Here's a quick comparison of three of my lenses at 50mm and f/2.8 - you can really see the benefits of the 50G's aperture blades here. Click on photos for larger versions.
lorriman wrote:
Those pics are illustrative of why I wouldn't like such bokeh: it is sufficiently non-neutral that it would take from the atmosphere of the pic. Granted the pics above are not atmosphere pics, so the moderately distracting bokeh isn't really a problem.
Do you have a website? Given your comments, I'd expect that you produce some wonderful eye candy and I'd like to view some of that.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Do you have a website? Given your comments, I'd expect that you produce some wonderful eye candy and I'd like to view some of that.
Only contextual portraits, I'm afraid. Not what I think of as eye candy. I'm mostly interested in expressions, which often come when a child gets distracted by their own thoughts when sitting in front of my camera for more than 30 seconds of silent waiting. Unfortunately my photos are almost exclusively of my young relations and I'm not permitted to make them public, though I dearly wish I could. I'm not a pro: I do photography purely for the satisfaction I get from the parent's pleasure, although I get a lot of fun from the technical side of photography.
It's for the sake of atmosphere, complementing the subject, that I shoot mostly in natural light, remove all forms of artificial objects (plastic, synthetic clothes etc) and strive for bokeh that is demure rather than beautiful. I've never really clicked with the 'beautiful bokeh' brigade, which I think is partially confirmed by seeing very pretty examples of busy backgrounds in flower photos, but a form of bokeh of no use to me.
Anyway, for the sake of offering something from my limited collection of non-kiddie pics here is a young adult, very poorly scanned (from film, by snapping the negative against the sky with my fuji F30). I'll have to 'rescan' sometime, but right now I am travelling:
lorriman wrote:
I don't think you know what good bokeh looks like.
I don't think you're worth discussing this with at this point. By all means continue being a self proclaimed right wing bokeh fanatic. Us left wingers will continue loving our Rokkors, old Nikkors, ZF50s, and Takumars.
Jammy Straub wrote:
I don't think you're worth discussing this with at this point. By all means continue being a self proclaimed right wing bokeh fanatic. Us left wingers will continue loving our Rokkors, old Nikkors, ZF50s, and Takumars.
Peace out.
You can just call me Mr Boe Kay Mussolorrimani, and kiss the specular highlight on my shiney *ss.
But more seriously...I'm slightly surprised you consider a Takumar a left wing bokeh lens. I'm not so familiar with them, but the 50/1.4 is fabled for it's smooth bokeh, isn't it?
lorriman wrote:
I don't think the latter quite qualifies as eye-candy, but the bokeh is acceptable.
hmm, well, I don't consider bokeh to be a primary or even secondary point of photography. Bokeh only becomes a significant element, after many other, more important elements have been satisfied. Given your rather strong statements in this thread, I assumed that you could easily demonstrate the importance of the bokeh characteristics of which you have spoken.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
hmm, well, I don't consider bokeh to be a primary or even secondary point of photography. Bokeh only becomes a significant element, after many other, more important elements have been satisfied. Given your rather strong statements in this thread, I assumed that you could easily demonstrate the importance of the bokeh characteristics of which you have spoken.
I thought I had mentioned that I have few pics that I can show publicly? Evidently I didn't show you a terrible 'scan' because I have heaps of great looking photos.
And what strong statements? Perhaps the one where I say that I try to avoid using the phrase "good bokeh" in favour of busy/harsh since I "agree that bokeh is subjective"? Or where I claim that I prefer bokeh that gets out of the way of the subject and is in effect "invisible" (ref: your mention of primary or secondary characteristic), while admitting that that others prefer a busier bokeh that can be attractive though not the sort I can use in my pics? I don't think I can be accused of taking a 'rather strong' line on what constitutes good or bad bokeh, eh?
The nearest I've made to a "rather strong statement" is my observation, so far, that the 50 G has busy or harsh bokeh, and so no use *to me*.
And you've picked up on a photo that was a joke. Forget the bokeh, look at the subject.
lorriman wrote:
The nearest I've made to a "rather strong statement" is my observation, so far, that the 50 G has busy or harsh bokeh, and so no use *to me*.
Your tone has eased off throughout this thread - but you began on page one by appearing to say that the 50G has "atrocious" bokeh, which is at the very least hyperbolic.
Lorriman, perhaps you could black out the faces of some of your better bokeh images to protect the privacy of the subjects? That may give us a better idea of your bokeh preferences. You know, a picture is worth a thousand words :-)
Sam, what lens did you use for those portraits? They have a dreamlike quality.
I considered the new Nikon 50g, and the Sigma. I decided to go with a used Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AI-S. So far so good.
L3roy wrote:
Sam, what lens did you use for those portraits? They have a dreamlike quality.
That was with the Lensbaby Composer couple with the Plastic Optic, at f/4. Dreamlike is putting it politely. I love that lens, but the Plastic Optic can be difficult to work with.
If you like that quality, you might appreciate this abstract nude shot with it (warning, if nude pregnant women offend you - don't click this link):
Sam Bennett wrote:
Your tone has eased off throughout this thread - but you began on page one by appearing to say that the 50G has "atrocious" bokeh, which is at the very least hyperbolic.
Hyperbolic? And that is at the very least an exaggeration. For my purposes the 50 G bokeh is awful, so far that I've seen it, and many agree preferring to call it bokeh-harsh rather than just busy (see dpreview forums). I went on to qualify myself in view of the difference in view of such bokeh, which I accept, and the possibility of better results at different settings. Kerry had no need of such a sniffy response to my good faith reply.
L3roy wrote:
Lorriman, perhaps you could black out the faces of some of your better bokeh images to protect the privacy of the subjects? That may give us a better idea of your bokeh preferences. You know, a picture is worth a thousand words :-)
My pics are atmosphere centered on expression, which is what I assumed Kerry wanted to see following the previous description of my photographic goals. Blacking out the faces would have effectively blacked out the photo. I want smooth bokeh, and you can see it in the pics I provided.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Lorriman -
Do you even own a camera you can actually use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on?
Your point? Does everyone who comments on a lens have to have a body on which it can be used?
Since i seem to be gathering negatives vibes here I'll give you the details you don't need to know but seem to desire anyway: I shoot film. I am thinking of digital, and I am torn between the more bokeh-friendly world of Canon with their clunky bodies (and yes, since every detail appears to be needed: I have had direct personal contact with my hands), and Nikons that have a rep for ergonomics but not such a good bokeh rep.
lorriman wrote:
Uh huh. It would seem that you have done the same. Good to know.
I tired of the immature, pixel-peeping nature of DPR long ago.
Good luck in your search. I can tell you that as a long time Canon shooter I don't feel at some sort "bokeh disadvantage" now being a Nikon shooter, but you clearly are seeing things in all these photos that none of us plebians can. Canon certainly has a great range of AF primes to choose from.
Dec 21, 2008 at 03:29 PM
I love that lens, but the Plastic Optic can be difficult to work with.