
I'm sorry if I have not played well the spirit of this thread, but I have referred to the presentation by Jonas at page 1 and various images presented, I can not read all 127 pages of the thread.
"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."
(Jonas)
Okay we're not supposed to post macros here but I'm going to post one because I truly think the blur is admirable. I'll post some non-macros too to make up for it.
I'm not maintaining the thread but I am following it. When I stopped updating the Index I thought the thread would die. But... we are too many blur fans here for that...
Updating the Index took a lot of time and I'm sorry for not being able to keep up the work. Maybe if I get the flu or something...
At one stage we had a lot of macro images here and then there was a brief discussion and I asked people to hold back on the macros for the reasons mentioned above. I never added this to the first post at page 1 as macros are interesting as well... it's just more interesting with larger subjects and the different ways different lenses renders them and the OOF areas. That was on page 87 (and 96 and.. ). I quote myself:
=============
"This thread has been a joy for the most part of it. Now it can either be forgotten and dropped - or improved?!
May I kindly ask you all to hold back on your macros and extreme close-ups? Background blurred to beyond recognition isn't really a problem for any lens capable of close enough focusing, and a task for any P&S as well as for an SLR camera.
Instead, now let us focus on quality rather than quantity, OK?
Background OOF highlights or strong contrast are of interest
Subject isolation and background rendering is of interest (subject somewhat bigger than a bird at least then)
Rendering of areas going from the focal plane and out from it is of interest
...and some more I have forgotten.
I hope you macro guys don't take any offence.
Please also remember to tell us what lens and camera (sensor size) you used when taking your admirable image. And remember, an admirable image here is not necessarily a piece of art - but an image giving us an idea about hoe the lens handles OOF areas.
kindest,
/Jonas
=============
RZetter wrote:
Okay we're not supposed to post macros here but I'm going to post one because I truly think the blur is admirable. I'll post some non-macros too to make up for it.
I'll post some non-macros too to make up for it.
