This week is festival week in India (and for most of Indians living outside)... had festival light few days back (Deepawali/Diwali)... captured the lights with Helios 85mm f1.5.
(what an over hyped crap ... During day times, My Tominion lens made for IBM photocopier lens creates the same impressions. The lens is good for show off and capturing low light shots. The lens diffuses the white light to the whole frame, and some people calls that haze... I am sure, this lens was not designed for Day photography).
But hell... if we can use photocopier lens or X-Ray machine lenses... why not this crappy one too,
I don't know why I didn't think to post these earlier, I took these last christmas, Aero Ektar 7 inch f2.5 lens on a Cambo SC-2 4x5
First shot shows almost the entire christmas tree, the 2nd shot was taken farther back, showing more of the area around the tree.
I think the lens was re-assembled incorrectly, it doesn't really focus properly, but I keep it because it gives some very strange results Believe it or not, the close branches on the tree are actually in focus, but yet the bright highlights of the lights give a very strange bokeh/bloom around them as if they were not in focus. I think this is due to the misalignment of the lenses or something inside.
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF @ f/2 & f/11 (and no; there is no focus shift, I was just too optimistic when I focused the f/11 shot , Zeiss has pretty narrow depth of field even at f/11)
This is not mine, but I thought to share the knowledge. I am loving the rings in these pics. Lens is the Kilfitt 90/2.8 (the people who invented macro and zoom lenses).
theoretically that may be true. but I've definitely observed two lenses side by side - same focal length, same nominal aperture, same exposure, and same histogram - producing visibly different perceived DOF. It's easy to see how bokeh and edge-drawing differences can yield different perceived DOF. I could post examples I shot when I was evaluating a Canon 16-35II vs my Canon 17-40.
Note "perceived." There's some subjectivity here that's just not captured in a DOF chart, for whatever it's worth.
Daniel Buck wrote:
lens brand has nothing to do with how shallow the DOF is, it's just focal length, aperture, focus distance and film size
You are right, brand has nothing to do about it, but has a lot to do with lens design!!!! - Have you tested it yourself? I have shoot many times Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF and Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM (and other comparable pairs of lenses) from same position while I have been comparing the lenses and it seems quite obvious to me that Zeiss has narrower depth of field at same aperture.
Also like fourfa says above there is difference between mathematical MTF DoF and apparent/perceived DoF. Which I'm referring, I have never tested my lenses with artificial targets, I prefer real outdoor shooting instead... Somehow Zeiss lens designs seems to concentrate the contrast to focal plane and has then less contrast on areas which are not in focal plane. Hard to define on my 2nd language this kind of things
Silentlight wrote:
Beautiful bokeh on that 100/2 ZF at f2.
This is not mine, but I thought to share the knowledge. I am loving the rings in these pics. Lens is the Kilfitt 90/2.8 (the people who invented macro and zoom lenses).
Incredibly distracting but awesome to look at I really like the look, it's nisen-bokeh taken to the extreme, as if one bright ring around OOFH wasn't enough this lens adds another one just for good measure
I just noticed that if I don't mind taking 100% crops the bokeh from my lil pentax looks a lot better. Usually I get quite a bit of the bright-ring effect, but if I take a crop - like this one from the edge of an image - it looks more like my 135/2L bokeh.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
............but has a lot to do with lens design!!!! -......
.................it seems quite obvious to me that Zeiss has narrower depth of field at same aperture.
...........
--
Samuli Vahonen http://www.vahonen.com
When I used CZ Planar 50mm f1.7 first, this was the first thing I noticed. Planar 50/1.7 had very narrow/shallow DoF compare to my other 50mm(s) esp Canon AF 50/1.8.
I am not sure about reason, and but sometimes I think, Planar focusing plane fall-off is more sharper than other design.
(Its discussed at Manual focus forum about a year back... but difficult to find the thread now)..
cogitech wrote:
Agreed. The lack of DOF in that shot is due to the close focusing distance.
Focal Length doesnt impact DoF... Its a pure function of Aperture, Distance and Sensor type.
And I am not saying different DoF, I noticed the different fall off of focusing plane... after all, focusing plane is nothing but circle of confusion.. and very vague term...
Again... not a point of discussion for this thread... lets see more blurs...
asbalyan wrote:
Focal Length doesnt impact DoF... Its a pure function of Aperture, Distance and Sensor type.
technically I think you are correct, no it doesn't. But if you aren't blowing up cropped areas of photographs and such for technical comparisons, then I think yes focal length does appear to aid in 'impacting' the look of DOF for most practical purposes?
... During day times, My Tominion lens made for IBM photocopier lens creates the same impressions. The lens is good for show off and capturing low light shots. The lens diffuses the white light to the whole frame, and some people calls that haze... I am sure, this lens was not designed for Day photography).
