Good/Bad Bokeh ?

[michael_tellings]

Good/Bad Bokeh ?

 

Sarah.jpeg

 

Noctilux @f1.0

[i want my photo.net histor]

I think I need my eyes checked. Nothing seems in focus (or really sharp) and the OOF areas hurt my eyes.

 

Sorry,

[joshroot]

I've got to agree with Rav. For some reason, that's a really hard photo to look at.

[andy_piper2]

Michael: I'd call it fairly 'neutral' bokeh - not excellent, but not as harsh as many.

 

The Nocti does strange swirly things in the corners due to the fact that it's actually about an f/2.8 lens at the edges since the lens barrel/optics reduce the aperture to a 'cat's-eye' slit - which is why the blur circles in the corners get smaller/sharper.

 

On my screen Sarah looks fuzzy as well as the background - and part of really outstanding bokeh is the sharp/soft contrast - which this image doesn't have as delivered.

[chris_david]

It's bad, distracting and nauseating.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I went to the link first... looked at the picture, and thought, that this looks like a Noctilux wide open, but the focus is off. After reading your post I see I guessed correctly. I suppose I wasted a good guess on that image, instead of a lottery ticket.

 

The bokeh has that Noctilux flavor, but I think somethings amiss with the focus, or the scan is not up to snuff, or there is some veiling flare there, or all three.

 

The Noctilux is known for looking swirly, and I think is exemplifies that point.

[michael_bender]

For boke comparisons go here:<br>

<a href=http://www.comworks.gr.jp/~taka/hobby/camera/Lens/Boke/>http://www.comworks.gr.jp/~taka/hobby/camera/Lens/Boke/</a>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Another fast lens is the Canon 50mm F1.2 LTM. Here are some trick or treaters @F1.2 and 1/25 second; 400TMAX and a Zorki 3C. Not my best but just some average fun shots. They were still underexposed a stop/tad; I had to pull the shadows out of the toe during prescanning to get a sort of decent image. <BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-333.jpg" target = "_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/thumbs/tripods-333-thumb.jpg" BORDER=0></A>

 

<A HREF="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-331.jpg" target = "_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/thumbs/tripods-331-thumb.jpg" BORDER=0></A>

[andrew_lee2]

The bokeh from the Jupiter3 (link above) reminds me of my old Canonet. <p> Can anyone post examples from the Zeiss Sonnar (or any of its variants) shot up close and wide open?

[thomas_buchhold]

Hi Andrew,

 

isn´t the Jupiter a Zeiss Sonnar?

[andrew_lee2]

Thomas, now that you mention it I think you're right. I have a hard time believing the Nikkor and Zeiss Sonnar look as bad as the Jupiter though. For what it's worth, <a href="http://davidde.com/zeisscopies.html" >this site</a> rates the Jupiter as bottom of the barrel among the copies and says that its performance varies from lens to lens. Maybe the example from the site above was from one of the 'lesser' Jupiters.

[russell_brooks]

Yep -- looks like a normal noctilux photo -- out of focus.<br>Sorry, I've had my noct for almost 2 years now and the DoF is so narrow I've just about given up on it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Jupiter-3's vary ALOT in quality level. I own three of the devils; stopped down to F8 all are good. At F1.5; two only resolve about 12 lines/mm in the center; the other about 30 lines/mm. It might be focusing cam differences. The Canon F1.2 of mine is a much better low light lens; it focuses correctly with my Leica M3 and my Zorki 3C; while the Jupiter-3's are much useless at this time. I need to test them on an SLR; to remove the focusing errors from the lens tests; and then focus on why they focus wrong.

[vic_.]

Sarah is very pretty, but this photograph does not flatter her because her nose looks enlarged. This is a major drawback of shorter lenses - they are not good for closeup portraits. I know people have said they use the 35 and the 50 for portraits, but IMO 75mm should be the shortest to get the best in such a closeup. 35 and 50 for full length or torso only.

[michael_tellings]

Thanks to all for the useful comments !

[jim_clifford]

I love the 50mm lens as a portrait lens because it does not distort the face (ie flatten it out as does a 90mm or elongate closer features ie the 35mm). Sure you can use the qualities of each lens to compensate for your subject but if you are striving for a portrait with depth in the curves and protrusions of the human face without distortion, the 50 is ideal. The Noctilux is an awesome instrument that takes practice to learn how to use with success (I have only had mine for about a month and there is a steep learning curve with this lens). Yes there is a larger percentage of out of focus shots as I experiment in the land of f1, but the payoff is in learning when to use f1 and when to opt for other apertures. This lens really tests your visualization skills and gives immense control over the bokeh/DOF. Keep shooting!!!

[andrew_schank]

The Zeiss 1.5 Sonnar has a very distinctive bokeh at f1.5 and closer focused subjects. I like it--almost impressionistic. Some people hate it!<div></div>

[larry_kincaid1]

If you could crop out everything except the upper right OOF square, I would like it. Otherwise, a I hate it.

[roger c]

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with the people who think the Sonnar bokeh is horrible ;-)<p><a href="http://jollyroger1.future.easyspace.com/images/swirly.jpg">Here's some interesting "swirly" bokeh</a> from a wide open Summar 50/2 (I focused on the tombstone on the right - nothing else is sharp).

[terry_rory]

Roger that looks, suspiciously, like an English churchyard. I may be wrong of course.

 

Whats going on here? Do Summicron f2's 'Anglicise' pictures? Weird.

[terry_rory]

Begging your pardon , I meant Summar 50 F2's of course.

[roger c]

Yes, it is an English churchyard - I live here ;-)<p>I took the photo as a test shot really - it's about the second roll of film through the IIIa - but I quite like the wonky tombstones.