Hasselblad 80mm 2.8 CF T* Bokeh

<p>As I am still getting to know my new (old) hasselblad 500cm I just discovered a real difference between normal lenses. I was doing a shoot-out against my Nikon D2X with a AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX ( a lens that I have much respect for). Same speed and aperture...same tripod, same everything except the Nikon chose the white balance in auto mode. ISO160 for both and Portra NC film scanned on a Epson V500.<br>

I printed this out onto a 19X13 sheet and the hassy is sharper (not a shock)....but check out that bokeh!!</p>

<div></div>

<p>Ok, first the depth of field is so different between the two photos, it can't be compared. Second, Zeiss lenses are famous for having a harsh bokeh and your example shows it.</p>

I think that you are seeing and commenting on depth of field, (more limited with the medium format's longer normal lens),

not bokeh.

<blockquote>

<p>Ok, first the depth of field is so different between the two photos, it can't be compared. Second, Zeiss lenses are famous for having a harsh bokeh and your example shows it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, you can compare them! Martin just did! I think that while Zeiss bokeh may not be everyone's cup of tea, bokeh is nevertheless subjective. A favorable thing we can say about the Hasselblad shot is that it gives 3D "pop" to the foreground details. In the Nikon shot, those same details are (literally) lost in the woods!</p>

<p>(Hmmmm, I guess another <em>medium vs small format DoF</em> debate... )</p>

<p>In my experience, the sharpest the lens the worst bokeh, and good bokeh belong to softer lenses. This specially applies to current or modern ones.<br /> I`d say your Hasselblad pic show a very similar bokeh to fast "standard" Nikkors.</p>

<p>You can get roughly the same background blurring if you open up the APS-C lens two stops compared to what you shot the 'blad at. You may want to get the Sigma 30/1.4, though, if you shoot the 'blad wide open. Comparing at the same f stop is problematic, because when you went to a shorter focal length to keep the FoV the same on the smaller format camera, your DoF increased by the square of the ratio of the focal lengths.</p>

<p>Which is to say, that this is a problematic comparison, since it doesn't reflect what a technically knowledgable photographer would get with the smaller format camera. Larger formats can have advantages for this sort of shallow-DoF work, but it's nowhere near as enormous as this comparison implies.</p>

 

<p>If you did another test, with the Nikon 35mm at f1.8 and the Hasselblad 80mm at f4, you would have the same linear aperture diameter (~20mm in both cases: 35 divided by 1.8 and 80 divided by 4), and so the same focus falloff with distance. Then you would be in a position to compare the <em>quality </em>of the bokeh from each lens. Unfortunately, the non-circular iris of the stopped-down 80mm lens would then become a factor as well.</p>

<p>For a true final effect comparison, the 80mm Hasselblad lens should be compared with the same focal length in medium-format, or a 50mm lens in 35mm format, with both/all at the same aperture, eg f2.8, and printed to same print / on-screen format. Some of the Zeiss lenses do have harsh Bokeh, and some Mamiya lenses are absolutely awful, however were you to use a Zeiss 120mm S-Planar / Macro-Panar, at full aperture, or indeed the 250mm Sonnar the Bokeh can be beautifully soft. Focal length, aperture, distance between subject in focus and the background all have a bearing on the softness of background. There are some lenses with superb out-of-focus regions, at all apertures, such as certain Leica 35mm Summicron, the Summaron, (to name just a few of the Leitz line up) .. in large format, the Schneider Tele Xenar, and Arton, and the <a href="http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/largeformat.html">Cooke Portrait PS945 Lens</a> are excellent. Most of the best have many more iris blades than the 5 of the 80mm Planar, and the bulk of the run-of-the-mill lenses for 35mm cameras. I don't like to see those pentagon shaped highlights, so I try to avoid them.</p>

<p>The above photos confirm what I dislike about digital color: the presence of too much yellow, which makes greenery look fake. Even worse with grass. </p>

<p>What ever happened to the color green?</p>

<p>Rob, you <strong>can</strong> compare APS to medium format, but it is completely meaningless. You might as well compare a car stereo to turkey sandwiches, for all the enlightenment that it provides. Second, "bokeh" doesn't refer to the <strong><em>amount</em></strong> of out-of-focus rendering, but the <em><strong>quality</strong></em> of the out-of-focus rendering. Of course a 35mm lens and 80mm lens are going to have different depths of field, especially if you're comparing them to different formats with widely different circle of confusion. The OP needs to use a DOF calculator like this:<br>

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html<br>

To preserve the same depth of field for it to be at least the tiniest bit valid.</p>

<p>Scott, there is no such thing as "digital color;" the OP got the white balance wrong. Besides having color temperature and tint settings for white balance, there's hue, saturation, luminance, selective saturation, etc. I could just as easily mess up an analog print by using the incorrect film, or as the OP scanned the film into his computer before uploading, he could have just as easily adjusted the color (he in fact did do this, it's just that he let the computer do it automatically instead of realizing that he had any control over it). I put it in photoshop, and within 15 seconds used the Curves tool to get the color in the neighborhood. Not perfect, but worlds better than what someone who posts a "35mm vs 80mm bokeh test, both at the same aperture and on completely different formats" has done.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"...as the OP scanned the film into his computer before uploading, he could have just as easily adjusted the color (he in fact did do this, it's just that he let the computer do it automatically <strong>instead of realizing that he had any control over it). </strong>I put it in photoshop, <strong>and within 15 seconds </strong>used the Curves tool to get the color in the neighborhood. Not perfect, but <strong>worlds better than what someone who posts a "35mm vs 80mm bokeh test, both at the same aperture and on completely different formats" has done.</strong>"<br>

<strong> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

Ariel, I take offense to your words and tone. "instead of realizing he had any control over it" - how arrogant!<br>

35mm on DX and 80mm on MF are a comparsion of "normals".<br>

The point was to compare the "pictures" produced by normal lenses from the two different formats. The original post was simply an observation regarding the difference in bokeh.<br>

Anyone who says something cannot be compared has perhaps forgotten why we press the shutter button... to make a picture.</p>

<p>Martin: You'd do better to listen to what people are saying (which is that you haven't made a valid comparison) and learn something than to take offense.</p>

 

<p>David, you are wrong....but thanks for the fatherly advice.</p>

<p>Martin, while 35mm on DX and 80mm on MF are both normal, you didn't take DOF changes into consideration. While both lenses at the same aperture will give the same exposure, they will give wildly different depths of field. APS needs to be opened up about 2.5-3 stops more than the 6x6 lens to give comparable depth of field. Look at your photos! Look at the obviously completely different depth of field! How do you figure that it's a valid test at all, comparing a 35mm lens and an 80mm lens at the SAME aperture? Do you realize little enough about photography that you don't know that a longer focal length will have a shallower depth of field, given two lenses that are otherwise set identically? Use a depth of field calculator as an example, and let's say that you focused 5 feet away a f/4, both lenses:<br>

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html<br>

The Hasselblad has a depth of field of 0.4 feet, while the Nikon has over double that, at 1 foot. Now, set the focus to 10 feet away, and the Hasselblad now has a DOF of 1.7 ft., compared to the Nikon's 4.1 ft. Smaller formats inherently have a deeper depth of field for the same angle of view, due to two things:<br>

-You are using wider angle lenses to capture the same scene, and wider lenses have a deeper depth of field<br>

-the circle of confusion is smaller for smaller format film/sensors. APS has a CoC about 3 times smaller than 6x6</p>

<p>And again: bokeh does NOT AT ALL refer to the AMOUNT of out of focus rendition. It refers to the QUALITY of out of focus rendition. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" bokeh. Bokeh is how the out-of-focus specular highlights are rendered, the quality and description of them. Since you have such wildly different depths of field in your shots, you cannot draw any solid conclusions between the two photographs with any sort of certainty. In fact, you seem to be confusing "shallow depth of field" with "bokeh." In addition, regarding the color, by choosing Porta NC film, you effectively consciously selected a white balance for the Hasselblad, since Porta is a daylight-balanced film. However, you failed to set a white balance for your D2x, leading to a yellow cast.</p>

<p>I stand by my previous statement. While you do have <strong>a</strong> comparison, it isn't a <strong>sensical</strong> or a <strong>valid</strong> comparison. I might just as well compare my dining room table to a pair of running shorts: the the running shorts are better than my table, because when I'm working out, my table doesn't help keep me cooler and dryer than without it. Or, I could claim that I am faster than my girlfriend, because I just went and ran around the block, and beat her, even though she is laying in bed and reading, not racing me. David Littleboy, Ray Butler, and Kevin Parratt understand what is being compared here; go read their posts carefully, and take them to heart. Think about what's being said, because what you have "compared" is meaningless. If you have any confusion about any of the terms that I mentioned, a few creative search terms in this forum's search, along with google, should clear everything up.</p>

<p>Medium format is about 4x larger than 35mm. Therefore you need to stop down at least 2 stops more(smaller) than 35mm, for similar depth of field. Personally the Hasselblad with film blows the Nikon away in color and "look"".<br>

I am not a fan of Hasselblad, having had too much trouble focusing. Used Pentax 6x7, Mamiya in TLR and SLR. I kept the Rollie 'cause of the many aperture blades in the simple Tessar.<br>

The Zeiss Lenses are unmatched by any other medium system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And again: bokeh does NOT AT ALL refer to the AMOUNT of out of focus rendition. It refers to the QUALITY of out of focus rendition. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" bokeh. Bokeh is how the out-of-focus specular highlights are rendered, the quality and description of them.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ariel...are you saying that a perfectly clear image with huge DOF (f64?) can have wonderful bokeh? I don't think the general photography enthusiast would agree that "quantity" (or the lens' ability to differentiate in/out of focus regions) is not a factor in favoring one lens over another when trying to achieve a creamy background blend!</p>

<p>I prefer the following definition of bokeh (to yours that states quantity or degree of out-of-focus is not a factor in bokeh): Bokeh, the quality of the out-of-focus image, is determined by the circles of confusion characteristic of the lens, its aperture and <em><strong>how far </strong></em>out-of-focus it is.</p>

<p>In practical terms, the image comparison I provided unquestionably illustrates the ultimate bogie of using bokeh in an image: to emphasize the intended subject in an artistic and subjective manner.</p>

<p>I still disagree that this comparison lacks merit. If I wanted to factor the different depths of field as an artistic element of "bokeh", this image provides me direction as to which lens/camera I might choose.</p>

<p>One closing comment - I have no issue with using this forum to learn. This is why I made the original post. I do object to snot-nosed superior-than-thou comments that attack as a means of self gratification. Keep it clinical and lose the personal judgements and we will all keep focused on the sharing and learning rather than the crap.</p>

 

<p>IMHO, if you include the "how far OOF" in your bokeh definition, similar (if not equal) conditions should be considered.</p>

<p>If not, the comparison is unfair; you are not comparing the very same thing. In this case; you are only showing that the ammount of background blur is greater on the picture at left. DoF is shallower here. Then any larger format lens, even the very worst ones will have "better" bokeh.</p>

<p>We can compare a 50/1.5 Contax Sonnar to a 50/1.4 Nikkor. Or even your 80 Planar to the 100 Planar. If we compare my 125cc scooter to my 1200cc BMW motorbike, we can say the scooter engine is better,<em> it has almost half fuel compsumption</em>. But is has less than one-tenth horsepower; the BMW is <em>way more</em> efficient.</p>

<p>Once the equivalent settings have been achieved, you can do a comparison with the parameters you mention: the ammount of blur, the shape of the spots, etc.</p>

<p>And in the opposite, if you`re refering to pictures, -and not comparing lenses-, you can use then the term bokeh in whatever conditions, in its most subjective interpretation. That`s the way I understand it.</p>

<p>No, a perfectly clear image with huge DOF doesn't have ANY bokeh, because it doesn't have ANY out-of-focus rendition or specular highlights. Read your own definition of bokeh. Your definition states that bokeh is "quality of the out-of-focus image." While how far out of focus a photo is CAUSES bokeh, being far out of focus is not CONSIDERED bokeh. Moreover, you COMPLETELY failed to take the circles of confusion characteristic of the lens into account, because <strong>you stopped a 6x6 lens and a DX lens down to the same aperture, despite them both giving the same field of view on their respective formats</strong>, and you then trumpeted the superiority of medium format for a shallower depth of field (which you called superior bokeh, even though again, even by your definition, you don't have MORE or LESS bokeh, just BETTER or WORSE bokeh). You can't even compare quality between the two images because you've blurred the background to different amounts, and since, again by your definition, not mine, bokeh is "quality of the out-of-focus image," you can't compare quality if you have one image that's further out of focus AND has a 3 times larger circle of confusion. With both of those criteria for comparing bokeh missing from your test, I hope you'll concede that your test is flawed.</p>

<p>Although, as the Hasselblad stands on it's own, it has horrible bokeh, completely busy and distracting. Look at the twig shapes still visible in the bottom center of the image, just under the darker vine! First, do you understand that a longer lens has a shallower depth of field? Because if you really think about that, you'll understand why your test doesn't show you anything meaningful. All your test showed is that using a shallow depth of field isolates a subject. It doesn't show anything meaningful whatsoever as to the comparative abilities of the different formats or the different lenses. Realize that the comparative lenses for 35mm photography open up much wider than the medium format lenses. Compare your 80mm f/2.8 to a proper large aperture lens like the 35mm f/1.4, both shot wide open, and see who comes out ahead when you have both image with the backgrounds thrown out of focus to the same amount. Why are you comparing two lenses when you're stopping one down more than the other, how do you view that as fair? Nikon also has a 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2, and 200mm f/2. Compare any of those lenses wide open <strong>to account for the circles of confusion</strong>, and you'll find no difference in depth of field against the medium format lenses that give the same angle of view.</p>

<p>I could do a test converse to yours, stop both a 135 lens and a MF lens of equal angle of view down to f/8 for a landscape shot, and then trumpet around that the 135 lens is better for landscape photography. I really really hope that you see why this is a completely flawed argument; I hope you don't believe that 35mm is better than medium format for landscape.</p>

<p><strong>The Zeiss Lenses are unmatched by any other medium system. </strong><br>

My Mamiya 6 lenses are just as sharp and have less distortion (as in 0).</p>

<p>Ariel,<br>

My observation of poor color accuracy with greenery is from simply looking at thousands of posted photos. Most photographers, then, would seem to be using incorrect white balance. My Pentax k20d showed a strong bias towards yellow, and I had to remove about 30 units in PS. It just seems to me that the issue is so prevalent that florescent green become accepted. Let's face it--the modern photographer is not interested in the accuracy of Portra films. Even Velvia looks more accurate to me.<br>

Scott</p>

<p>Ariel correctly states:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... bokeh does NOT AT ALL refer to the AMOUNT of out of focus rendition. It refers to the QUALITY of out of focus rendition. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" bokeh. Bokeh is how the out-of-focus specular highlights are rendered, the quality and description of them. Since you have such wildly different depths of field in your shots, you cannot draw any solid conclusions between the two photographs with any sort of certainty. In fact, you seem to be confusing "shallow depth of field" with "bokeh."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's it in a nut shell.<br>

again ,,,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>It refers to the QUALITY of out of focus rendition.</strong> There is no such thing as "more" or "less" bokeh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It refers to the quality of the out of focus regions in a real photograph, as rendered by the lens. Discussions, magazine articles, reviews, an appreciation of this subject was already highly developed in Japan several decades ago, whilst the amateur photography band waggons of America were completely obsessed with sharpness. In 1997 a Leica photographer friend sent me a copy of <em>Photo Techniques </em>containing an article, a very informative article, with the introduction of the term Bokeh, and what it was about in the context of that Japanese awareness. Not only did it enhance my own appreciation of lens designs, I bought a subscription to the magazine.<br>

And now we have all the "photo editing" programs, faking one quality after another, hijacking terminology and defecating everywhere. It's no wonder there is confusion and obscurity of the real.<br>

Some of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh"><strong>this</strong></a> may help.</p>

 

<p>Even the Wikipedia article I link to above goes off the track, taking the word "Bokeh" out of context of the Japanese discussion, an aesthetic appreciation of camera optics, with specific reference to all of the regions of an image, before and behind the plane of focus. It is not about how much blur is obtained by opening up the aperture, let alone what effects are simulated in graphics software.<br>

As for pronunciation, there is no need for argument. It is a Japanese word, so listen to how a native Japanese person says it.<br>

Wikipedia is of course 'open source', so is subject to the democracy of errors. As for Youtube, with no verification of source required at all, a new trendy term is picked up, misused, spreads like a disease and becomes implanted in the market place. To illustrate the disease effect, read down <a href="http://www.geforce.com/News/articles/epic-tim-sweeney-and-nvidia-talk-samaritan-and-the-future-of-graphics"><strong>here</strong></a> to find a graphics feature named "Bokeh Depth of Field". At least the author does seem to know something of the origins.<br>

Have fun ... good bye</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/">http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>.... there are so many misrepresentations and misunderstandings of this topic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Go to the link above for a good read. It will keep you on the right path to a better understanding.</p>

<p>[/flame war] Martin: What is it about the Hasselblad bokeh that you didn't like? Is it that the major outlines, such as that one tree trunk, have retained their edges too much?</p>

<p>[/flame war] Martin: What is it about the Hasselblad bokeh that you didn't like? Is it that the major outlines, such as that one tree trunk, have retained their edges too much?</p>