pieris_berreitter Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 If this forum is representative, Leica users really go nuts over bokeh. It's the equivalent of sharpness discussions in the Canon forum. I have never seen a side-by-side comparison of "good" versus "bad" bokeh. Does anyone know of a website comparing the bokeh of various lenses? Short of that, can someone share a "good" image and a "bad" one? Does anyone here really kick themselves when they look at an image and say "man, this would be gallery quality, if it wasn't for the lousy bokeh!" Or is this just the only thing left to pick on because Leica lenses are "so great" in all other respects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monochrome11 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 i'm far from being an expert on this issue, but i think one of the reasons 'bokeh' is often spoken about when discussing leica lenses is that leica is know for making some of the best fast lenses designed for wide open use... the 'pop' many people refer to is a result of using these lenses wide or near wide open which creates distinct separation between the object(s) in focus and the rest of the composition (often background but may include foreground)... this 'out of focus' area is rendered differently from lens to lens and the often smooth character that some leica lenses produce in conjuction with high resolving power and sharpness results, at least for me, in the leica 'glow' ... i also find that many medium format lense produce equally, if not more pleasing bokeh due to the narrower dof relative to 35mm... just my 2 cents worth... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 For good "creamy" Leica Bokeh have a look at Doug Herr's website www.wildlightphoto.com bad bokeh is illustrated bellow. 70-180 Vario Apo Elamarit at 2.8 and 180 FL<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 wrong file sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 wrong file sorry but a perfect example of no bokeh at all<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 A good place to start is to first drop "good" and "bad" as adjectives for bokeh. There were a couple of fine articles on bokeh in one issue of Photo Technique magazine a couple of years ago. (I'll see if it's still in the library sometime since I don't remember which issue.) In the meantime, the article showed many examples of "double-edged," "ring," "smooth," etc. bokeh. What it boils down to is whether one type is visually appealing to you or not. That would make it "good" or "bad"--for you, but not necessarily for others. The "pop" of the subject from its background and/or foreground is affected by the type of bokeh but seems more spatially dependent on the DOF (depth-of-focus/field) or lack thereof. And now prepare for the onslaught of comments like "Oh, not a bokeh thread again." Or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 not having a good morning<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 I have a Carl Zeiss 85mm/1.4 Planar lens for the 35mm Rolleiflex cameras. The lens is stuck on 1.4, so I have tried it out to see whether I must repair the lens or I keep it at 1.4. I used a simple flatbed scanner. I think, the bokeh is fine here. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2904971-md.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Labs don't have bokeh. They may have hardmouth, undershot jaw, hip displasia, cow hocks, or just bad breath, but bokeh just doesn't come into the picture. Just getting that black hide to register at all in color is an achievement and in B&W near impossible. Now, Golden Retrievers, that's a different matter altogether! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_dakin Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 A while ago when googling around about this topic I stumbled across this website: http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/ The site compares a classic Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AIS lens known for its bokeh to a 105mm f2.8 AIS micro lens known for its sharpness. In case you're not aware Nikon labels its macro lenses "micro". There are some pictures at the bottom of the page comparing the bokeh of the two lenses. Incidentally, it seems that this report was prepared by a photo.net member according to this discussion: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0061kR How Nikkor bokeh compares to the Leica bokeh I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 RAID: Bokeh or not, that picture is priceless. I know that some of this forum's denizens are bored by kid pictures, but that little lady's nonchalonce is a once in a lifetime situation, captured only by its serendipity. Would I be violating a copyright if I saved into my private album, never to be duplicated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieris_berreitter Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 hey this is neat. A bokeh test. Too bad the images are different for each lens. Pick your favorite bokeh. <BR> <A HREF="http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.php?t=d&a=&m=22&ff=35&ft=50&af=1&at=3">bokeh comparison</A> at bokeh.de Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 People spend s**tloads of money on lenses which are no sharper nor contrastier nor better-corrected than Japanese lenses costing far less, and yet they still need to convince themselves that their chosen objects are superior; so they rant about the superior bokeh of Leica lenses. I'm not suggesting that different lenses don't have different bokeh; I'm just suggesting that there is nothing inherently superior about the bokeh coming from Leica lenses. In fact, my old 35mm f2 4th version had absolutely horrid bokeh at anything wider than about f5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin.e Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 One pretty good explanation of bokeh is <a href=" http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm ">Here </a>. It may dismay you Leica freaks that reckon Leica has the best bokeh to discover that the lenses that give the best bokeh have uncorrected abberations and well corrected lenses have "neutral bokeh" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 So does anyone have two identical shots that are decent enough shots that anyone cares that show exactly what someone should see? It seems all the tests I see show different shots or different processing or they're such bad photos to begin with that they should be used for demonstrations of trash usage. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Hi Harry, Thanks for your kind words. Of course you can keep the photo. It is of my 19 month old girl, Dana. She is already "very aware" of her nice looks. She gets comments each day about it, and this bothers me and my wife since we don't want her to grow up the wrong way. This photo was taken the same week her baby girl was born 4 weeks ago. "RAID: Bokeh or not, that picture is priceless. I know that some of this forum's denizens are bored by kid pictures, but that little lady's nonchalonce is a once in a lifetime situation, captured only by its serendipity. Would I be violating a copyright if I saved into my private album, never to be duplicated."<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rod g. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 This may be a mute point, or no point at all but I'm under the impression that the rounder the aperture opening the cleaner and lovelier the bokeh. For example, I'd read that the Nikon 135 f4 bellows lens (ca. 1960's) renders outstanding bokeh. Having had an opportunity to examine the aperture on this lens I counted 15 aperture blades making the opening about as round as possible. Just wondering if this theory carries over to other well regarded (in this respect) lenses. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 <img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2904967-md.jpg> Note how unsharp my daughter's finger is at 1.4 wide open. Bokeh is nice, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom h. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 My own shortcomings are what ruin my photos, not what any lens does or doesn't do. If a lens was exhibiting a characteristic post exposure that I felt detracted from what I was trying to show, I'd sell it and get a different one. I've never really bought into the whole bokeh thing, I think contrast and tonal range are the things a lens should be best at, even beyond sharpness. That said, Douglas Herr almost had me convinced once, and that background on Craigs photo IS pretty nasty.And although I've heard what Peter says about that 70-200 IS from more than one person, I have the older non-IS version and it seems fine. Apart from being horribly big, heavy, and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 I never worry too much about "Bokeh". <p> I have seen pleasant out of focus areas on images taken with my 50mm Summicron M, but I dont think bokeh normally makes or breaks an image.<p> This looks to have reasonable Bokeh to me- but it was taken with a Minolta TLR.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aric_rothman Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 This image was made with a Contax 85/1.4 AE lens, stopped down to f/2 or f/2.8. The very un-circular aperture shape is evident in how the lights in the background off axis are rendered. Interesting how the lights near the center of the image are more blurred.<p> <center><img src="http://home.woh.rr.com/anl/borders/Gallery/images/borders0002.jpg"><p></center><p> A few more...<p><center> <img src="http://home.woh.rr.com/anl/borders/Gallery/images/borders0005.jpg"><p> <img src="http://home.woh.rr.com/anl/borders/Gallery/images/borders0018%20copy.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 "I'm under the impression that the rounder the aperture opening the cleaner and lovelier the bokeh." This may be the case, but many of the images posted above I guess, were taken with the aperture fully open, effectively removing the aperture from the equation. It is probably more related to the optical formula of the lens in such instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Craig, that's a very nice Labrador image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now