Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,705   Posts: 1,482,756   Online: 1035
      
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 128
  1. #31
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,458
    Colonel, welcome to APUG!
    To get an idea of how the bokeh of different lenses looks, check out flickr. Put in a specific camera and lens, and there is likely a collection of photographs from that combination there. Doing a general search for "(camera) (lens) bokeh" may well be productive.
    There is no singular subjective judgment of bokeh. Some people like "swirly" bokeh, which gives others a headache. Some people just don't like bokeh which to their eye is too "smooth".
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South Wales
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    21
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	red berries.jpg 
Views:	114 
Size:	316.4 KB 
ID:	67493

    Here is a striking example of unconventional (by modern standards) MF bokeh. Rollei (Zeiss) Planar 80/2.8 on an SL66SE. It's not smooth and buttery (the current buzz words) but it's pleasing in its own way ...

  3. #33
    Arcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    54
    Of all the lenses I have I actually like the oof area of the uncoated 105mm f3.5 Skopar on my antique Voigtlander Bessa folder. I have Tessar-type lenses for other cameras, but this one has a nice look that I like the best.

    Untitled by mariner04, on Flickr

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I was looking for the "perfect" bokeh and bought a LensBaby. Didn't workout. I sold it. I'm still wanting a Petzval lens, but it's out of my budget. Sure makes a beautiful swirly blur.
    Petzvals were designed as a fast portrait lens. When used as intended, there are no swirlies - the focal length was long for the intended format, and all the swirly stuff landed on the insides of the camera. The central zone of a Petzval is very sharp.

  5. #35
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,723
    Images
    6

    That's why I lust after them..

    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Petzvals were designed as a fast portrait lens. When used as intended, there are no swirlies - the focal length was long for the intended format, and all the swirly stuff landed on the insides of the camera. The central zone of a Petzval is very sharp.
    Ah, but some day, I'll have one. I've got serious Petzval GAS.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Ah, but some day, I'll have one. I've got serious Petzval GAS.
    Be careful, if you look at those swirlies long enough, the opthalmologist will give you a puppy.

  7. #37
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,953
    Images
    12
    This thread belongs in the bulshitters thread!

    a) blade count is mostly irrelevant for bokeh because generally (unless there are very few) you can't count 'em in the image. There are lenses with few blades and beautiful bokeh (e.g. CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 with hexagons)
    b) the dominant factor for smooth bokeh in a traditional lens is the presence of spherical aberration. It dims the edges of the blur discs, thereby reducing hard edges
    c) the ultimate bokeh machine is the Minolta/Sony 135 STF due to the presence of its apodisation filter. You get blur gaussians not blur discs, therefore absolutely NO hard edges in the OOF area. It's like taking a defocused image of a defocused image...
    d) second choice are the sink-strainer lenses as seen on some MF systems
    e) anyone who thinks poorly of Mamiya bokeh# - on the basis of half-remembered internet "wisdom" - needs a good slap.


    # or any major brand. They all have "good" and "bad" lenses and if you stick to primes, the bad are few and far between. You can get horrific bokeh from super-zooms though - again with the correction of SA to enhance sharpness often causes nisen bokeh.

  8. #38
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,723
    Images
    6

    Really?

    Didn't know that about aperture blades and Bokeh.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  9. #39
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,133
    Images
    210
    Also I have seen others mention the Mamiya Rz67(or RB67) but what about the RZ67 paired with the 110 f/2.8 lens? That will actually be fairly close to the 50mm (probably more like 58mm if my calculations aren't totally off and please correct me if I'm wrong) and the DOF would actually be shallower than the 35mm camera with a 50mm f1.4 lens according to Thomas' calculations in post #16

    And the RZ67 series is really inexpensive right now compared to the Hassleblad with comparable optics for sure, the Mamiya RZ67 is a great system and also backward compatible with RB67 lenses. Both of which are inexpensive compared to others right now.

    Please feel free to correct any errors I made.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #40
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Didn't know that about aperture blades and Bokeh.
    Yep.
    Diaphragm shape only affects bokeh when the shape can be imaged to some degree in the picture. That is most noticeable with a distinct out-of-focus highlight, because it stands out. In fact, if a lens wide open renders Oof highlights as discs with very bright edges, any shape of diaphragm may well produce a more pleasing bokeh as it cuts off the outside of those discs, leaving a more even Oof highlight in the shape of the diaphragm.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin