Bokeh and ASPH lenses

[terry_rory]

You mean.. "Bokeh my Asph!"

[pensacolaphoto]

non-asph.. asp...non-asph...asph

[stuart_richardson]

Raid, unfortunately you got every one wrong...the answers are above.

[jan_brittenson]

<sarcasm>

I can't afford any of the asph lenses and think it's self-evident they don't have as good bokeh. You're just trying to justify your purchase Stuart!

</sarcasm>

[zdenek]

... the 4th version (just prior to the current Asph version) 35mm Summicron is often called the "Bokeh King."

 

How can I recognize this lens?

[andrewlamb]

I get confused by this obsession with bokeh and Leica lenses. If you're really keen on

exploiting the OOF aspects of photography, wouldn't be you better served moving up a

format, or two?

 

What about the bokeh on a 150mm f2.8 Xenotar on 5x4 and weren't large format Heliar

lenses prized for their OOF characteristics? Just a thought :)

[Allen Herbert]

Stuart Richardson , apr 12, 2006; 03:31 p.m.

Ok, here is a little test: Don't cheat and look at the file titles, because some contain the lens info...

ASPH or non ASPH?

 

You need to spend some time understanding P/S,or buy a decent scanner,really. With all due respect they all look crap. Sorry.

[Allen Herbert]

Feeling.......<div></div>

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>If you're really keen on exploiting the OOF aspects of photography, wouldn't be you better served moving up a format, or two?</i></p>The same holds true for the <i>in</i>-focus aspects.

[Allen Herbert]

Yep, it's oversharpened,and harsh....

 

Sort of fits with the reality.

[andrewlamb]

"The same holds true for the in-focus aspects."

 

Agreed but larger formats are murder on my back.

[paulmoore]

andrew, here is the 150 2.8, lots of that fuzzy stuff.<div></div>

[andrewlamb]

Paul, yep that'll do it. Very nice. I'm guessing you closed the lens down a bit, maybe?

 

BTW, I've recommended you to my wife's company. I gather they are looking at food

photographers.

[paulmoore]

well thanks andrew for the referral,

yes I doubt it was at 2.8.. but I'm sure it wasn't much past f4.. here is another one, again

close if not at 2.8.. this lens is tough to use in back lit / hi-key lighting..

2.8 is a bit extreme for most small product and food shots,, nice to look through though.

and while large format.. it was shot with a rangefinder camera so not totally off topic.

I know I must be boring the socks off the street shooters.. but it is the end of this thread..

why do we always end-up here at the end?

[paulmoore]

not sure why that last one didn't show up...smaller jpg than the glasses..any smaller and it is

just a thumnail..

[andrewlamb]

Another nice shot and more bokeh than you can shake a non-asph stick at.

 

I owned the 150mm f2.8 about 8 years ago and, in moments of madness, used to use it on

portraits. Not surprisingly the hit rate, when shooting wide open or close to, was abysmal. It

worked better on fashion shoots probably because models are more used to keeping still and

working with numbskulls muttering about bokeh :)

[gary_ferguson1]

The problem with "bokeh" threads is that there's no concensus about what bokeh actually means in the photographic sense. You can claim any lens has good or bad bokeh, it all depends on how you define bokeh. Does it mean for example,

 

-Gives the impression of extending depth of field? In this case most modern lenses are doomed to fail, because they are so much sharper in the plane of focus that everything outside that plane looks less sharp by comparison. I've also heard that although depth of field tables give the theoretical maximum for a given circle of confusion, in reality different lenses perform differently within this maximum, and lens features such as floating elements will enhance resolution in the plane of focus but can degrade it outside of the plane of focus, so effectively reducing apparent depth of field.

 

-Gives pleasing, non-geometric highlights in the out of focus areas? Okay, so that's a vote for either circular aperures, or shooting wide open so the aperture blades are removed completely from the image forming equation.

 

-Eradicates all detail from an out of focus background? This seems to be the "beginner's definition" of bokeh, but for practical purposes it's really saying faster and longer is better. On this definition the Canon 300mm 2.8 would have just about the best bokeh in 35mm photography.

 

-Delivers images that "glow"? Hmmm, this one always sounds to me like an argument for good old fashioned soft focus lenses and vaseline on the filter. I've got a 229mm Cooke/Pinkerton large format lens that glows like a lighthouse, but is that what we mean by good bokeh?

 

-Avoids intrusive, "wirey" artifacts or double images in the out of focus areas? Yes, I'll go with that. But in my experience you can easily achieve this by just saying no to zoom lenses, especially ones with huge ranges like 28mm to 200mm. So no Leica M learning here.

 

-Renders the out of focus areas with a "natural" look? Personally I gravitate to something like this as my preferred definition of good bokeh. For practical purposes this definition seems to favour those lenses where the sagittal and tangential lines of the MTF curves are more closely aligned, which prevents that particularly nasty effect where you get a sprinkling of sharp points in a sea of mush. For practical examples look at the extreme corners of most SLR ultra-wide angle shots, especially where the lens has been well stopped down for depth of field. And this "naturalness" benefit, by and large, comes from the newer lenses, especially when used at the wider apertures which tend to bring the sagittal and tangential lines together. Incidentally, this is the definition of "bokeh" favoured by the Canon lens designers, and as they speak Japanese and I don't, then who am I to argue?

[mpo]

I appreciate the help and advice I've had from you all on this forum.

 

MP