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

"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?

"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

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)...

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

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

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.")

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

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...

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)....