sampson Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 My personal fave is the 105mm f/2.5. Despite all my efforts, I've yet to create 'bad' bokeh using this lens. I think the key here is not whether good bokeh is possible from a lens. There are certainly plenty of examples in this post showing that all sorts of lenses, primes, zooms, ones with many/few lens elements can produce excellent bokeh. My personal experience has been that the camera-subject-background distance the biggest contributing factor. Note especially images of birds, where the background is almost at infinity. However, put the same lenses in difficult situations (the two Lex mention are probably the worst), and here is where I think you begin to separate the best from the not as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 "Most of these photos are not good example of Bokeh as most do not have Bokeh in them. Bokeh is the 'Shape' that a small bright spot in an image will take that matches the shape of the lenses 'iris' when it is closed down. Bokeh (good or bad) will not be seen usually unless there is a bright spot in the background. A very small spot that is smaller than the 'Aperture' will create exaggerated Bokeh." Bokeh in Japanes means 'blur'. The phototgraphic term of bokeh is derived from this. The above statement is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berg_na Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 According to Mike Johnston, <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml">he actually made up the spelling of "bokeh"</a>. In any case, while it may be a desirable quality for a lens, it is not a compliment for someone to be called a bo-ke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n1664876959 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I thought bokeh referred to the out-of-focus areas in general rather than the rendering of highlights.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Peter, I love your "leaning over" image! And I think you are correct. So far, through this discussion and some reading that I have done related to the question I have the following observations... The term bokeh seems to have originated from the Japanese word "boke" which loosely translated means "fuzzy". In photography, it has come to be the term used to describe the out of focus portions of an image. It does not require highlights, shapes, circles, etc., just that it be out of focus. Different lenses produce different bokeh. The effect is a function of aperture, as well as distance from the subject and can be varied with prior knowledge of how a certain lens performs. There is a huge subjective(artistic) element in how different viewers interpret the results of the bokeh produced by various lenses. This is a fascinating subject and worthy of continued discussion. Let us continue:-)............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_f._stein Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Great image, Peter. Stephen Worth-I think you had great insights. Actually, in your image of the fellow with the couple in the background, I think that background to be jarring, I would prefer is smoother. But you are right about the transitions and just how hard or soft we want the "before and after" where we focused stuff to be. A lot of good insights can be gleaned from motion pictures, where focus depth or lack of it is used so carefully. Good discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofey_kalakar Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 My faves are the 35 f1.4 AiS, 35 f2 AFD, 45 f2.8 AiP, 85 1.4 AFD and the 105 f2.8 Micro Nikkor<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_beaver1 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Depends on the background.... And the look you're going for in that particular shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_worth Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 <I>Actually, in your image of the fellow with the couple in the background, I think that background to be jarring, I would prefer is smoother.</I><BR><BR> Yeah... That is probably a textbook example of one of the most difficult situations for bokeh to be rendered well. You've got light sources in the frame, neon and contrasty background details that are close to the same colors as the subject. The thing that saves it is the fact that the bokeh actually obscures the couple making out in the background just enough that you don't see them at first glance. That gives you a chance to register the personality of the subject (jazz guitarist Skip Heller) before you see the punch line in the out of focus background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_smith42 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF is really nice close to wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_galleries Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Nikon 105/2.5 AIS at or near wide open <p><p> <center> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/2980731250_b0e8d47857.jpg"> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_prestemon Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I've seen some of you mention the 105/2.5 AI as being an excellent bokeh lens. I have the AIS version of that lens and was glad to see Keith's example using the AIS version. So is the popular opinion on this forum that the AI version is better at bokeh or is the AIS version just as good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_galleries Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Brian - AFAIK, the optics of the AI and AIS versions are identical. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiro Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 My favorites, not in any order... 70-200VR, AF85F1.4, 105F2DC, 135L, 105 2.5, AF180 2.8, 30 1.4, 60AF-S, and 105VR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Keith, that is a great portrait shot with a very pleasing background. I've read a lot of great reviews of the 105s which I am now even more interested in acquiring. Thanks, Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_galleries Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Thanks, Dick. I like the 105/2.5 so much, I actually have it with an LTM mount as well :-) Actually, I don't think they're the same optical formula, but I do like both. I used to have an 85/1.4 AFD, which has long ben considered the kng of bokeh. You wouldn't get any arguments from me wrt bokeh, but the 85mm focal length just seemd too short for how I see things when I use a tele. I also have the 70-200mm AFS VR, and it does have great bokeh as well, but its size precludes everyday use, so I typically only use that at events. In any case, you can't go wrong with any (or all) of these lenses. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debbikoplen Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I don't think anybody has mentioned the 200mm f4 micro. It produces the creamiest bokeh of all my lenses. Here are a couple of examples: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debbikoplen Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 examples of the 200mm f4<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debbikoplen Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Here is another example<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Debbi, I agree with you and the quality is equal to the example that I gave earlier in this thread with this photo of a puppy that was taken with a Canon 200mm prime... http://www.photo.net/photo/790059 Not my image, but Chris is fine with it being used as an example. Thanks for sharing, Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Sorry, this is the working link... http://www.photo.net/photo/7900591 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_asprey2 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 105/2.5. I love it. Its small, smooth as silk, unobtrusive. It's got me back into film and portraits. The faster ones are nice, but in available light the dof is too narrow on the faster, newer ones imho. And its cheap as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triode___ Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Nikkor 50mm f1.2 Ai/Ai-S Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-D Zoom-Nikkor 70-180 Micro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jclaice Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I love my 200mm F/2 VR. This was shot at iso 640 1/250 sec at f/4.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Joseph, Very nice portrait with beautiful highlights, the background and bokeh are complementary to the subject. 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