foto_fool
Well-known
Some comments: 1) I like where this thread is going 
. 2) When you add pics, PLEASE tell everyone what lens/aperture/film/body you used, if you can recall. 3) Let's do more than just display bokeh - please describe what and why you like or dislike, and whay you think you got the result you did - some are and it keeps it interesting.
Some observations: 1) Ned's first post - where the whole thing is a bit OOF but the real OOF element that balances the pic is someone's sleeve (maybe?) in the foreground - got me thinking about whether and how lenses render foreground OOF different from background OOF. I can't recall seeing circles or donuts from OOF foreground highlights. But then I don't think I've seen many (any) shots that HAVE OOF foreground highlights - verboten in our brains? 2) My earlier comment about geometric regularity in the background helping smooth double-line bokeh - clearly refuted by Todd's last shot of the antique car - man, that's odd-looking. 3) keithwms - thanks for posting the LF shots at f8 - good to see subject isolation in something that is not shot at f1-2. 4) Swirly bokeh may be sometimes hard to look at, but it really does seem to go hand-in-glove with enhanced 3D rendering of the in-focus elements. 4) Is it just me, or does it look to others as though the Sonnar-design lenses are more prone than others to circle bokeh in background highlights?
- John
. 2) When you add pics, PLEASE tell everyone what lens/aperture/film/body you used, if you can recall. 3) Let's do more than just display bokeh - please describe what and why you like or dislike, and whay you think you got the result you did - some are and it keeps it interesting. Some observations: 1) Ned's first post - where the whole thing is a bit OOF but the real OOF element that balances the pic is someone's sleeve (maybe?) in the foreground - got me thinking about whether and how lenses render foreground OOF different from background OOF. I can't recall seeing circles or donuts from OOF foreground highlights. But then I don't think I've seen many (any) shots that HAVE OOF foreground highlights - verboten in our brains? 2) My earlier comment about geometric regularity in the background helping smooth double-line bokeh - clearly refuted by Todd's last shot of the antique car - man, that's odd-looking. 3) keithwms - thanks for posting the LF shots at f8 - good to see subject isolation in something that is not shot at f1-2. 4) Swirly bokeh may be sometimes hard to look at, but it really does seem to go hand-in-glove with enhanced 3D rendering of the in-focus elements. 4) Is it just me, or does it look to others as though the Sonnar-design lenses are more prone than others to circle bokeh in background highlights?
- John
ferider
Mentor
Thanks for all the pictures everybody. Abbazz, this second shot of yours is about the best shallow DOF application that I have seen so far !!!
John,
4) I agree with that one.
5) Not sure. Some do and some don't. The Nikkor 50/1.4, 80/2 and Canon 50/1.5 do wide open, in my experience, the Nikkor 105/2.5 and the C-Sonnar do not. I think it has to do which how much they have been optimized for resolution.
1) These type of shots are very rare, indeed. There was a thread about this on RFF a while back. Here is an example with foreground OOF, same Canon lens as used in my bad bokeh example above, but producing really nice foreground OOF:
I find "bad bokeh" more distracting in portraits, in general.
Please keep the examples coming. And do remember to
include lens/aperture/film/body information.
Best,
Roland.
John,
foto_fool said:
4) I agree with that one.
5) Not sure. Some do and some don't. The Nikkor 50/1.4, 80/2 and Canon 50/1.5 do wide open, in my experience, the Nikkor 105/2.5 and the C-Sonnar do not. I think it has to do which how much they have been optimized for resolution.
1) These type of shots are very rare, indeed. There was a thread about this on RFF a while back. Here is an example with foreground OOF, same Canon lens as used in my bad bokeh example above, but producing really nice foreground OOF:
I find "bad bokeh" more distracting in portraits, in general.
Please keep the examples coming. And do remember to
include lens/aperture/film/body information.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
monochromejrnl
Well-known
Zeiss-opton 50/1.5 Sonnar, Kodak Gold 100 @ f1.5, 1/25th sec
bankcheck
Established
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Zeiss Biogon @ f2.0 (finally an RF image huh..)
Dave
Dave
jja
Well-known
Dave, I missed the bokeh part of your photos b/c the eyes of every one of your subjects were so beautifully captured. Great work.
foto_fool
Well-known
Roland - the swirly bokeh thing - is it a chicken and egg question? Do lenses that make swirly bokeh intrinsically render more dimensionality, or is it how we percieve the swirly that creates an illusion of 3D?
Thanks for the front OOF example. Here is my contribution (this was deliberate believe it or not):
ZM Sonnar C on R-D1 @f2.0. The highlights in my friend's glasses are really all I have to show, but they do seem smoother to me than background OOF with this lens.
Your second good bokeh example looks like Romanoff royalty.
Gabriel - I like the hanging basket shot. It shows distracting (to me) bokeh in the trees, but then goes to the idea that the geometric regularity of the bricks seems to soften the effect. The Summilux shot - circles and footballs? I'm comparing this one to Maddoc's shots and it looks to me like the harsh bokeh effect is more pronounced when the lighting in the background is greater than that on the in-focus subjects. Dave's 4th shot seems show the opposite effect.
- John
Thanks for the front OOF example. Here is my contribution (this was deliberate believe it or not):
ZM Sonnar C on R-D1 @f2.0. The highlights in my friend's glasses are really all I have to show, but they do seem smoother to me than background OOF with this lens.
Your second good bokeh example looks like Romanoff royalty
. Gabriel - I like the hanging basket shot. It shows distracting (to me) bokeh in the trees, but then goes to the idea that the geometric regularity of the bricks seems to soften the effect. The Summilux shot - circles and footballs? I'm comparing this one to Maddoc's shots and it looks to me like the harsh bokeh effect is more pronounced when the lighting in the background is greater than that on the in-focus subjects. Dave's 4th shot seems show the opposite effect.
- John
Bryce
Well-known
Back in post 19, I attached an image which I can't re-post.
Here's the story. I for some reason a year or two ago wondered how the world would look through a lens with a very non circular iris... like a cat's eye.
So I tried it. I made a cardboard iris with a slit like a cat's pupil, and attached it to the front of an 85mm F/2 lens. The slit was about 3 mm wide at the middle, and about 40 mm tall.
The lens was an m42 version Jupiter 9 attached to a Pentax dslr.
Here's the story. I for some reason a year or two ago wondered how the world would look through a lens with a very non circular iris... like a cat's eye.
So I tried it. I made a cardboard iris with a slit like a cat's pupil, and attached it to the front of an 85mm F/2 lens. The slit was about 3 mm wide at the middle, and about 40 mm tall.
The lens was an m42 version Jupiter 9 attached to a Pentax dslr.
foto_fool
Well-known
Bryce - cool experiment and I love the image - very beautiful OOF. I'm no whiz at optics but AFAIK the aperture needs to be behind the front element at least - you have done something, but I don't think you captured the reality of a cat's vision. Might be worth taking a lens apart...
Digitalintrigue - FINALLY someone posts a shot with "the king"!
- John
Digitalintrigue - FINALLY someone posts a shot with "the king"!
- John
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
ferider said:
Thanks, Roland. As all 3 pictures were taken wide open at f/1.2, DOF was pretty thin indeed.
Cheers,
Abbazz
kevin m
Mentor
Dave, those were nice! The more I see of that Biogon 35 the more impressed I am. It seems to have all the good attributes of the pre-asph Leica lenses all the way down to f2.0...pretty cool!
mauro scacco
Established
summicron M 50
summicron M 50
summicron M 50
Last edited:
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
kevin m said:
Thanks Kev.
I've got Cindy Flood's ASPH cron waiting for me somewhere in Canada Posts coffers - hopefully *crosses fingers* I'll get it today.
I plan on doing a comparison b/w the ASPH and the ZM 35 - for the money's sake, I hope the ZM wins out but hey... who knows
Dave
mauro scacco
Established
summicron 90
summicron 90
summicron 90
mauro scacco
Established
contax sonnar f 1,5
contax sonnar f 1,5
contax sonnar f 1,5
chambrenoire
Well-known
Nikon D70 + old Nikkor-S 55/1.2 lens
Nikon D70 + old Nikkor-S 55/1.2 lens
Mom
Greens
Nikon D70 + old Nikkor-S 55/1.2 lens
Mom
Greens
Ororaro
Well-known
Gabriel M.A. said:
Gabriel,
You're always making it a point to make a point about how people are posting large images so you decide to post large ones too so you can choke all the computers.
I don't see large images. They are all about 500x700 72dpi... which is very small.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Images that are 500x700 @ 72dpi (and as long as they were saved properly) can be pretty small....I've got a 600x900 pixel image that's only 68kb.
That said, I think Gabe is talking about dimensions and depending on your screen size.. a 600x900 image can be huge
I still try to ensure my website is available to those with 800x600 resolution...
Dave
That said, I think Gabe is talking about dimensions and depending on your screen size.. a 600x900 image can be huge
I still try to ensure my website is available to those with 800x600 resolution...
Dave
ferider
Mentor
Halloween bokeh, kind of ugly if you ask me:
Canon 50/1.2, probably Superia 400.
Roland.
Canon 50/1.2, probably Superia 400.
Roland.
venchka
Mentor
From the 50mm Dual Range Summicron Samples Thread
From the 50mm Dual Range Summicron Samples Thread
You've seen most of these before. I'm wondering. With all of the chatter about the v. 4 35mm Summicron being the "King of Bokeh", I reckon the 51.9 mm DR Summicron gives it a run for the title. All of these are at 1:2.0 or maybe 1:2.8. I hope the last one isn't too big for your monitor.
From the 50mm Dual Range Summicron Samples Thread
You've seen most of these before. I'm wondering. With all of the chatter about the v. 4 35mm Summicron being the "King of Bokeh", I reckon the 51.9 mm DR Summicron gives it a run for the title. All of these are at 1:2.0 or maybe 1:2.8. I hope the last one isn't too big for your monitor.