(Old) Results from a Sonnar

Earlier, Lynn posted some very nice work from her Sonnar. I mentioned

that I had a photo that showed some really wild out-of-focus effects.

While looking for some slides, I came across the negatives.

 

I don't believe there were lights around the windows. I can't really

recall anything extraordinary.

 

By the way, the true "bokeh" (man, I hate that word) fans would puke

if they look at this. I thought it looked pretty cool.

 

This was shot on generic Kodak 200 with an f/2.0 Zeiss-Opton Sonnar

wide open. Another wide shot, so you gotta click the link below.<div></div>

Congrats! Looks like you got the world's shortest reflex lens!

I think the way you got the archways of light (the "bokeh") is great.

 

(What exactly do the afficionados approve or disapprove, as far as "bokeh" is concerned?)

Very good lens. The lights behind, help to stand out the head of the figure.

 

Good composition: You used the Vitruvio's Golden Section Law.

 

Many people tend to forget this easy law and neglect the composition.

:) that looks very interesting, Mike, in the good way interesting.

bokeh afficionados should be renamed "smooth nuts", haha. the true bokeh man tries

this and that, goes with what works better. it all depends.

ouch! It looks as though the "bokeh" is *really* odd here. In particular, the lower right part of each out-of-focus highlight looks even more pronounced than the rest of the ring (like it's "shifted" or something). The tops of the ring are barely visible.

 

Daniel, I'm no bokeh afficiando by any stretch, but those harsh rings defining the outer edge of the out-of-focus highlights are distracting from (or possibly in some opinions, "supplementing") the intended in-focus subject.

 

I've never seen anything quite like this from my Sonnar, and I shoot wide open a lot. Though mine is an f/1.5, not an f/2.0. Do you think there'd be that much of a difference in the designs?

 

Thanks for sharing it, Mike.

Mike, that is a great picture. Nice atmosphere and colours. You did not slip with you Dremel tool on the lens surface by any (mis)chance?

could be an illustration from a high school physics textbook showing particle physics or how light is both a particle and a wave

 

time for more coffee...... and I actually like the photo a lot.

Very odd looking, but I like it.

Strange. My 50/1.5 Sonnar has never produced such an effect.

 

Is it the term "bokeh" that you dislike, Mike, or the effect? If it's the word, then maybe we can use OOFA (out of focus areas) as a term, instead of bokeh ;)

Robert, it's really the focus (!) on this term to the point where photos are praised or dismissed on how the background looks, rather than the overall composition.

It would be nice if we had an in-focus shot of the background to understand what could cause such an effect. Could flare have played a role with off angle light coming into the lens? I find it strange that the central figure showed up so well and the background is so strange. Interesting shot.

It looks to me that it has nothing to do with "Bokeh"or anything like that. You just happen to have a lemon. The mention about a Dremel is correct, I think.

 

If you like it for the artifacts it produces, then it is truly a one of a kind gem. Amazingly, it seems focus very sharply where you intend it to!

That's pretty wacky! But I do like it ...

 

Paul

Hello Mike,

 

a very fine classic shoot, but is not amazing.

The Zeiss Opton Sonnar and later Zeiss only have a double base

aperture blades for harmony picture results.

The Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar East-Germany and russian Jupiter 8 and 3

don't include.

I find this double aperture base in a Canon 1:1,8/50mm M 39 LTM

too.

Anyone in a other lens ?

peter

Fair enough, Mike. Bokeh is just one characteristic to consider. And I must admit, I have seen shots where the most interesting part of the photo is the bokeh. That is what I simply refer to as a bad photograph.

What shutter speed was used for that shot? It looks like some kind of light source was moving faster than the shutter. Could it have been a slow speed and some internal gears that move during the slow speeds were reflected through the lens. Just a wild guess. How is the internal baffling in that camera? Any bright bits of metal?

It was a Thai restaurant with a number of archways leading to different dining areas of the restaurants. No physical doors -- just archways.

 

The restaurant might have had lights around the archways, but I don't recall that being the case, despite having had lunch their every other week for about two years.

 

Don't recall the technical data. Probably about 1/10 or 1/25. This was with a Contax IIa -- an excellent camera, by the way. It doesn't suffer from any internal flare.

 

I was testing the lens -- so I wasn't out shooting seriously. Just snapping away to finish up the roll.

I think that you are onto something with the lights Mike. I have a very similar-looking shot made on my Rolleiflex 80/2.8 Xenotar wide open. The background was a lit Christmas tree and the small lights made a pattern exactly like that.

Ed, with strong side lighting, that kind of lopsided boke is possible with any lens.

Apologies for the content (my youngest "model" Ally), but I this photo shows that the close-up performance of the Sonnar 50/1.5 is also superb, even set wide open at minimum focus. This was shot yesterday with my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2786022">separated CZ Sonnar</a> and is about an 80% crop.<div></div>

Here's another one with a lot of fine details, stopped down f/8 or so I guess.<div></div>