And thanks for your comments! The pic isn't anything at all, but I love the quality.
"Admirable blur" is so much more than very thin DOF at short distances. So, here's a nice one with the Sigma 50/1.4. I know you don't fancy its drawing style, Braniac, but there is bokeh and there is bokeh. A harsher bokeh would have ruined this shot totally.
There was a long interesting and educational thread about 3D and where it comes from some time back. I'm not the person to sort things out but you may want to have a look, here. I recall factors like high microcontrast and warm colors in the foreground and cold colors in the background often played a role. But my memory is shady. Regards, /Jonas
brainiac wrote:
[I like it a lot, and I'm still thinking about getting one, one day. But I would prefer a hard edged ('neutral') bokeh. It's a pretty minor issue though.
I actually think the Sigma is closer to "neutral" than most other normal lenses. And I'm totally with you about the "hard edge" thing. A too smooth bokeh will remove too much information from the background, especially at short distances.
What I really love with the Sigma is that I can get some sort of "medium format look" to the pictures. It actually looks like you've stopped the lens down a bit when it is wide open.
Jonas B wrote:
There was a long interesting and educational thread about 3D and where it comes from some time back. I'm not the person to sort things out but you may want to have a look, here. I recall factors like high microcontrast and warm colors in the foreground and cold colors in the background often played a role. But my memory is shady. Regards, /Jonas
im not sure how everyone feels about the sigma 50mm, but i thought this was a good shot. sadly, i had to sell the lens... but only so i could buy the zeiss 25mm f2.8 zf.
this isn't alternative, but here's one from a 5D with the 24L.
These have been posted in at least one other thread, but I think they deserve some attention from the bokeh freaks too.
The Nikkor-S 55/1.2 pre-AI (but AI:d) is a lens that doesn't get much attention since it isn't very well regarded. The later 50/1.2 is often said to be "much better", but I'm not sure I agree. The 55 gives alot more spherical aberration, and therefore it is softer and more "dreamy", but it also gives a quite cool bokeh. There is definitely severe outlines to the blur discs, but the lines are pretty soft edged.
As you can see, there is not much vignetting at all. In fact far less than with the modern 50/1.4 AF-S @ f/1.4. The lens is VERY prone to flare and ghosting because of the inferior coating. But at low light, it gives nice results.
ovredal73 wrote:
Great shots, Makten, beautiful light, very William Eggleston.
Thanks! I've never heard of Eggleston before, but I googled for a while and I really like what I see. I'll definitely check out his work.
-------------------------------------------------
Back to the bokeh. Here's some from the lovely Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS, wide open. The second one is with a Nikon 5T closeup lens. The third shows the bokeh at larger distance, which is something we seldom see when bokeh is evaluated. Still good, but a little bit less good than at close distance.
