Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2025 4:12 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What is good bokeh?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:55 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
Last week I finally got my hands on a lens that arguably I had been lusting for for years: The Sony (Minolta in spirit) 135mm f/2.8 T/4.5 Smooth Transition Focus.

Anyhoo, in an effort to save having to explain what's so special and unique about this lens to any member of tpmg that wonders why I am drunk with enthusiasm for this particular hunk of glass, I figured I'd post a link that summarizes it quite well:
http://www.magnuswedberg.com/index.php?doc=STF-review
and for an image comparison: http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=com ... &Itemid=43

Of course this comes back to the underlying question of what makes good bokeh? Some articles:
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts ... 28088&PN=1
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Hopefully by now we've established what good bokeh is. So the question I bring forth: what consideration do you give to bokeh in your creative work (either consciously or unconsciously), and what lens(es) do you use that bring the quality of your out of focus blur to the forefront of your images?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:28 am
Posts: 728
Location: Mississauga
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
here's a photo of Taylor's that i love

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maelswarm/2113853735/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:55 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:07 pm
Posts: 1787
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
This is my attempt ....

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:52 am
Posts: 80
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
WKHC wrote:
This is my attempt ....

Image


very nice shot!! what lens did you use??? I get great results from my canon 50mm 1.4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:14 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:07 pm
Posts: 1787
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Thanks. This was with the 85mm 1.2L II.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:18 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
Looking at those examples good Boke or if you are Canadian Bokeh is only partly about the lens. The Boke of the Zeiss lens at f2.8 looks better then at f1.8 because components of the background are more separate at f2.8 thus making the background shapes more interesting. So IMHO To get an image with good Boke it's not enough to use a lens with good Boke you should also consider what the out of focus parts of the image contribute to the composition.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/324826061/" title="No Escape by Metrix X, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/324826061_0a6efeae8c.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="No Escape"></a>

35mm at f2.0


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:01 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Scarberia
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
To really test bokeh, take a portrait of someone with foliage in the background with a bit of sky showing thru. My EF35/2 didn't do so well.. nothing that a quick swipe with the blur tool in PS would not fix, but certainly something to keep in mind. The 135STF would ace the foliage test handily, but I'd have to stand about a 1/2 football field away to get the shot.

My bokeh king right now, would probably have to be the A&M 8in f2.9 large format.... actually a have a number of large format lenses that would easily tune the background out as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 12:21 pm
Posts: 773
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I love the look from my Kodak Medalist II. 100/3.5 lens on a 6x9 negative.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/burlapjacket/1546406341/" title="steffie delicious by Burlap Jacket, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2285/1546406341_49bf329a88.jpg" width="337" height="500" alt="steffie delicious"></a>


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:28 am
Posts: 728
Location: Mississauga
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
i've also read that fast primes have top quality bokeh, not sure if its true or not :P


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:31 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 3168
Location: North York
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/thericyip
The Canon 135mm f/2 has delicious bokeh.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:37 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 1237
Location: Willowdale
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
There was a very interesting study on manipulating bokeh in the Pentax forum. Seems that the more number of blades, the better. Also the number of blades actually can shape the bokeh. And of course, the faster the lens the better in broad term. But I have to say it is very very subjective.


This is from http://aicphotography.tripod.com/index.htm & http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/sear ... -results=7

The lens was a Pentax 50mm F1.4 lens:


Here is f1.4, the parked aperture blades leave a round aperture:
Image






Here is f2, the eight blades now leave an octagon:
Image







Here is f2.8 the highlights are noticebly smaller:
Image







By f4 the highlights are now small octagons:
Image






This came from my lens , a newly released 200mmF2.8 and a 9 blade setup as taken and posted by my daughter. And I do like the bokeh

Image




Daniel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:20 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Scarberia
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ray Lum wrote:
i've also read that fast primes have top quality bokeh, not sure if its true or not :P


Not always. A number of 50/1.4's will cause double-lines to show in the foreground or background. If you know it, then you avoid trees, and tall grasses in the near foreground or near background.

Many lenses also have much crappier foreground bokeh vs bg bokeh.

My Canon 40/1.7 (Canonet) renders wierd OOF highlights towards the edge of the frame. My Olympus 35SP 40/1.7 has some wierd swirly bokeh.

Daniel's post of the SMC 50/1.4 is starting to show ovals/footballs instead of circles towards the corners. On full-frame, you'd see even more stuff like that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:58 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ray Lum wrote:
i've also read that fast primes have top quality bokeh, not sure if its true or not :P


Fast lenses make bokeh easier to see. And many fast tele's have good bokeh (in fact, the longer the lens, the more likely it is to have good bokeh). Also the number of aperture blades is a factor at apertures other than wide open (some designs, like the Zeiss 3-blade designs, have horrid bokeh) and circular aperture blades are a help as well (in general, the more circular the paerture, the better the bokeh, or at least the less it is degraded by the aperture blades).

Probably the best lenses for Bokeh are 135mm's like Minolta's f2.8 T4.5 STF and Nikon's f2 DC with their controllable abberations. The worst lenses tend to be highly corrected fast 50mm or wider lenses.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:17 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 1237
Location: Willowdale
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
thericyip wrote:
The Canon 135mm f/2 has delicious bokeh.


Hmm you call that delicious. I only know some bokeh is described as buttery, creamy......

Are they all to be judged by taste and food related?

Some Bokeh are desribed as velvety, dreamy , harsh, brutal.........

So Nikon's bokeh are described as.......

Can somebody fill me in

Daniel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:53 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
danieltpmg wrote:
thericyip wrote:
The Canon 135mm f/2 has delicious bokeh.


Hmm you call that delicious. I only know some bokeh is described as buttery, creamy......


Sushant can attest to my obsessive use of the word "buttery" in the past few days to describe my STF's bokeh.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:58 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 2:00 am
Posts: 1597
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
it's true! Hotwire likes his bokeh buttery!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:59 pm
Posts: 294
Location: Behind my camera, usually in Toronto, Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Sushant wrote:
it's true! Hotwire likes his bokeh buttery!


I like my bokeh buttery too. But unfortunately with my cholesterol levels I need to settle for margeriney bokeh.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:31 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 1237
Location: Willowdale
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
GreatLaker wrote:
Sushant wrote:
it's true! Hotwire likes his bokeh buttery!


I like my bokeh buttery too. But unfortunately with my cholesterol levels I need to settle for margeriney bokeh.


I like this one too. Yummy?



Image



Daniel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:45 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
danieltpmg wrote:
thericyip wrote:
The Canon 135mm f/2 has delicious bokeh.


Hmm you call that delicious. I only know some bokeh is described as buttery, creamy......

Are they all to be judged by taste and food related?

Some Bokeh are desribed as velvety, dreamy , harsh, brutal.........

So Nikon's bokeh are described as.......

Can somebody fill me in

Daniel


Well, the 85mm f1.4 AF-D is known as the 'Cream Machine' for its bokeh ;-)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:24 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:52 pm
Posts: 1669
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
it's marketing...

bokeh is just the mystification of out of focus rendering that is used to try to differentiate lenses and therefore convince some people to spend more money to obtain 'better' bokeh...

it's completely subjective and highly dependent on the subject and luminance of a scene that is being photographed...

other than the objective differences in shape that highlights are rendered - see above for examples at different f stops (function of the number of aperture blades), it's mostly fluff...

any lens shot wide open will usually render fairly round highlights...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:15 pm
Posts: 563
Location: Every Action has a Reaction
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ken wrote:
it's marketing...

bokeh is just the mystification of out of focus rendering that is used to try to differentiate lenses and therefore convince some people to spend more money to obtain 'better' bokeh...

it's completely subjective and highly dependent on the subject and luminance of a scene that is being photographed...

other than the objective differences in shape that highlights are rendered - see above for examples at different f stops (function of the number of aperture blades), it's mostly fluff...

any lens shot wide open will usually render fairly round highlights...


I find the 'bokeh' on the 17-35mm Nikkor to be very poor. I guess that is because it is a wide angle lens.

The 105mm f2 DC lens is sweet.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:14 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:52 pm
Posts: 1669
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Shelley wrote:
Ken wrote:
it's marketing...

bokeh is just the mystification of out of focus rendering that is used to try to differentiate lenses and therefore convince some people to spend more money to obtain 'better' bokeh...

it's completely subjective and highly dependent on the subject and luminance of a scene that is being photographed...

other than the objective differences in shape that highlights are rendered - see above for examples at different f stops (function of the number of aperture blades), it's mostly fluff...

any lens shot wide open will usually render fairly round highlights...


I find the 'bokeh' on the 17-35mm Nikkor to be very poor. I guess that is because it is a wide angle lens.

The 105mm f2 DC lens is sweet.


that may be the case but if yuo're comparing the 17-35 to the 105, then you're comparing apples to oranges...

if you must compare bokeh, then do it with different lenses at the same aperture and focal length...

i'm not suggesting that good vs bad bokeh doesn't exist, just that it's completely subjective


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:46 pm
Posts: 120
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:08 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ken wrote:
it's marketing...

bokeh is just the mystification of out of focus rendering that is used to try to differentiate lenses and therefore convince some people to spend more money to obtain 'better' bokeh...

it's completely subjective and highly dependent on the subject and luminance of a scene that is being photographed...

other than the objective differences in shape that highlights are rendered - see above for examples at different f stops (function of the number of aperture blades), it's mostly fluff...

any lens shot wide open will usually render fairly round highlights...


I'd disagree that it's marketing or completely subjective. There have been a number of comparisons done that pretty well demonstrate that some lenses handle OOF areas better than others, as well as the transition from in-focus to Out of Focus. While said performance is very much influenced by outside factors, you can standardize them (Same scene, same light) to determine which lenses have the best oof rendering.

Good Bokeh comes down to smooth transitions and round highlights. The smoother the better. That's it, that's all.

While I hate to link to Ken Rockwell, he did an excellent comparison of OOF rendering here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm
He does however ignore what is in my opinion the more important side of Bokeh, the transition from in-focus to out of focus. This is the more important issue for shallow-dof portraiture (as you'll usually have a fairly blank background thrown massively out of focus anyways). As usual with Ken, ignore the comments and look at the evidence.

Note that Bokeh was not the invention of a marketing department, but rather an issue popularized by a technical photo magazine editor by the name of Mike Johnston (he's now the main writer behind The Online Photographer).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:15 pm
Posts: 563
Location: Every Action has a Reaction
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ken wrote:
Shelley wrote:
Ken wrote:
it's marketing...

bokeh is just the mystification of out of focus rendering that is used to try to differentiate lenses and therefore convince some people to spend more money to obtain 'better' bokeh...

it's completely subjective and highly dependent on the subject and luminance of a scene that is being photographed...

other than the objective differences in shape that highlights are rendered - see above for examples at different f stops (function of the number of aperture blades), it's mostly fluff...

any lens shot wide open will usually render fairly round highlights...


I find the 'bokeh' on the 17-35mm Nikkor to be very poor. I guess that is because it is a wide angle lens.

The 105mm f2 DC lens is sweet.


that may be the case but if yuo're comparing the 17-35 to the 105, then you're comparing apples to oranges...

if you must compare bokeh, then do it with different lenses at the same aperture and focal length...

i'm not suggesting that good vs bad bokeh doesn't exist, just that it's completely subjective


I'm not comparing lenses.. but no matter.. Mawz said it better than me. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:30 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:52 pm
Posts: 1669
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
mawz wrote:

I'd disagree that it's marketing or completely subjective. There have been a number of comparisons done that pretty well demonstrate that some lenses handle OOF areas better than others, as well as the transition from in-focus to Out of Focus. While said performance is very much influenced by outside factors, you can standardize them (Same scene, same light) to determine which lenses have the best oof rendering.

Good Bokeh comes down to smooth transitions and round highlights. The smoother the better. That's it, that's all.

While I hate to link to Ken Rockwell, he did an excellent comparison of OOF rendering here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm
He does however ignore what is in my opinion the more important side of Bokeh, the transition from in-focus to out of focus. This is the more important issue for shallow-dof portraiture (as you'll usually have a fairly blank background thrown massively out of focus anyways). As usual with Ken, ignore the comments and look at the evidence.

Note that Bokeh was not the invention of a marketing department, but rather an issue popularized by a technical photo magazine editor by the name of Mike Johnston (he's now the main writer behind The Online Photographer).


the Rockwell comparison while technically sound underlines my point... if you look at any of the magnified OOF shots the variances are not that substantial and certainly only qualitatively different and prefers for one over others are going to be entirely subjective... the only images worth comparing are the ones all shot at f5.6 and there isn't much to choose between them... and of course he couldn't compare apples to apples when shooting each lens wide open because each of them has a different max aperture...

i'd be interested if looking at a comparison of someone shooting all the different 50/1.8 lenses at max aperture of the same scene with the same film with a camera on a tripod and then trying to differentiate the bokeh... i highly doubt there would be much visible differences....

your very definition of good bokeh (smooth transitions and round highlights is subjective... and dependent on the image that is being shot... what is smooth to you may not be smooth to another person... round highlights can be more quantified but in most cases when you shoot wide open, you'll get reasonably round highlights...

you are right about bokeh not being marketing fluff, i should have said that it's something lens enthusiasts created to manage cognitive dissonance ...

OOF rendering is more a function of focal length, same max aperature and perhaps most importantly the distance between the lens, subject and background (things being rendered OOF)... if all these variables remain constant and you shoot different lenses, the bokeh won't vary significantly and certainly not quantitatively...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:41 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ken wrote:
the Rockwell comparison while technically sound underlines my point... if you look at any of the magnified OOF shots the variances are not that substantial and certainly only qualitatively different and prefers for one over others are going to be entirely subjective...


At small apertures you are correct, it's going to be fairly subtle and somewhat subjective given most modern lens designs (A mirror lens will be a whole other issue)

Ken wrote:
your very definition of good bokeh (smooth transitions and round highlights is subjective... and dependent on the image that is being shot... what is smooth to you may not be smooth to another person... round highlights can be more quantified but in most cases when you shoot wide open, you'll get reasonably round highlights...


I've yet to run across a usable definition of 'Good Bokeh' that doesn't come down to those two items (Ken Rockwell's definition non-withstanding). Bokeh is very much scene dependent but not IMHO subjective for the most part (some subtle differences do come down to preference, but the major differences are pretty well accepted as objective measures). And yes, round highlights wide open are nice, but that alone does not make good bokeh (since the transitions between the round highlights needs to be smooth rather than sharp, just having round highlights doesn't make for good bokeh), and even if it did, it only does at wide open, stopping down a couple of stops does matter and that's why circular apertures and/or lots of blades matters for bokeh. The basic measures for 'Good Bokeh' are easily quantifiable and therefore aren't subjective in the least. Smooth transitions and round highlights are good bokeh, rough transitions and polygonal or doubled highlights are bad bokeh.


Ken wrote:
you are right about bokeh not being marketing fluff, i should have said that it's something lens enthusiasts created to manage cognitive dissonance ...


And that's assuredly true.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:50 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:52 pm
Posts: 1669
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
mawz wrote:
Ken wrote:
the Rockwell comparison while technically sound underlines my point... if you look at any of the magnified OOF shots the variances are not that substantial and certainly only qualitatively different and prefers for one over others are going to be entirely subjective...


At small apertures you are correct, it's going to be fairly subtle and somewhat subjective given most modern lens designs (A mirror lens will be a whole other issue)

Ken wrote:
your very definition of good bokeh (smooth transitions and round highlights is subjective... and dependent on the image that is being shot... what is smooth to you may not be smooth to another person... round highlights can be more quantified but in most cases when you shoot wide open, you'll get reasonably round highlights...


I've yet to run across a usable definition of 'Good Bokeh' that doesn't come down to those two items (Ken Rockwell's definition non-withstanding). Bokeh is very much scene dependent but not IMHO subjective for the most part (some subtle differences do come down to preference, but the major differences are pretty well accepted as objective measures). And yes, round highlights wide open are nice, but that alone does not make good bokeh (since the transitions between the round highlights needs to be smooth rather than sharp, just having round highlights doesn't make for good bokeh), and even if it did, it only does at wide open, stopping down a couple of stops does matter and that's why circular apertures and/or lots of blades matters for bokeh. The basic measures for 'Good Bokeh' are easily quantifiable and therefore aren't subjective in the least. Smooth transitions and round highlights are good bokeh, rough transitions and polygonal or doubled highlights are bad bokeh.


Ken wrote:
you are right about bokeh not being marketing fluff, i should have said that it's something lens enthusiasts created to manage cognitive dissonance ...


And that's assuredly true.


good bokeh vs. bad bokeh in relation to different lenses shot at the same aperture (presumably wide open) of the same scene... can you show me quantitative differences? i doubt it...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:05 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Scarberia
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Try thinking in terms of "smoother" or "less smooth" rather than smooth or not.

The Ken Rockwell page actually does a pretty good job of illustrating how each lens handles bokeh at 85/5.6 _and_ also what might be considered the best bokeh each lens is capable of, at it's max aperture wideopen.

For some consumer lens that top out at f5.6 at the long end, at least reading this page gives some nice examples of why the Nikon 16-85VR or Canon 17-85IS simply _cannot_ give you that lovely background blur in certain circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:18 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Ken wrote:

good bokeh vs. bad bokeh in relation to different lenses shot at the same aperture (presumably wide open) of the same scene... can you show me quantitative differences? i doubt it...


Hmm, Nikkor 50mm f1.4, Pentax FA 50mm f1.4, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar, Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm f2, Summicron 50mm f2 all at f2 on test? I suspect you'd see some definite quantitative differences. Having owned two of those lenses (the Nikkor and the Pentax), the Pentax had distinctly better bokeh, although sadly I never did a direct comparison (Barely shot with the 50/1.4 when I had it, never much liked that lens, very harsh oof areas).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group