Author Topic: Bokeh  (Read 17672 times)

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Bokeh
« Reply #100 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.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Bokeh
« Reply #101 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.
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

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

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

Re: Bokeh
« Reply #103 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:


Charlotte

  • Dissolute libertine
  • Here's to ol' D.H. Lawrence...
    • charlottebarnes.co.uk
Re: Bokeh
« Reply #104 on: 23 April, 2012, 04:43:56 pm »
Is that in Paris, Mike?


Cadenas d'amour by lyope, on Flickr
Commercial, Editorial and PR Photographer - www.charlottebarnes.co.uk

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

ed_o_brain

Re: Bokeh
« Reply #106 on: 29 April, 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