Author Topic: Bokeh  (Read 5729 times)

Biggsy

  • a bodge too far
  • twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Bokeh
« Reply #100 on: November 16, 2011, 09:08:02 AM »
I don't doubt that bokeh exists, but is there a huge amount of difference in bokeh amongst the typical lenses that most of us are chosing between?  To be absolutely convinced I'd need to see comparisons with the same scene and same DOF.
●●●  Cycle Computer Mini Magnets  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

rogerzilla

  • l33t h4X0r
Re: Bokeh
« Reply #101 on: November 16, 2011, 06:46:28 PM »
The best difference I can show you would be between a 50mm Leitz Elmar and Summicron (version 2) at about f/4.  The Elmar gives a creamy blur but the Summicron is a bit double-imagey.

The modern aspherical lenses are generally poor for smooth bokeh.  My 35mm Summarit has no aspherics and is said to be as good as the old "bokeh king" pre-aspherical Summicron - it is pretty inoffensive, anyway.  However, you never get much blur with a 35mm lens unless it is an f/1.4.
Never tell me the odds.

Re: Bokeh
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2012, 03:07:32 PM »
From another thread:

Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: Bokeh
« Reply #103 on: April 23, 2012, 04:33:14 PM »
Love that, PO. 

If Bokeh is 'shiny things out of focus', then here's one of mine:


Charlotte

  • Dissolute libertine
  • Coffee snob and pencil fetishist
    • velopoly
Re: Bokeh
« Reply #104 on: April 23, 2012, 04:43:56 PM »
Is that in Paris, Mike?


Cadenas d'amour by lyope, on Flickr
Note that the self-called Admin woman also can't control herself.

Re: Bokeh
« Reply #105 on: April 23, 2012, 04:46:16 PM »
dammit, I've been out-padlocked!  Florence, dahlink.

ed_o_brain

Re: Bokeh
« Reply #106 on: April 29, 2012, 11:16:51 PM »
Some reasonable bokeh from the af-s nikkor 18-105 f3.5-5.6:


The Journey 3 by Daniel Cadden Photo, on Flickr