About expensive lenses

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:41:06 -0500, SimonLW wrote:

It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior,
and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use
Nikkors.


Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and a couple of
the limited series for bokeh and overall quality before I'd consider Nikon
and even Canon.

Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication.

Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know
than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and needs
to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:41:06 -0500, SimonLW wrote:

It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap,
inferior, and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most
Canon shooters use Nikkors.


Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and
a couple of the limited series for bokeh and overall quality
before I'd consider Nikon and even Canon.

Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication.

Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know
than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and
needs to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered.

You think? You might be the only other person on the planet who would agree
with her if you are really saying that Nikon is known for its good bokeh,
and that you would choose Nikkors over Pentax lenses if bokeh was your
criterion.

The real reason many Canon body users choose Nikon lenses is less often to
do with bokeh, and more usually because Canon wide-angles are so bad.


Peter

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:53:26 -0000, Bandicoot wrote:

Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication.

Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know
than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and
needs to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered.

You think? You might be the only other person on the planet who would agree
with her if you are really saying that Nikon is known for its good bokeh,
and that you would choose Nikkors over Pentax lenses if bokeh was your
criterion.

Sorry, but if I believed that I'd also have to have been
delusional. "For this topic, and this topic only" might be seen as
a clue. g


The real reason many Canon body users choose Nikon lenses
is less often to do with bokeh, and more usually because Canon
wide-angles are so bad.

I have no experience with Canon lenses but I've heard similar
grumblings from time to time from Canon users. Back to bokeh. It
might be possible to improve it. Do I also have to grant patent
right to the OP? Design the diaphragm so that leaves don't just
close, but rotate slightly, taking shutter speed into account. I
don't know if it would help, but the leaves could move in another
dimension during the exposure, somewhat like bracketing, but having
the aperture change smoothly during the shot. So if f/4.0 is
needed, while the shutter is open the (now rotating) blades could
vary from f/3.4 to f/4.5, or whatever it would take to give an
amount of light equivalent to a fixed f/4.0. I imagine that the
number of actuations over the shutter's life might not improve.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:53:26 -0000, Bandicoot wrote:

Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your
medication.

Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to
know than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much
worse and needs to be considerably stopped down, or
better, stoppered.

You think? You might be the only other person on the planet
who would agree with her if you are really saying that Nikon is
known for its good bokeh, and that you would choose
Nikkors over Pentax lenses if bokeh was your criterion.

Sorry, but if I believed that I'd also have to have been
delusional. "For this topic, and this topic only" might be seen as
a clue. g


Rita's post that you said you were agreeing with reads:

QUOTE

What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts.

It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior,
and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use
Nikkors.

UNQUOTE

....and the full text post you were disagreeing with, and to which you
replied:

QUOTE

Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and a couple of
the limited series for bokeh and overall quality before I'd consider Nikon
and even Canon.

Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication.

UNQUOTE

Hmmm, certainly sounds like "this topic, and this topic only" is to say that
Nikkors are preferred over Canon lenses because of their bokeh (per Rita)
and to disagree that Pentax would be a better choice than either for bokeh
and "overall quality".

Did you think you and/or Rita were saying something else?

g


The real reason many Canon body users choose Nikon lenses
is less often to do with bokeh, and more usually because
Canon wide-angles are so bad.

I have no experience with Canon lenses but I've heard similar
grumblings from time to time from Canon users. Back to
bokeh. It might be possible to improve it. Do I also have to
grant patent right to the OP? Design the diaphragm so that
leaves don't just close, but rotate slightly, taking shutter speed
into account. I don't know if it would help, but the leaves could
move in another dimension during the exposure, somewhat like
bracketing, but having the aperture change smoothly during the
shot. So if f/4.0 is needed, while the shutter is open the (now
rotating) blades could vary from f/3.4 to f/4.5, or whatever it
would take to give an amount of light equivalent to a fixed f/4.0.
I imagine that the number of actuations over the shutter's life
might not improve.


Interesting idea, and it would work, though maybe not very practical /cost
effective. There is at least one modern camera that uses Waterhouse stop
type apertures to get a perfectly round aperture.

However, the biggest problem with commercialising your idea may be that the
shape of the aperture is only one of the things that affects bokeh. The
extent to which spherical aberration is corrected - or under- or
overcorrected - is also very significant. This, I suspect, is a larger part
of why Canon bokeh is 'blobby', Nikon bokeh is (often) 'rough' and Leica,
Zeiss, Pentax, and some Minolta bokeh is 'creamy'.


Peter

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:44:53 -0000, Bandicoot wrote:

Hmmm, certainly sounds like "this topic, and this topic only" is to say that
Nikkors are preferred over Canon lenses because of their bokeh (per Rita)
and to disagree that Pentax would be a better choice than either for bokeh
and "overall quality".

Did you think you and/or Rita were saying something else?

One never knows with Rita, but yes, I was saying something else.
Do you remember old manual typewriters that had margin release keys?
That's close to what I meant by "this topic, and this topic only".
Sort of an override, allowing me to have an excuse to refer to her
as Rita "Bokehwit". There's no indication in either of your replies
that you noticed this. It might have saved you some typing if you
had. g

"ASAAR" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:44:53 -0000, Bandicoot wrote:

Hmmm, certainly sounds like "this topic, and this topic only"
is to say that Nikkors are preferred over Canon lenses
because of their bokeh (per Rita) and to disagree that Pentax
would be a better choice than either for bokeh
and "overall quality".

Did you think you and/or Rita were saying something else?

One never knows with Rita, but yes, I was saying something
else. Do you remember old manual typewriters that had margin
release keys? That's close to what I meant by "this topic, and
this topic only".
Sort of an override, allowing me to have an excuse to refer to
her as Rita "Bokehwit". There's no indication in either of your
replies that you noticed this. It might have saved you some
typing if you had. g


LOL - though I think my point still stands: "this topic" was bokeh, and
bokeh obsessed though Rita may be, on this ocassion she was still plain
wrong!

As for manual typewriters... there are six of them on top of the
bookshelves behind me as I type this, Underwood, Woodstock, Remington and
Imperial standards and Remington and Smith Corona folding portables.
Marvellous old machines...

:-)



Peter