JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
See how much gentler the bokeh is when it leaves the sunlit tree branches and gets to the forest floor?
I think the bokeh is smoother in that scenario because you are taking a higher contrast and lower contrast area and comparing them.
From my understanding and experience, under correction of SA leads to smoother bokeh at the expense of resolution.
Over correction results in harsher bokeh with cleaner structural separation and higher contrast of OOF areas and line doubling if severe (which many refer to as Nissen bokeh). But people love sharpness and clarity
In my experience, CA and SA are separate corrections, and longitudinal and lateral are separate from each other.
The FE 35 is overcorrected for SA which leads its harsher bokeh at times, esp off center. Yet, it has poor CA (axial and lateral) correction in high contrast zones as well.
Lenses like the GM 85 have some spherical abrasions but take care of CA very well wide open. I also know, other lenses with ridiculously smooth bokeh have quite a bit of bokeh fringing (the Minolta 85 1.4 ltd has SA WO, and lots of bokeh fringing and its the smoothest 85 I’ve ever shot). There are also other lenses that have a ton of CA but not very smooth bokeh.
My point being, they seem to be independently controlled, and spherical aberrations are generally what makes bokeh smoother and lowers the contrast, blending visual information together. I don’t see CA as being a primary controller for smooth bokeh, though I think it helps generally, not harms in terms of smoothness.
And I don’t see much bokeh CA, which I thought was your original point of the first Abbott photo you posted. From the looks of it, the Sammy 35 has smoother bokeh than the FE 35 with more SA wide open, so we’ll get less clarity, biting contrast and textural information and smoother rendering.
JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
See how much gentler the bokeh is when it leaves the sunlit tree branches and gets to the forest floor?
I think the bokeh is smoother in that scenario because you are taking a higher contrast and lower contrast area and comparing them.
From my understanding and experience, under correction of SA leads to smoother bokeh at the expense of resolution.
Over correction results in harsher bokeh with cleaner structural separation and higher contrast of OOF areas and line doubling if severe (which many refer to as Nissen bokeh). But people love sharpness and clarity
In my experience, CA and SA are separate corrections, and longitudinal and lateral are separate from each other.
The FE 35 is overcorrected for SA which leads its harsher bokeh at times, esp off center. Yet, it has poor CA (axial and lateral) correction in high contrast zones as well.
Lenses like the GM 85 have some spherical abrasions but take care of CA very well wide open. I also know, other lenses with ridiculously smooth bokeh have quite a bit of bokeh fringing (the Minolta 85 1.4 ltd has SA WO, and lots of bokeh fringing and its the smoothest 85 I’ve ever shot). There are also other lenses that have a ton of CA but not very smooth bokeh.
My point being, they seem to be independently controlled, and spherical aberrations are generally what makes bokeh smoother and lowers the contrast, blending visual information together. I don’t see CA as being a primary controller for smooth bokeh, though I think it helps generally, not harms in terms of smoothness.
And I don’t see much bokeh CA, both of which I thought was your original point of the first Abbott photo you posted. From the looks of it, the Sammy 35 has smoother bokeh than the FE 35 with more SA wide open, so we’ll get less clarity, biting contrast and textural information and smoother rendering.
JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
See how much gentler the bokeh is when it leaves the sunlit tree branches and gets to the forest floor?
I think the bokeh is smoother in that scenario because you are taking a higher contrast and lower contrast area and comparing them.
From my understanding and experience, under correction of SA leads to smoother bokeh at the expense of resolution.
Over correction results in harsher bokeh with cleaner structural separation and higher contrast of OOF areas and line doubling if severe (which many refer to as Nissen bokeh). But people love sharpness and clarity
In my experience, CA and SA are separate corrections.
The FE 35 is overcorrected for SA which leads its harsher bokeh at times, esp off center. Yet, it has poor CA (axial and lateral) correction in high contrast zones as well.
Lenses like the GM 85 have some spherical abrasions but take care of CA very well wide open. I also know, other lenses with ridiculously smooth bokeh have quite a bit of bokeh fringing (the Minolta 85 1.4 ltd has SA WO, and lots of bokeh fringing and its the smoothest 85 I’ve ever shot). There are also other lenses that have a ton of CA but not very smooth bokeh.
My point being, they seem to be independently controlled, and spherical aberrations are generally what makes bokeh smoother and lowers the contrast, blending visual information together. I don’t see CA as being a primary controller for smooth bokeh, though I think it helps generally, not harms in terms of smoothness.
And I don’t see much bokeh CA, both of which I thought was your original point of the first Abbott photo you posted. From the looks of it, the Sammy 35 has smoother bokeh than the FE 35 with more SA wide open, so we’ll get less clarity, biting contrast and textural information and smoother rendering.
JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
See how much gentler the bokeh is when it leaves the sunlit tree branches and gets to the forest floor?
I think the bokeh is smoother in that scenario because you are taking a higher contrast and lower contrast area and comparing them.
From my understanding and experience, under correction of SA leads to smoother bokeh at the expense of resolution.
Over correction results in harsher bokeh which leads to the leads to cleaner structural separation and higher contrast of OOF areas and line doubling if severe (which many refer to as Nissen bokeh). But people love sharpness and clarity
In my experience, CA and SA are separate corrections.
The FE 35 is overcorrected for SA which leads its harsher bokeh at times, esp off center. Yet, it has poor CA (axial and lateral) correction in high contrast zones as well.
Lenses like the GM 85 have some spherical abrasions but take care of CA very well wide open. I also know, other lenses with ridiculously smooth bokeh have quite a bit of bokeh fringing (the Minolta 85 1.4 ltd has SA WO, and lots of bokeh fringing and its the smoothest 85 I’ve ever shot). There are also other lenses that have a ton of CA but not very smooth bokeh.
My point being, they seem to be independently controlled, and spherical aberrations are generally what makes bokeh smoother and lowers the contrast, blending visual information together. I don’t see CA as being a primary controller for smooth bokeh, though I think it helps generally, not harms in terms of smoothness.
And I don’t see much bokeh CA, both of which I thought was your original point of the first Abbott photo you posted. From the looks of it, the Sammy 35 has smoother bokeh than the FE 35 with more SA wide open, so we’ll get less clarity, biting contrast and textural information and smoother rendering.
Nov 19, 2020 at 12:58 PM
Previous versions of nehemiahphoto's message #15409299 « Pre-order: Samyang 35mm f/1.8 AF ($399) »
