If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
"nicholas" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: Could be. I'm quite pleased with bokeh on all the Mamiya 645 lenses I've got, so other than the Fuji, it's not a problem here. The thing I remember reading was that 'the less aberration a lens has the better the bo-keh'... But the interesting thing that I've noticed is that most of the Xenotar-type lens designs have this, quite bad, OOF rendering, interesting because it obviously (to anyone who's used one IMO) has better correction to any Tessar-type design. Even a macro lens with floating elements with a Xenotar-type lens design has a similar type of bad OOF IMO (difficult to describe, but similar to a mirror lens doughnut but less severe at the 5.6 apertures)--the macro lens I'm talking about is a 50mm 3.5 Zuiko. A 3.5 55mm Nikkor is of the same design and according to one other (that I can name) has the same type of OOF rendering. So, my conclusion is that all Xenotar-type lens designs have this particular rendering... Stacey, however, has a different opinion (I think, sophisticated) to this and, perhaps, the matter seems unresolved (probably forever). I tend to be closer to the "bokeh schmokeh" camp, except for the egregious cases, so playing with some alleged bad-bokeh high end lenses is tempting. There's a Rolleiflex 2.8D Xenotar over at KEH for $499. Maybe I should buy it and see for myself. The problem with that is that I'm likely to turn into a pathological Rollei collector. There's no way I'm letting my mid-50's 3.5 Tessar go (I really like the weight and workmanship), but I'd like at least one high-end Zeiss lens on hand for comparison, but the later f/2.8 Rolleis are heavy clunky cameras, and outrageously expensive. So what I'd really like, I think, is a recent 3.5 Planar. (I understand that the Planar design went through some changes and that the later ones are noticeably better.) But people claim the Xenotar's just as good. All very academic, since I prefer either 55mm or 110mm to 80mmg. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
... I tend to be closer to the "bokeh schmokeh" camp, except for the egregious cases, so playing with some alleged bad-bokeh high end lenses is tempting. There's a Rolleiflex 2.8D Xenotar over at KEH for $499. Maybe I should buy it and see for myself. The problem with that is that I'm likely to turn into a pathological Rollei collector. There's no way I'm letting my mid-50's 3.5 Tessar go (I really like the weight and workmanship), but I'd like at least one high-end Zeiss lens on hand for comparison, but the later f/2.8 Rolleis are heavy clunky cameras, and outrageously expensive. So what I'd really like, I think, is a recent 3.5 Planar. (I understand that the Planar design went through some changes and that the later ones are noticeably better.) But people claim the Xenotar's just as good. All very academic, since I prefer either 55mm or 110mm to 80mmg. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan The latest Rolleis are rather pretty, in the same way as the new VW bug. From what I've read, there appears to be more acclaim for the Xenotar than the Planar, at least among those who've used both. Perhaps that was for the 3.5 Rolleis. David, as someone who lives in Japan with all those beautiful photo mags, Leica fetishists, and bokeh connoisseurs, do you read enough Japanese to get a sense of the differences in gearhead culture there? I mean compared to the U.S. or Western 'advanced amateur' crowd. And is Fujiya camera still around? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
"KM" wrote: David, as someone who lives in Japan with all those beautiful photo mags, Leica fetishists, and bokeh connoisseurs, do you read enough Japanese to get a sense of the differences in gearhead culture there? I mean compared to the U.S. or Western 'advanced amateur' crowd. Hmm. I read Japanese well enough to read what I want to read (MA in East Asian Studies, 15 years as a professional translator), but it's still slower going than English so I don't play on mailing lists here. The pretty magazines are pretty: as I've mentioned before, Natural Glow is a lovely B&W magazine that has a firm grasp on the viscereal beauty of B&W imaging with _none_ of the pretentions to art of Lens Work or Aperture. (Although I don't like the photos in either of the two main magazines.) I think, in the end, it's quite similar. Japan is perhaps a bit more name-brand silly (Leica and Zeiss are seriously expensive here) than the west, but it's a matter of degree. I don't have a feel for the amateur MF community here at all: 35mm and digital is all I see on the street in regular folks hands. If it's MF, it's clearly a professional shoot. (But the amateur landscape shots in the landscape magazines are often MF. (Within the last year, the bimonthly landscape magazine has started talking about using digital for landscapes.)) The biggest difference is that 25% of the population being in the Tokyo area, there are used equipment stores by the dozen, but no ebay. (Japan is the only country where ebay flopped.) Vying for top place with urbanization, though, is the simple fact that "bokeh" is just another technical term, and isn't controvertial at allg. And is Fujiya camera still around? Yep. It's one of the main used stores, and where I bought my 110/2.8 Mamiya 645 lens. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
David J. Littleboy wrote:
I tend to be closer to the "bokeh schmokeh" camp, except for the egregious cases, so playing with some alleged bad-bokeh high end lenses is tempting. Yeah, I agree, bokeh isn't something I'm usually looking for, it's usually what is in focus ;-) There's a Rolleiflex 2.8D Xenotar over at KEH for $499. Maybe I should buy it and see for myself. The problem with that is that I'm likely to turn into a pathological Rollei collector. There's no way I'm letting my mid-50's 3.5 Tessar go (I really like the weight and workmanship), but I'd like at least one high-end Zeiss lens on hand for comparison, but the later f/2.8 Rolleis are heavy clunky cameras, and outrageously expensive. So what I'd really like, I think, is a recent 3.5 Planar. (I understand that the Planar design went through some changes and that the later ones are noticeably better.) But people claim the Xenotar's just as good. All very academic, since I prefer either 55mm or 110mm to 80mmg. I've owned (and used =) quite a number of lens types for the Rollei and the 3.5 Planar is indeed a lovely lens. My one was the five element design. Just amazing, then again the lens I liked using and miss the most was the 2.8 Xenotar. And you know, the 2.8 Planar is no slouch either... A properly aligned and adjusted 'Flex is probably going to _still_ going to be a good camera to use. The lens I really enjoy using is 'Cord Xenar on a Va (ll). Just a good simple and light camera to use with a good lens on it. I figure something that old is better simpler, that way less to go wrong and (potentially) less to repair (fingers crossed). If I was you (in Japan) I'd be going gaga over all of those fantastic Fuji Rangefinders. The big ones perhaps a 6x8 (cool format)... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
nicholas wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote: I tend to be closer to the "bokeh schmokeh" camp, except for the egregious cases, so playing with some alleged bad-bokeh high end lenses is tempting. Yeah, I agree, bokeh isn't something I'm usually looking for, it's usually what is in focus ;-) Bokeh isn't a big deal at all; until you shoot something really nice but for some reason the OOF background is so distracting it's pulls you eye to that instead of the in focus subject! -- Stacey |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
I don't know about bokeh, but the number of elements definitely has an
effect on flare. Large zooms, with their many elements, are particularly subject to flare, despite multicoating. Moreover, the flare gets smeared out more generally and degrades the picture more as you increase the number of elements. For single focal length lenses, elements are usually added to better correct the aberations. Up to six elements or so, coating seems to work well to control the flare. Someone posted that the 5 element Heliar design was especially designed to give a smooth bokeh. wrote in message ... I've been experimenting with antique cameras for some time and I've come to a somewhat controversial conclusion, which is based on experience alone. I believe that the fewer elements you have the less "blitzed out" your bokeh is, that is to say the less your main subject stands out from the background. Has anyone else noticed this? Thanks |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
Bokeh is what I looked like after my mate realized I forgot it was St. Patrick's day. Why? Why, my mate is the one and only Molly McGuire. I kid you not. Worse than forgetting an anniversary to ignore St. Pat's day. Bokeh! Ni san bokeh! (or, "me lad, ye look like a lorry run over you you do.") |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
So, my conclusion is that all Xenotar-type lens designs
have this particular rendering... I'm going to assume that Xenotar means double-Gauss. Its true that many double-Gauss designs have poor wide-open bokeh due to the way low order spherical aberration is balanced with high order spherical aberration. But to make a general conclusion is clearly wrong. For example, the original Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro lens is a double-Gauss design with exceptionally good bokeh since it has just the right amount of uniformly undercorrected spherical aberration. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
brian wrote:
So, my conclusion is that all Xenotar-type lens designs have this particular rendering... I'm going to assume that Xenotar means double-Gauss. Not quite... A Xenotar-type design is 5/4 and not symmetrical as you have me believe... Here is a link to give you a better idea: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/e...up/50mmf35.htm However, it is a relative of the (generic) Gauss--type, not that that was what I was talking about. But to make a general conclusion is clearly wrong. You can make all the assumptions you want too. That I make a conclusion about anything is my own business whether you like it or not. This particular conclusion is one based on observation of a particular lens type over some time... blah blah... It is also an area very subjective relative unimportance, but something I finding interesting, and if it is wrong--fine, prove it... But not with your (wrong) assumptions and generalisations about what I am talking about. For example, the original Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro lens is a double-Gauss design with exceptionally good bokeh since it has just the right amount of uniformly undercorrected spherical aberration. I cannot find the lens diagram of the lens you mention here but I assume it is not what I'm talking about (do I have to mention it again... not talking about the generic ie symmetrical 6/4 double-Gauss design)... The lens-type I am talking about has 5 elements in 4 groups and there are three versions of this lens I am interested in (and have been discussing, so far, here), the original Schneider design, the Zuiko Macro 50mm F3.5 and the Nikkor 55mm Macro F3.5 And yes the Xenotar-type lens is one defined by Nikon as a lens 'type' in it's own right, but also happens to be a relative of those lens types you mention... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Fewer elements - lesser Bokeh?
David J. Littleboy wrote:
There's a Rolleiflex 2.8D Xenotar over at KEH for $499. Maybe I should buy it and see for myself. The problem with that is that I'm likely to turn into a pathological Rollei collector. I think it's the C you're after, that's the one with the 10 bladed diaphragm :-) (or so I've been told)...g I used to have one, didn't notice it (the diaphragm)... Got hacked off with the shutter speeds however (pedantic).... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photoshop Elements Plugin | Roger Halstead | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 09:46 AM |