ovredal73 wrote:
Does the Canon 50 1.0 qualify as alt yet...? Visited a good friend yesterday who has one and can´t help myself. Shot with my 5D at his kitchen table:
It's "alt" to me, at least thinking of its age...
But... it won't win any bokeh prices, at least not for the images you have shown here. That said, I would love to experiment a little with that lens if it had been available.
That is an, to my eyes, appealing image. I like the curve the leave (or what it is) describes and how the light and tone is changed when it meets the curtain. The focus is not at the center petals but I guess there is a reason for that. I like this image.
Technically I would describe the bokeh as decent but not stellar. The curtain isn't gently rounded off but there are distracting lines at the bottom end of it and the salt and pepper cellars are also a little distracting (the bright bottoms).
Jonas B wrote: cogitech wroteJonas B wroteI don't know of any lenses that can't get lured into producing bad bokeh (bad as in distracting, bright rings or double lines or just very edgy edges). Maybe it is a combination of relative distances (camera - focus plane - background) and the used aperture.I agree. Likewise, most lenses can produce good bokeh in the right circumstances, and I know for a fact that relative camera - focus plane - background - subject distances are the key.
In the image cogitech posted we can actually see hints of this "bright ring" behavior if we look closely to the background. There are some spots there rendered as pretty large circles with a tiny ring on them.
Thanks for completing the comparison of the Zuiko 50/1.4, Jonas. Not only is the background more challenging in your shot but also, even more importantly, the focus was much closer in my shot. As these relative distances between the sensor plane, the subject and the background change, the nature of the bokeh is dramatically affected. That is a brick wall behind my wife and her pink vest has a quilted pattern that was simply smeared to nothing. If you had stepped forward and focused 6 to 8 inches closer, the bokeh (among many other aspects) of your shot would look entirely different.
I think this is why macro (including flower "macro") shots often show creamy smooth bokeh. Likewise, all of this is affected by the ratio of focal length to aperture, as well. Hence, my 350/5.6 Soligor renders gorgeous blurred backgrounds at or near close focus distance, even at f11. (I think the 15 beautifully curved aperture blades do help a bit, though.)
cogitech wrote:
(...) As these relative distances between the sensor plane, the subject and the background change, the nature of the bokeh is dramatically affected. That is a brick wall behind my wife and her pink vest has a quilted pattern that was simply smeared to nothing. If you had stepped forward and focused 6 to 8 inches closer, the bokeh (among many other aspects) of your shot would look entirely different.
I think this is why macro (including flower "macro") shots often show creamy smooth bokeh. Likewise, all of this is affected by the ratio of focal length to aperture, as well. Hence, my 350/5.6 Soligor renders gorgeous blurred backgrounds at or near close focus distance, even at f11. (I think the 15 beautifully curved aperture blades do help a bit, though.)...Show more →
I agree. I also think that is why we see alot of close-ups and flowers in this thread.
It is the thumbnail from a small gallery showing the same image in 50% size, taken with the Leica Summicron-R 50/2, Summilux-R 50/1.4 type 1 and Summilux-R 50/1.4 E60. Each image is around 800kB so anyone wanting to see them can use this link.
It has been posted here earlier as a reply to a question about Leica 50mm lenses.
here's some that will be difficult on 35mm, a 145mm f2.0 petzval type lens on a 4x5 camera. I'll be using this lens alot! It's roughly a 'normal" focal length lens, but pretty darn fast for being put infront of a 4x5.
1st one focused at about 10 feet, 2nd one focused at about 4 feet
I agree with Cogitech, almost any lens can be lured into back bokeh (except mabey the Minolta/Sony 135 STF). Close up bokeh is the easiest to have nice, like the flower shots posted. The lens is tested much more when the distance from photographer to subject is greater and the subject occupies a smaller part of the frame.
Your Minolta 200G shot looks like its stopped down a little (circles are lookking a little edgy)? Wide open, I always got beautiful smooth bokeh with it.
Jonas B wrote: Andi Dietrich posted a 50mm zf image:
That is an, to my eyes, appealing image. I like the curve the leave (or what it is) describes and how the light and tone is changed when it meets the curtain. The focus is not at the center petals but I guess there is a reason for that. I like this image.
Technically I would describe the bokeh as decent but not stellar. The curtain isn't gently rounded off but there are distracting lines at the bottom end of it and the salt and pepper cellars are also a little distracting (the bright bottoms)....Show more →
Thanks, actually the focus is on the center, its even sharp enough 200% uprezzed, amazing it still has what people describe as zeiss 3D http://andidietrich.com/fm/07/ose1.jpg
JayT, the Pentax SMC FA*80-200/2.8, and its shorter sibling, are good examples of lenses loved by many and at the same time leaving others, like me, cold.
After having followed the discussion in this thread and in the Siggy 50 thread it is clear that some don't actually like smooth (or silky or buttered or...) backgrounds.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
posted this wonderful image http://andidietrich.com/fm/ose.jpg
(and then asked)
What is wrong with the bokeh, not enough blur?
Hi Andi,
I don't say anything is right or wrong about bokeh. In the end blurriness has to be about taste and to my taste your delicious image would have been yet better with smotther highlights, as mentioned. Don't read in anything else in my comment - it is all personal.
koenrutten wrote:
I think it's mostly about the relative subject to background distance, lens quality is a close second.
Worried (?) faces, nice image.
I agree about the "relative distance" -factor. Then the strong second "lens quality" in some cases can make a good image instead of a mediocre or worse one as another lens would have done in the exact same situation.
It's roughly a 'normal" focal length lens, but pretty darn fast for being put infront of a 4x5.
