Yet Another Cycling Forum

Random Musings => Gallery => Phototalk => Topic started by: rogerzilla on 11 May, 2011, 06:53:04 pm

Title: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 11 May, 2011, 06:53:04 pm
Gosh.

76 Amazing Examples of Bokeh Photography « Artatm – Creative Art Magazine (http://artatm.com/2010/07/76-amazing-examples-of-bokeh-photography/)

Some lenses have it, some don't.  My 1950s Leitz Elmar (4 element Tessar design) gives wonderfully smooth background blur, the collapsible Leitz Summicron (7 element Gauss design) I briefly had was horrible, with a real double image effect.

This Leica Noctilux shot, which I didn't take (a Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 is about £7,000) made me gasp, although it's as much heat haze as bokeh.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/5540689893_4493a86734_b.jpg

More amazing shots in this thread:

The ultimate Bokeh thread; pics please - Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50489)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: LindaG on 11 May, 2011, 09:41:32 pm
My daughter took this. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pokes/5669787229/)  I thought it was rather good.

Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: perpetual dan on 11 May, 2011, 10:13:22 pm
Theres some rather nice images there, although I always took bokeh to be background rather than the only thing in the image - which isn't a criticism of the more abstract images and I'm happy to be corrected.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: frankly frankie on 11 May, 2011, 10:21:58 pm
Most ultra-narrow depth of field effects are just willy-waving, no real pictorial merit that I can see.

Not necessarily a comment on the images linked so far, just my general view on blurry photos.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: pcolbeck on 12 May, 2011, 10:17:39 am
I like it in the right context. Good for portrait and macro particularly.

Some of the latest Fiji cameras including the point and shoot compacts have a way of faking shallow depth of field. They take two pictures one in focus and one out of focus and then combine the two. Clever way of doing it in auto mode.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: nicknack on 12 May, 2011, 10:19:26 am
I like it in the right context. Good for portrait and macro particularly.

Some of the latest Fiji cameras including the point and shoot compacts have a way of faking shallow depth of field. They take two pictures one in focus and one out of focus and then combine the two. Clever way of doing it in auto mode.

Good for pics of palm trees against blurred ocean?
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: pcolbeck on 12 May, 2011, 10:58:11 am
Oops :)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: tonycollinet on 15 May, 2011, 08:33:50 am
Many of the shots in the first link (although interesting in their own right) display  bokeh qualities that you don't want in a lens. That is: hard edged OOF highlights. Normally you want those highlights to be soft edged.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 May, 2011, 09:45:08 am
Yes, "ideal" bokeh has OOF points with intense brightness in the centre, fading to the outside of the blur circle.  Basically it's uncorrected spherical aberration.

The nastiest bokeh of any lens I've used was with a collapsible Leica Summicron at f/2.8 (look at the twigs bottom right).  The next generation of 'cron was much better, although no 50mm 'cron has ever had really good bokeh.

(http://www.peeble.com/cron5.jpg)

Apparently some current Canon prime lenses have really good bokeh, and Nikon do a DC lens which is actually designed to make the effect adjustable.

There's a good article on Ken Rockwell's site: Bokeh (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Jaded on 15 May, 2011, 09:47:22 am
Surely the worst bokeh is seen on mirror lenses?
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 May, 2011, 10:13:26 am
Oh yes, they're famously horrible.  Does anyone still make them?  500mm f/8 used to be a common specification, but you needed very fast film all the time (sports photographers stuck with their 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 telephotos, which cost as much as a car and are the size of a Saturn V rocket).  Maybe slow mirror lenses are in vogue again with low-noise digital sensors, I don't know.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: David Martin on 15 May, 2011, 07:47:46 pm
Well, here is some recent mirror lens bokeh action..

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5676576481_2c0679cc57.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/5676576481/)
DSC_6181 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/5676576481/) by davidmamartin (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmam/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Biggsy on 15 May, 2011, 08:24:49 pm
^ Some doughnuts are visible there if you look closely.  Not that I think doughnuts are so bad :D

Slow mirror lenses still sell on eBay - to digital photographers - just because they're cheap and small compared to normal long telephotos.

The Tokina 500mm f8 I acquired is not as sharp as a budget 55-300mm f5.6 zoom with a 1.5X converter.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 26 May, 2011, 02:41:40 pm
I've no idea whether this Bokeh is good or bad, I tend to use shallow depth of field to isolate detail.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5761740540_3cfe04110f_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 26 May, 2011, 05:41:42 pm
Most would say bad because of the double image effect.  What lens is it?
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 26 May, 2011, 06:47:17 pm
Most would say bad because of the double image effect.  What lens is it?

The 18-55 kit lens on the Sony NEX 5.
It has the virtue of being very easy to use, and with the 16 mm pancake lens it's very portable.

This was after the Portmahomack 400k Audax.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/5712325049_bcfd6ea009_z.jpg)

I bought the camera to get some expensive looking 'filmic' video effects, and it's good for that.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Ivo on 26 May, 2011, 06:52:58 pm
Oh yes, they're famously horrible.  Does anyone still make them?  500mm f/8 used to be a common specification, but you needed very fast film all the time (sports photographers stuck with their 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 telephotos, which cost as much as a car and are the size of a Saturn V rocket).  Maybe slow mirror lenses are in vogue again with low-noise digital sensors, I don't know.

I own a Panagor 5.6/300 and a Russian made 8.0/500. Occasionally I use them.

(http://fotoalbum.dds.nl/ivo_m/ijsselcup2007/large/IMGP6108.jpg)
5.6/300

(http://fotoalbum.dds.nl/ivo_m/ijsselcup2007/large/IMGP6406.jpg)
8.0/500

I must admit that I prefer a 'real' 500mm above the mirror. Still it's a handy one to have, doesn't cost much and easy to transport.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Jakob on 26 May, 2011, 06:53:21 pm
My favourite lens for this: Nikon 50mm f1.4

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2933943516_5b7e03f0bd_z.jpg)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2258036503_4f692073c5_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 08 June, 2011, 03:26:00 pm
Inspired by this 'bokeh' idea I looked around to see what lenses I had about the house. The most obvious candidates were a couple of Industar 61s on some old FEDs. Lots of people have posted good things about the bokeh from these. They are 39mm Leica screw mount. An adapter for my Sony NEX 5 cost £17.99. The NEX can be set to give a magnification of 7x and 14x for focus assist via a manual button, the camera is set to fire without a lens on aperture priority. You can vary the exposure + or- or set to full manual. So you have a digital camera with manual focus and exposure control and a lens of 80mm equivalent and f2.8.
I took a picture of a garden trolley with the Sony kit zoom at 55mm, the widest it will go at that focal length is f5.6
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2169/5811981528_56cec17cb6_z.jpg)

I then took a similar shot with the Industar, it's 53mm at f2.8.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/5811981540_4a4aa94e52_z.jpg)

I'll experiment with it as a portrait lens, and of course I can take full HD video, although I'll need a tripod because it's unstabilised.

I got an M42 adapter for the same price, as I've got a Carl Zeiss Jena off a Practika and some macro tubes to play with.


Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2011, 07:49:21 pm
I start to understand what it all means. The bokeh from a Carl Zeiss Jena 29mm f2.8 is very different.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/5820648079_3f461924d9_z.jpg)

I went in search of a subject that would show the difference between the kit lens on the NEX and the Industar 61 both fully open at f2.8 and stopped down to f8

I decided to use our local Centurion tank surrounded by cornfield flowers.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/5820640333_6fc50aa51a_z.jpg)

That's the f2.8 Industar. and this is what the out of focus flowers are like.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5062/5821201404_1b2d87261f_z.jpg)


The kit lens couldn't approach that shallow depth of field, this is what it came up with in 'Intelligent Auto', it doesn't seem to recognise armoured fighting vehicles among flowers, but it's a good effort. The Industar shot was fully manual, 200 ASA.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2699/5821205438_d9960bcd1f_z.jpg)

Bokeh set - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26102994@N05/sets/72157626812976585/with/5821205438/)



Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 11 June, 2011, 07:56:53 pm
A couple of mine:

Good bokeh (Leitz Elmar red scale 5cm at f/4)

(http://www.peeble.com/pond.jpg)

Bad bokeh (Leitz Summicron collapsible 5cm at f/2.8 )

(http://www.peeble.com/cron5.jpg)

What you want is an Airy disc which is brighter in the centre than at the edges.  A perfect lens gives a uniformly-illuminated Airy disc, which is "neutral" bokeh rather than "good" bokeh.  Some lenses, like the 'cron, have an Airy disc which is brighter at the edges than in the centre, which emphasises lines which should be out of focus by turning them into double images.

Nikon make a DC (Defocus Control) lens which is supposed to be brilliant.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2011, 08:26:32 pm
A bit of reading shows that the Elmar and the Industar have a joint Tessar heritage. I remember a previous thread where Ivo praised the Industar.
They're commonest on Feds, so I assume that they are best suited to digitals with a short lens to sensor distance, such as E Mount Sonys and Micro 4/3s. Daisies, Poppies and campions are all at their best now and make a good subject for this I think, as they occur in drifts. Road embankments and cuttings are often a good place.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Ivo on 12 June, 2011, 05:12:36 am
I was especially praising the Jupiter 9. What you want is an excessive amount of diafragma blades. Nowadays 6 or 8 is usual. If you have the real sweet stuff from the past that can go up to 69, creating a near perfect circle for the diafragma in stead of a angular one.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 12 June, 2011, 08:18:40 am
The diaphragm has some effect, but spherical aberration is the main factor.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: LEE on 13 June, 2011, 04:43:59 pm
I use a digital compact and therefore, due to sensor size/focal length, have a very limited ability to blur the background.

I use Photoshop's "Gaussian Blur" a lot when I want to separate a subject from a background.  It's quite effective.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 13 June, 2011, 07:07:14 pm
I use a digital compact and therefore, due to sensor size/focal length, have a very limited ability to blur the background.

I use Photoshop's "Gaussian Blur" a lot when I want to separate a subject from a background.  It's quite effective.

Difficult to do with video though.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 13 June, 2011, 07:22:56 pm
Gaussian blur is also quite different to real OOF blur.  There is software that can simulate the latter reasonably well.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Tewdric on 13 June, 2011, 08:45:10 pm
Leica 75mm f1.4 blur is hard to beat..

(http://www.reb.co.uk/neverthebride/ntb_files/image005.gif)

Taken with my old M6, which I miss very much..
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 13 June, 2011, 09:36:26 pm
I would say "go and buy an M3, they're only £500 from a dealer and much nicer than an M6" but then I realised they only have 50/90/135 framelines.

The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Ivo on 14 June, 2011, 12:21:06 am
The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.

Does it?

(http://fotoalbum.dds.nl/ivo_m/straatoptredens/large/IMGP9980.jpg)

Ok, an 1.4/85 gives you more room to play with (Samyang in my case)

(http://fotoalbum.dds.nl/ivo_m/straatoptredens/large/IMGP9867.jpg)

(http://fotoalbum.dds.nl/ivo_m/straatoptredens/large/IMGP9818.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Charlotte on 14 June, 2011, 04:27:05 pm
Taken last night, wide open with my lovely Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yIU40YAfVF4/TfaIBaze9yI/AAAAAAAAD2o/2tCoZW11qFE/s512/D7K_5550.JPG)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Biggsy on 14 June, 2011, 04:44:54 pm
Bad bokeh (Leitz Summicron collapsible 5cm at f/2.8 )

(http://www.peeble.com/cron5.jpg)

I would be interested to see a comparison of good and bad bokeh with precisely the same scene and DOF - with a difficult background like in the above.

I'm not yet absolutely convinced that that unpleasant appearance of the blurred twigs/leaves is all down to bad bokeh.  Seeing an example of good bokeh (with a different lens) with a different scene isn't enough even when it features a similar subject.  Subtle differences in the subject can make a large difference to the appearance in the photos, not to mention differences of distances and DOF as well.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Riggers on 14 June, 2011, 04:51:42 pm
Advanced Bokeh:


(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b176/Riggers_1956/FredTrumanCat.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 14 June, 2011, 05:09:17 pm
Shouldn't that be Trueman, you're just not focussing on this are you?
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: tonycollinet on 14 June, 2011, 08:46:14 pm
The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.

Interestingly any focal length lens has the same DOF with the same aperture and the same SUBJECT magnification. That is if you take a picture with a 35mm and a 60mm lens so that the subject fills the same area of the frame (35mm lens will be at 1/2 the distance of the 60mm), and at the same aperture, then the DOF will be the same.

However, the background on the 60mm image will look softer, because the narrower field of view effectively expands half the amount of background to fill the frame - and hence also expands the blurred area of background making it look less "busy"
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 14 June, 2011, 08:52:46 pm
This is true, but the perspective of a wide angle lens tends to preclude certain subjects close-up to get the equivalent image size (e.g. full-face portraits) so in practice you do see greater DOF.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Ivo on 14 June, 2011, 09:27:26 pm
How do you explain the differences between my 35mm and 85mm shot on the previous page? The aperture of the 35mm was 2.4, of the 85mm was 3.2. The DOF of the 85 is clearly a lot thinner, despite the longer distance to the subject.
A longer lens will allways have a shallower DOF then a wider lens. Even when you crop the photo of the wider lens. Of course aperture shouldn't be too different.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 14 June, 2011, 09:45:08 pm
There was a series of photos in the "A" level standard text which showed this quite clearly.  You can stand 3 metres away with a 35mm lens or 9 metres away with a 105mm lens and still get the same subject size with everything in focus at (say) f/8.  The actual DOF from the subject to infinity is the same; it just seems as if the 105mm has less depth of field because everything is further away.

In your 35mm/85mm shots, the subject's head fills more of the frame in the 85mm shot; possibly 50% more.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: tonycollinet on 14 June, 2011, 10:52:18 pm

In your 35mm/85mm shots, the subject's head fills more of the frame in the 85mm shot; possibly 50% more.

This - although by my measurement 40% more which will result in shallower dof.

It's worth pointing out, that the "same DOF rule" also only applies when the subject distance is relatively small compared with the hyperfocal distance.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: chris on 15 June, 2011, 10:30:57 pm
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p23/chris415700/IMG_5722.jpg)

Canon 100-400 zoom @ 400mm f8.0.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 16 June, 2011, 05:52:29 pm
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/5839930912_4a645c1515_z.jpg)

16mm Sony lens with +3 dioptre filter. f11 1/160
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: iakobski on 16 June, 2011, 06:15:08 pm
The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.

Interestingly any focal length lens has the same DOF with the same aperture and the same SUBJECT magnification. That is if you take a picture with a 35mm and a 60mm lens so that the subject fills the same area of the frame (35mm lens will be at 1/2 the distance of the 60mm), and at the same aperture, then the DOF will be the same.

However, the background on the 60mm image will look softer, because the narrower field of view effectively expands half the amount of background to fill the frame - and hence also expands the blurred area of background making it look less "busy"

That's what you'd think, logically, but in fact, no it doesn't work like that. The wider angle lens has greater DOF.

This was the first lesson at college, elventy years ago: they gave us a load of 5" x 4" sheet film, a bunch of lenses and some big white cubes. Get the same size object on the film, measure depth of field with a tape measure.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 16 June, 2011, 07:10:01 pm
DOF is independent of focal length as long as the subject distance is considerably shorter than the hyperfocal distance (i.e. the background is blurred).
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Pingu on 16 June, 2011, 10:48:59 pm
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5305/5791778374_49ec547024.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Charlotte on 16 June, 2011, 10:59:01 pm
Reminds me of this:

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-oajlI3GLS6Q/TYE6hdfdi-I/AAAAAAAAC40/n2_1bafuXIU/s512/D7K_2393.JPG)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: tonycollinet on 17 June, 2011, 12:32:31 am
The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.

Interestingly any focal length lens has the same DOF with the same aperture and the same SUBJECT magnification. That is if you take a picture with a 35mm and a 60mm lens so that the subject fills the same area of the frame (35mm lens will be at 1/2 the distance of the 60mm), and at the same aperture, then the DOF will be the same.

However, the background on the 60mm image will look softer, because the narrower field of view effectively expands half the amount of background to fill the frame - and hence also expands the blurred area of background making it look less "busy"

That's what you'd think, logically, but in fact, no it doesn't work like that.

Yes it does - here is an explanation better than anything I can conjure up....
Depth of field (http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html)

Or if you like - bang in the figures to practically any DOF calculator you care to find.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 10:09:13 am
The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.

Interestingly any focal length lens has the same DOF with the same aperture and the same SUBJECT magnification. That is if you take a picture with a 35mm and a 60mm lens so that the subject fills the same area of the frame (35mm lens will be at 1/2 the distance of the 60mm), and at the same aperture, then the DOF will be the same.

However, the background on the 60mm image will look softer, because the narrower field of view effectively expands half the amount of background to fill the frame - and hence also expands the blurred area of background making it look less "busy"

That's what you'd think, logically, but in fact, no it doesn't work like that.

Yes it does - here is an explanation better than anything I can conjure up....
Depth of field (http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html)

Or if you like - bang in the figures to practically any DOF calculator you care to find.

All you need to know about depth of field is that it depends on the physical size of the objective lens. If you look at an f2.8 telephoto lens, it has a big piece of glass at the front. An f2.8 wide angle lens looks like a pinhole by comparison. That is because the wide angle lens is gathering light from a broader area, so needs less glass to get that same value of light.
As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size. It's not the f number that changes DOF but the diameter of the objective lens. This is why the cost of cameras and lenses rises exponentially as the format size increases, everything becomes more critical in terms of focusing and exposure due to the size of the glass required, which costs more to get right, and is easier to get wrong, all the way up to the Hubble telescope.
The bigger the piece of glass on the front, the shallower the depth of field with it wide open.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: AndyK on 17 June, 2011, 10:14:14 am

As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size.

Not true. My 6x6 Rollei TLRs have smaller lenses than my 35mm rangefinders.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 10:30:43 am

As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size.

Not true. My 6x6 Rollei TLRs have smaller lenses than my 35mm rangefinders.

The objective lens will be pretty much the same size for a 50mm f 2 lens, or any value, regardless of format. On the rangefinders that is a standard lens, on the TLR that is a wide angle. I just took a look at the only TLR I have, a Lubitel 66 and the lens on that is a f4.5 75mm and it has an objective about the same size as the f2.8 50mm lens from a FED, and therefore the same DOF properties fully open.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: AndyK on 17 June, 2011, 10:35:52 am

As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size.

Not true. My 6x6 Rollei TLRs have smaller lenses than my 35mm rangefinders.

The objective lens will be pretty much the same size for a 50mm f 2 lens, or any value, regardless of format. On the rangefinders that is a standard lens, on the TLR that is a wide angle. I just took a look at the only TLR I have, a Lubitel 66 and the lens on that is a f4.5 75mm and it has an objective about the same size as the f2.8 50mm lens from a FED, and therefore the same DOF properties fully open.

Yes, I know this, my point was the lenses are physically smaller. The physical size of the lens has nothing to do with DoF. The reason the focal length changes is to increase or decrease the circle of confusion to obtain the correct coverage for the size of format.

It is the focal length combined with the F-stop that determines the DoF, not the size of the lens.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 10:47:41 am
The bigger the format, the less the depth of field for the same f value. The focal length will vary, simply because the image receiver is bigger. If you use a projector with a fixed focal length lens at home you can see this, you need to move the projector back to get a bigger image, (ie the focal length) and the image isn't as bright when you do, (which equates to the f number).
In cameras the DOF between formats is determined by the size of the glass. So a 6x6 f 4.5 might have the same DOF characteristics as an F2.8 35 mm lens. The medium format lens will have a bigger focal length number because the same size of objective lens has to be further away from the receptor, and the f number is higher because the light is spread over a larger area.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 10:53:09 am

As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size.

Not true. My 6x6 Rollei TLRs have smaller lenses than my 35mm rangefinders.

The objective lens will be pretty much the same size for a 50mm f 2 lens, or any value, regardless of format. On the rangefinders that is a standard lens, on the TLR that is a wide angle. I just took a look at the only TLR I have, a Lubitel 66 and the lens on that is a f4.5 75mm and it has an objective about the same size as the f2.8 50mm lens from a FED, and therefore the same DOF properties fully open.

Yes, I know this, my point was the lenses are physically smaller. The physical size of the lens has nothing to do with DoF. The reason the focal length changes is to increase or decrease the circle of confusion to obtain the correct coverage for the size of format.

It is the focal length combined with the F-stop that determines the DoF, not the size of the lens.

We are in fact saying the same thing, the combination of f stop and focal length equates to the size of the objective lens, as the format size increases the product of those two values increases and the DOF is shallower.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: frankly frankie on 17 June, 2011, 11:04:45 am
The bigger the piece of glass on the front, the shallower the depth of field with it wide open.

... and the more expensive it looks, which is why I wrote, on page 1 of this thread, that shallow DoF is largely about willy-waving.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 11:58:49 am
The way we look at images has led to a refocusing of our views on depth of field. If we only look at pictures on a monitor a compact is pretty good. It gets everything in focus and has enough resolution for the screen. As the size of the print goes up and the resolving power of the medium increases we need bigger and better lenses to cater for the bigger receptors we need for better resolution.
The bokeh of a lens can be seen as a way of demonstrating its quality within the constraints of the medium of the low resolutions we can see on a computer monitor.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Biggsy on 17 June, 2011, 12:21:56 pm
Unlike willies, I find shallow-DoF pictures often rather pleasing to look at.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 12:37:09 pm
Unlike willies, I find shallow-DoF pictures often rather pleasing to look at.

Cue shallow-DOF pictures of a dubious nature.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: AndyK on 17 June, 2011, 12:42:32 pm
Most ultra-narrow depth of field effects are just willy-waving, no real pictorial merit that I can see.




A shallow DoF isolates the subject and focuses the viewer's attention:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/PPTS24.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/surge4.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/021107gullsratetc2.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/MO27.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/MO25.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/MO30.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/Gulls4.jpg)

It can also be used to reduce foreground obstructions:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/120208KodakVR200Sign.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Biggsy on 17 June, 2011, 12:55:33 pm
A shallow DoF isolates the subject and focuses the viewer's attention

Absolutely, and that's often difficult with a small format or slow lens.

Yes some willy waving is done with extreme examples, but that's true of all aspects of photography.  People like to show off their nice equipment (stoppit!).  That doesn't mean the pictures aren't genuinely good as well.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: iakobski on 17 June, 2011, 01:17:44 pm
The ultimate Leica bokeh is supposed to come from the pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron, but that's a bit weird; a 35mm has sufficient DOF that you rarely get anything far enough OOF to benefit.

Interestingly any focal length lens has the same DOF with the same aperture and the same SUBJECT magnification. That is if you take a picture with a 35mm and a 60mm lens so that the subject fills the same area of the frame (35mm lens will be at 1/2 the distance of the 60mm), and at the same aperture, then the DOF will be the same.

However, the background on the 60mm image will look softer, because the narrower field of view effectively expands half the amount of background to fill the frame - and hence also expands the blurred area of background making it look less "busy"

That's what you'd think, logically, but in fact, no it doesn't work like that.

Yes it does - here is an explanation better than anything I can conjure up....
Depth of field (http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html)

Or if you like - bang in the figures to practically any DOF calculator you care to find.

I've just read most of that, and he seems to be saying "sometimes". OK, so I made a blanket statement which doesn't cover everything: DOF in macro is greater at longer focal length for the same magnification, fair dos.

Quote
To a first approximation, on the assumption that the F-number is kept the same, the DOF will not depend on the focal length. However, a closer examination reveals that this is too simple a statement which does not always hold. The general scenario is illustrated in Fig. 2. At a fixed magnification M=0.0025 and F-number N=2.8, we notice that the shorter focal length has more rear DOF and the longer focal length more front DOF. For example, for the 24×36 mm format we may follow the yellow lines (30-µm COC) to conclude that a 100-mm lens comes with 10 m of front DOF and ~ 20 m of rear DOF, whereas a 35-mm lens has 7 m of DOF in front of the subject and several hundreds of meters in rear.

Sorry, but "30" is not the same as "several hundred and seven"

Icidentally, one of the references to that article is the late Sid Ray - he was in fact the lecturer who set the assignment above and then spent weeks over the theory as to why it is so (which I've since forgotten).
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 01:57:35 pm
My Sony NEX 5 has an Intelligent Auto function which pretty much works well all the time. In that setting you can press the centre of the control button and it allows you to vary the 'Background Defocus' using a wheel. It just opens the lens up. You can get this effect without knowng anything about the theory.
Alternatively you can get an adapter for it and use manual focus and aperture lenses in manual mode. I started out using manual cameras, so I know the theory and the practice, but someone new to photography can get the effects with very little effort.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: David Martin on 17 June, 2011, 03:31:02 pm

As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size.

Not true. My 6x6 Rollei TLRs have smaller lenses than my 35mm rangefinders.

And the lenses I use on my 4"x5" field camera are tiny compared with the lenses on my dSLR

..d
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 June, 2011, 03:41:54 pm

As the size of the film or sensor increases it needs more light, to acheive the same f value. So the objective lens has to increase in size.

Not true. My 6x6 Rollei TLRs have smaller lenses than my 35mm rangefinders.

And the lenses I use on my 4"x5" field camera are tiny compared with the lenses on my dSLR

..d

I'm talking about the diameter of the piece of glass on the front of the lens. You will find that similar diameters give similar depths of field, regardless of format or whether the lens is wide angle or telephoto. What will vary is the f number. The smaller the format of the sensor and the shorter the focal length, the faster the lens will be for the same diameter of glass on the front.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: PH on 17 June, 2011, 10:32:12 pm
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/5839930912_4a645c1515_z.jpg)

16mm Sony lens with +3 dioptre filter. f11 1/160

I don't know what any of them numbers mean*, but that's a cracking shot :thumbsup:

* Well I sort of do if I can be bothered to think about it.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: IanDG on 18 June, 2011, 06:52:20 am
From my Olympus E620 with 25mm Pancake lens

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5792423141_c88bd51858.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/5792423141/)
P6027659 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/5792423141/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/5775668101_46115508a8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/5775668101/)
P5297568 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/5775668101/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 18 June, 2011, 07:51:07 am
From my Olympus E620 with 25mm Pancake lens

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5792423141_c88bd51858.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/5792423141/)
P6027659 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/5792423141/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
Windy, your airing cupboard is a disgrace.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 18 June, 2011, 11:24:34 am
To show the problems of wide-angle lenses and DOF, here's a snap from earlier this week:

 Forgotten Corner - RangeFinderForum Gallery (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=160458&ppuser=42066)

This was a 32mm lens (on a compact camera) and the aperture would have been f/3.2, the maximum, because the camera was screaming "slow shutter speed".

As you can see, most of it is in focus.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: AndyK on 18 June, 2011, 12:33:13 pm
To show the problems of wide-angle lenses and DOF, here's a snap from earlier this week:

 Forgotten Corner - RangeFinderForum Gallery (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=160458&ppuser=42066)

This was a 32mm lens (on a compact camera) and the aperture would have been f/3.2, the maximum, because the camera was screaming "slow shutter speed".

As you can see, most of it is in focus.

That is why wides are favoured by street shooters. They can set the hyperfocal, which on wides is very deep, and forget about having to focus.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: simonp on 18 June, 2011, 08:18:55 pm
I’ve experimented with depth of field before, here are some pics I took back in 2009, of my pompino’s drivetrain:

Bokeh - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/27424426@N00/sets/72157626866476037/)

At the time I didn’t know what “bokeh” was.  Think I might experiment some more.

Of those 4 I like this one best:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5845643591_97f7c935a4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/27424426@N00/5845643591/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/27424426@N00/5845643591/) by SimonP2006 (http://www.flickr.com/people/27424426@N00/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 10 July, 2011, 09:39:19 pm
Average-to-iffy bokeh from the Summicron Dual Range 50mm at f/2.8.  The Elmar and Summar 50s are much better in this respect, although worse in many other respects.  Generally, lenses with the best bokeh are not the very sharpest in the plane of focus.  The Summicron DR was said to have the highest resolving power of any camera lens at one point in time, although you can't see it with film or any 35mm digital sensor.

(http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/m3_6_19.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Jakob on 04 August, 2011, 12:24:37 am
I had forgotten about this one:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/2259259980_23ffe70967_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 13 August, 2011, 09:03:48 pm
I shot this at Buscot Park this afternoon (the M3 has been serviced and is now like new, yay).  Note how much better the bokeh is on this old Elmarit 90mm than on the Summicron shot I previously posted.

(http://www.peeble.com/terracotta3.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Dr.Doo on 13 August, 2011, 10:31:51 pm
Love playing with DoF...especially when urbexing and doing detail shots

However here's shallow Dof and bokeh ...the subject is a bench in the Grim Town

(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/scoobs63/2435177778_695369cb59.jpg)
Nikon D100 w. 50 1.8....f2.2 - 1/4000sec

Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 13 August, 2011, 10:46:16 pm
The irony is that the Leica style tends towards very shallow DOF and selective focus, yet the nature of the camera means you can't actually see any focus effect in the viewfinder - so it's always a bit of a surprise when you get the negs.  I'm not sure whether the digital M9 has live preview or not, but at least you can take another shot if it's too blurred or not blurred enough.  As I am using a 1960 camera and film, I actually took this shot at three different apertures, and it turned out that my first guess (f/5.6) was the best.

Here's another shot using the Summar 50mm, an ancient uncoated lens designed for the Leica III.  This has the best bokeh of all of them, but only between about f/3.2 and f/6.3 (it has the old German f-numbers).  The composition is weaker though (I really need a 135mm lens to nail these guys and get four heads lined up next to each other).

(http://www.peeble.com/terracotta2.jpg)

Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: IanDG on 15 August, 2011, 05:26:37 am
This was shot with a Leica II

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/6031803201_899a7edbb8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/6031803201/)
Fence Post, Willow Glen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/6031803201/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 August, 2011, 06:34:33 am
What was the lens?  The Elmar 50/3.5?
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: IanDG on 15 August, 2011, 02:16:51 pm
What was the lens?  The Elmar 50/3.5?

I'll have to find out, the loan is over, I handed it back :(
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 August, 2011, 05:11:56 pm
If it was teensy and pushed back almost completely flat into the body, it was the Elmar.  They have really nice bokeh at about f/4-f/5.6 (which is about optimum for most lenses; wider than that and you can get odd swirl effects, narrower and it sharpens up the background too much).

Here's an example of swirly bokeh from the Summar opened up to f/2.8.  It's a bit distracting.

(http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/m3_7_17.jpg)

And this is a Summaron 35/3.5 wide open; same double-Gauss lens design, same swirls.

(http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/m2_4_5.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: IanDG on 15 August, 2011, 07:42:51 pm
It was the Elmar 3.5/50

This is  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31208462@N05/5842154304/)the camera I borrowed
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 August, 2011, 08:00:04 pm
It's an amazing lens for only 4 elements.  Almost equally sharp at all apertures.

f/4 (perfect bokeh)

(http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/pond4.jpg)

f/16

(http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/albert2.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Jaded on 15 August, 2011, 08:03:10 pm
What was the lens?  The Elmar 50/3.5?

I'll have to find out, the loan is over, I handed it back :(

It will be in the EXIF  ;D
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 August, 2011, 09:03:13 pm
This data recording malarkey is nothing new.  All my old shots say KODAK TRI-X SAFETY FILM 5036  :P
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: mike on 15 August, 2011, 09:30:12 pm
I always thought bokeh was to do with how bright spots of light were treated in the out of focus areas,

out of focus i can do:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/mikes99mail/temp/depthoffield001.jpg) (35 f2)
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/mikes99mail/temp/depthoffield002.jpg) (50 f2)

what I think of as bokeh is harder...  would this count?
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/mikes99mail/temp/notreallybokeh.jpg) (35 f2)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Biggsy on 15 August, 2011, 09:45:24 pm
I always thought bokeh was to do with how bright spots of light were treated in the out of focus areas,

Different people seem to use "bokeh" to mean different things.

There is, some suppose, a link between out-of-focus highlights and general out-of-focus blur.  The general blur will be good if highlights appear as perfect even discs rather than onion rings, says the theory.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 August, 2011, 09:54:57 pm
Bokeh is just the appearance of OOF areas.  Although the appearance is a bit subjective, it's actually quite easy to specify what causes "good" bokeh in a lens design sense; Airy discs* where the centre is brighter than the perimeter.  This makes all OOF points blur together smoothly.  Conversely, Airy discs where the perimeter is brighter than the centre make for "bad" bokeh, with any OOF lines being doubled. 

You can design lenses for good bokeh; Nikon make a special DC lens where it's adjustable.

The shape of the aperture, incidentally, affects the appearance of OOF point highlights but doesn't affect bokeh otherwise.  Some of the nicest bokeh I've seen came from a lens with a six-bladed aperture.


*an out-of-focus point of light
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: AndyK on 15 August, 2011, 10:31:46 pm
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/Stump3rdPrint.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/TiggerBX20-HP5-3200-Rod1-25.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/Derelict4.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ColourFilm/seacactusb12.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 28 September, 2011, 04:28:20 am

It's a shame my watermarks look so prominent on these :(

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6191109286_6d02c0d812_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6191109286/)
bokeh 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6191109286/) by Daniel Cadden Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/ed_o_brain/), on Flickr

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6154/6191109160_04196b846a_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6191109160/)
bokeh 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6191109160/) by Daniel Cadden Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/ed_o_brain/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 28 September, 2011, 01:15:47 pm
More bokeh... creative product shots!

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6163/6191329581_8c6b40a120_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6191329581/)
PoC 3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6191329581/) by Daniel Cadden Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/ed_o_brain/), on Flickr 

Be gentle on the crit.. this is a proof of concept, not a finished work!
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: David Martin on 28 September, 2011, 04:25:47 pm
It looks like your bokeh is photoshop - that very even light spread that doesn't seem to fit what one would expect (something that more closely approximates a point function?)

..d
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 28 September, 2011, 06:31:14 pm
Ha!

No that's real Bokeh.
Layer 1: Background, white fill, 100% opacity.

Layer 2: OoF fairy lights (photo), 50% opacity, normal blending
Layer 3: OoF fairy lights (photo), 50% opacity, "lighten" blending
Layer 4: Layer 3 duplicated and rotated 180º.

Layers 2,3,4 were then flattened. Saturation and contrast were both reduced. Curves used to lighten the shadows.

Layer 5: ~15% opacity white fill
Layer 6: ~20% opacity white fill vignetting (it's clear in the middle
Layer 7: Product photo

I reduced the saturation in the product layer, decreased the highlights relative to the rest of the tonal values in that layer and finally lifted the levels in their entirity. Finally the all the layers were flattened.

So yes the image is heavily photoshoped, but the bokeh is genuine. It's Nikon 85mm f1.4 bokeh - which the more I look at it, the more I like it.

Tha main difference between the earlier dark images and the later light images is that the earlier ones were shot at night and the later ones were shot in front of a window covered with a sheet of thin linen to diffuse the light.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 28 September, 2011, 07:43:58 pm
The product looks stuck on (which it is).

Easy enough to do this as a straight shot.  A black (darkened) background with Christmas tree lights would work well.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 28 September, 2011, 10:06:58 pm
The product looks stuck on (which it is).

"Be gentle on the crit.. this is a proof of concept, not a finished work!"
This isn't the actual product the background is for. I've just splodged something on there to give a client an idea of what's possible.


Quote
Easy enough to do this as a straight shot.  A black (darkened) background with Christmas tree lights would work well.

That's what the earlier posts are?? They are too distracting for a product background.


Anyway, this thread was about bokeh... :)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: David Martin on 29 September, 2011, 08:58:58 am
For a seasonal view you could try the same OOF shot but with a shaped cutout on the front of the lens to give eg. hearts, christmas trees etc.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 29 September, 2011, 02:02:48 pm
That's a good idea. Thank you.
It's not a seasonal shot. The product is a year-round product called 'JOY'.

This is the seasonal shot:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/6190303364_0fd087d81b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6190303364/)
Aromatherapy oils - product photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6190303364/) by Daniel Cadden Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/ed_o_brain/), on Flickr

Now I'll not drag the thread any more OT!! Sorry!!
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 29 September, 2011, 08:35:34 pm
This was the first shot with the Summarit-M 35mm lens.  The bokeh is supposed to be comparable to the pre-ASPH Leica Summicron, known as the "Bokeh King".  TBH, it's not all that special although it's pleasant enough.  Kodak Ektar 100 sucks - not sharp enough and it loses the highlights as badly as a digicam.

(http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/m2_8_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 15 November, 2011, 08:29:35 pm
Here's the craziest bokeh you can get - a Leitz Summar (1937, 6 elements, uncoated) wide open.  It's like LSD; the background rolls itself up into a big swirl.  Actually, there isn't much sharp in this except the centre of the frame, f/2 being somewhat beyond the capabilities of the glasses available pre-WWII.  It's a very good lens between f/3.6 and f/6.3.

(http://www.peeble.com/posesmall.jpg)

If the last two photos don't convince you that bokeh exists, it's important and it varies from lens to lens...I give up!
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: David Martin on 15 November, 2011, 10:35:10 pm
I have to say that the bokeh in the last pic is a particularly horrible example..

Here is one I took at the weekend where selective focus and lighting allows a bit of a story to be told. The bokeh is in the 'what bokeh' category - really getting out the way completely - totally characterless.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6037/6337882316_0f317d7404.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/6337882316/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/6337882316/) by davidmamartin (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmam/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Pingu on 15 November, 2011, 10:36:37 pm
(http://www.peeble.com/posesmall.jpg)

That's a bit freaky - is she gravitational lensing?
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 15 November, 2011, 11:23:02 pm
Here's the craziest bokeh you can get - a Leitz Summar (1937, 6 elements, uncoated) wide open.  It's like LSD; the background rolls itself up into a big swirl.  Actually, there isn't much sharp in this except the centre of the frame, f/2 being somewhat beyond the capabilities of the glasses available pre-WWII.  It's a very good lens between f/3.6 and f/6.3.

(http://www.peeble.com/posesmall.jpg)

If the last two photos don't convince you that bokeh exists, it's important and it varies from lens to lens...I give up!

What focal length? Gimme some idea of the physical aperture maan!
I would like try try it on an M9 just to produce a grungy Tone compressed HDR.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 16 November, 2011, 06:39:41 am
50mm at f/2.2 and there are some serious residual aberrations!
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Riggers on 16 November, 2011, 07:59:42 am
What hit me first, was the dress sense!!


Nice.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Biggsy on 16 November, 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.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: rogerzilla on 16 November, 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.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Pickled Onion on 22 April, 2012, 03:07:32 pm
From another thread:

(http://handsonit.co.uk/images/photos/bike/superbe6.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: mike on 23 April, 2012, 04:33:14 pm
Love that, PO. 

If Bokeh is 'shiny things out of focus', then here's one of mine:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/mikes99mail/temp/L1006651.jpg)
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: Charlotte on 23 April, 2012, 04:43:56 pm
Is that in Paris, Mike?

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6111/6227318043_2d2a73b578_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyope/6227318043/)
Cadenas d'amour (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyope/6227318043/) by lyope (http://www.flickr.com/people/lyope/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: mike on 23 April, 2012, 04:46:16 pm
dammit, I've been out-padlocked!  Florence, dahlink.
Title: Re: Bokeh
Post by: ed_o_brain on 29 April, 2012, 11:16:51 pm
Some reasonable bokeh from the af-s nikkor 18-105 f3.5-5.6:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6979961114_5579c8faae.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6979961114/)
The Journey 3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_o_brain/6979961114/) by Daniel Cadden Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/ed_o_brain/), on Flickr