What has good Bokeh

Paul Furman wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Mark² wrote:

To me, it just seems more telling to see how a lens does with
settings that are more problematic (small ap).

I can see that a smaller aperture
might present more of a challenge, though, bringing the iris
"into the line of fire."

Are we sure that smaller apertures degrade bokeh? A non-rounded
blade design will get polygonal when stopped down but does that
effect the softness of edges or increase the donut effect?

You seem to be operating on the belief that "bokeh" refers
specifically to the shape of highlight circles.

I understand bokeh includes the softness (distribution), shape, size,
etc. I'm just not sure the aperture changes anything but size of the
disks, and shape if an un-rounded blade configuration.

It was stated here that any lens makes nice bokeh wide open but
I'm
sure that's not true. Here's a comparison of two very different
lenses at about the same focal length, the lesser slow lens wide
open:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php.../bokeh/compare


The 2.8 shot renders the circle edges much more softly,
which is what we're after.
Hard-edges circles aren't what you hope for when dealing with
highlights.

I'm pretty sure I stopped down the 2.8 lens to match the slow one
otherwise the circles would be a different size.

Those renderings are quite different.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As
far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses;
and, b) some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_
intersted in esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from
the fifties etc., (including canon fd, etc., etc.).


A lot of discussion in this thread has majored on rendition of OoF
highlights, which I think can be a touch misleading. True, this is the best
way to examine how an out of focus point is rendered, so one might expect it
to be - as well as important in itself - a good guide to how all OoF
elements will appear. However, I know some lenses that don't do a fabulous
job on such point sources, but that do nonetheless produce very nice creamy
OoF areas in other respects. The Pentax Limited 43mm is an example here,
where it can produce rather harsh effects on OoF background point sources,
but nonetheless gives rather nice bokeh in images that don't include such
sources. The 77mm and 31mm Limiteds both have very nice bokeh generally,
despite other Pentax lenses doing a better job on OoF point sources.

Another point is that often lenses that give the nicest bokeh to OoF
background elements can be harsh with OoF foreground, and vice versa. I
believe that undercorrected spherical aberration improves background bokeh,
but (at least beyond a certain point) this tends to be at the expense of
foreground, and vice versa. Is this how Nikon's and Minolta's DC lenses
work?

Well, that said, what about some of my personal favourites?

35mm
- Pentax 30mm f2.8K
- Pentax 50mm f1.4 - any of them
- Pentax 50mm f1.2 - obviously very smooth bokeh wide open, but also good
stopped down
- Pentax 85mm f1.8 - I know the 1.4 is famous, but I don't have one. The
1.8 is less well known, very good indeed, much lighter, and vastly
cheaper...
- Pentax 100mm f2.8 FA Macro - many macros have awful bokeh, this one I
think is at least as nice as the well known Tamron 90mm, but is AF and has
SMC coating.
- Pentax 105mm f2.8 K
- Pentax 135mm f2.5 K - (not the 'Takumar' one, the real SMC version.)
- Pentax 135mm f1.8 A*
- Pentax 200mm f2.8 FA*
- Pentax 300mm f4 A* - at this sort of focal length, bokeh often is getting
a bit harsh, but this lens seems to be very good for a 300. My 300mm f4.5
F* is a tiny bit sharper, and my Tamron f2.8 offers shallower DoF, but the
old A* is tops for bokeh
- Pentax 600mm f4 F* - yes, really: big glass can have very ugly bokeh, and
this is the nicest I've seen at this sort of length
- Ricoh 28mm f2.8 GR - the lens on the GR1 series and the GR10
- Carl Zeiss 50mm f2 Sonnar - this pre-war, uncoated lens (mine is in Contax
mount) has very nice bokeh, and is a wonderful tool for low contrast
environmental portraits in B&W
- Angenieux 70-210mm f3.5 - I don't usually like zooms' bokeh, and rarely
use them in situations where it will matter a lot, but this is one of the
best.

MF
- CZJ 180mm f2.8 Sonnar - everyone knows about this lens, and I just have to
agree
- Fujinon 100mm f3.5
- Fujinon TS 180mm f5.6 - this and the preceeding lens, both for the Fujica
G690 / 670 cameras are outstanding, in both sharpness and bokeh.

Those are all that come to mind. Since the 'look' of a lens matters a lot
to me, I probably have very few lenses that have 'bad' bokeh - since bokeh
is a big part of 'the look' - but these are the ones I can specifically
think of in that context. Some lenses, such as those for the Hasselblad
X-Pan and most of my large format glass I very seldon use in situations
where ther is much in the way of obvious OoF area in the frame, ditto some
other 35mm zooms and MF lenses, so maybe I should do a bit of testing on
some of those too... Hmmm, where did I put those out-dated rolls of film?



Peter

Tony Polson wrote:

Pearls before swine.

You posting some train images again?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

And if you want to experience some great glass with good bokeh on the
cheap... try a Yashica Electro GSN rangefinder with the 45mm/1.7 Yashinon.
Very sharp and creamy bokeh.... and you can find the camera for $25.

Doug

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
Could someone please list those lenses that, have good bokeh? As
far as I can tell they are limited to: a) a good share of Leica lenses;
and, b) some pentax lenses; and c) very little else. I'm _not_
intersted in esoteric lenses such as some lens on an old folder from
the fifties etc., (including canon fd, etc., etc.).


A lot of discussion in this thread has majored on rendition of OoF
highlights, which I think can be a touch misleading. True, this is the
best
way to examine how an out of focus point is rendered, so one might expect
it
to be - as well as important in itself - a good guide to how all OoF
elements will appear. However, I know some lenses that don't do a
fabulous
job on such point sources, but that do nonetheless produce very nice
creamy
OoF areas in other respects. The Pentax Limited 43mm is an example here,
where it can produce rather harsh effects on OoF background point sources,
but nonetheless gives rather nice bokeh in images that don't include such
sources. The 77mm and 31mm Limiteds both have very nice bokeh generally,
despite other Pentax lenses doing a better job on OoF point sources.

Another point is that often lenses that give the nicest bokeh to OoF
background elements can be harsh with OoF foreground, and vice versa. I
believe that undercorrected spherical aberration improves background
bokeh,
but (at least beyond a certain point) this tends to be at the expense of
foreground, and vice versa. Is this how Nikon's and Minolta's DC lenses
work?

Well, that said, what about some of my personal favourites?

35mm
- Pentax 30mm f2.8K
- Pentax 50mm f1.4 - any of them
- Pentax 50mm f1.2 - obviously very smooth bokeh wide open, but also good
stopped down
- Pentax 85mm f1.8 - I know the 1.4 is famous, but I don't have one. The
1.8 is less well known, very good indeed, much lighter, and vastly
cheaper...
- Pentax 100mm f2.8 FA Macro - many macros have awful bokeh, this one I
think is at least as nice as the well known Tamron 90mm, but is AF and has
SMC coating.
- Pentax 105mm f2.8 K
- Pentax 135mm f2.5 K - (not the 'Takumar' one, the real SMC version.)
- Pentax 135mm f1.8 A*
- Pentax 200mm f2.8 FA*
- Pentax 300mm f4 A* - at this sort of focal length, bokeh often is
getting
a bit harsh, but this lens seems to be very good for a 300. My 300mm f4.5
F* is a tiny bit sharper, and my Tamron f2.8 offers shallower DoF, but the
old A* is tops for bokeh
- Pentax 600mm f4 F* - yes, really: big glass can have very ugly bokeh,
and
this is the nicest I've seen at this sort of length
- Ricoh 28mm f2.8 GR - the lens on the GR1 series and the GR10
- Carl Zeiss 50mm f2 Sonnar - this pre-war, uncoated lens (mine is in
Contax
mount) has very nice bokeh, and is a wonderful tool for low contrast
environmental portraits in B&W
- Angenieux 70-210mm f3.5 - I don't usually like zooms' bokeh, and rarely
use them in situations where it will matter a lot, but this is one of the
best.

MF
- CZJ 180mm f2.8 Sonnar - everyone knows about this lens, and I just have
to
agree
- Fujinon 100mm f3.5
- Fujinon TS 180mm f5.6 - this and the preceeding lens, both for the
Fujica
G690 / 670 cameras are outstanding, in both sharpness and bokeh.

Those are all that come to mind. Since the 'look' of a lens matters a lot
to me, I probably have very few lenses that have 'bad' bokeh - since bokeh
is a big part of 'the look' - but these are the ones I can specifically
think of in that context. Some lenses, such as those for the Hasselblad
X-Pan and most of my large format glass I very seldon use in situations
where ther is much in the way of obvious OoF area in the frame, ditto some
other 35mm zooms and MF lenses, so maybe I should do a bit of testing on
some of those too... Hmmm, where did I put those out-dated rolls of film?



Peter

"Doug Robbins" wrote:

And if you want to experience some great glass with good bokeh on the
cheap... try a Yashica Electro GSN rangefinder with the 45mm/1.7 Yashinon.
Very sharp and creamy bokeh.... and you can find the camera for $25.


"Very sharp and creamy bokeh" sounds like an oxymoron ...

You can find these cameras for $25, but you cannot find the correct
TR-164 mercury battery at any price.

A far better choice would be the Canon G-III QL-17. The correct
battery for the G-III is a mercury cell, but the bridge circuit means
that the meter is correct even with a modern equivalent battery.

You are misinformed. The Yashica is not voltage dependent and works fine
with a 6 volt lithium (28-L). This can be fitted with an adapter and you can
even improvise one by wrapping carboard or plastic around the battery. Plus
the Yashica lens is better than the Canonet and the Canonets are notorious
for shutter problems.

Doug


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Doug Robbins" wrote:

And if you want to experience some great glass with good bokeh on the
cheap... try a Yashica Electro GSN rangefinder with the 45mm/1.7 Yashinon.
Very sharp and creamy bokeh.... and you can find the camera for $25.


"Very sharp and creamy bokeh" sounds like an oxymoron ...

You can find these cameras for $25, but you cannot find the correct
TR-164 mercury battery at any price.

A far better choice would be the Canon G-III QL-17. The correct
battery for the G-III is a mercury cell, but the bridge circuit means
that the meter is correct even with a modern equivalent battery.

Excuse me for not being more specific. The Yashica lens is very sharp AND it
has creamy bokeh. But then you knew that was what I meant, didn't you?

Doug

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Doug Robbins" wrote:

And if you want to experience some great glass with good bokeh on the
cheap... try a Yashica Electro GSN rangefinder with the 45mm/1.7 Yashinon.
Very sharp and creamy bokeh.... and you can find the camera for $25.


"Very sharp and creamy bokeh" sounds like an oxymoron ...

You can find these cameras for $25, but you cannot find the correct
TR-164 mercury battery at any price.

A far better choice would be the Canon G-III QL-17. The correct
battery for the G-III is a mercury cell, but the bridge circuit means
that the meter is correct even with a modern equivalent battery.

Just in case you can't figure the cardboard thing out , Tony.

http://www.yashica-guy.com/document/battery.html

Doug

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Doug Robbins" wrote:

And if you want to experience some great glass with good bokeh on the
cheap... try a Yashica Electro GSN rangefinder with the 45mm/1.7 Yashinon.
Very sharp and creamy bokeh.... and you can find the camera for $25.


"Very sharp and creamy bokeh" sounds like an oxymoron ...

You can find these cameras for $25, but you cannot find the correct
TR-164 mercury battery at any price.

A far better choice would be the Canon G-III QL-17. The correct
battery for the G-III is a mercury cell, but the bridge circuit means
that the meter is correct even with a modern equivalent battery.