Why Fuss Over Lens Bokeh? - Page 4

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote in news:1117577124.974508.284170
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Might have to revise my guess.

I'll put you out of your misery:
Frank is poking fun at the way your posts include no indication of what/who
you are replying to. Depending on how someone's newsreader displays the
posts (some people may not be using a threaded view) it can be difficult to
tell who you are replying to without a quote like at the top of this post.

Your post that started this showed up on my newsreader with no way for me
to tell who you were quoting, because you didn't say! I don't see the
posts that were read in a previous session, so unless I get my reader to
reconstruct the thread to see who you were quoting then I have no idea.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:

> Might have to revise my guess.
>

It would be nice if you left prev. post context in place.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> If you could shoot the same scene at the same f-stop with the 1.8 & the
> 1.2 that would be very helpful!

Okay, that was interesting. I don't normally do lens tests.

Both lenses at their max aperture:

http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/50- [...] muckle.jpg
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/50- [...] muckle.jpg

Both lenses at f/2:

http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/50-1.2-f2-schmuckle.jpg
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/50-1.8-f2-schmuckle.jpg

No real attempt to make them look like nice pictures.

My conclusion: wide open, the 50/1.2 is a contender, though not very sharp;
some sharpening would be necessary and the lower contrast could be dealt
with as well. The schmuckle, while not great, is not anything I'd have a
problem with, and looks a bit better. At f/2, the 1.8 wins handily. That
out of focus greenish light in the low center of the picture is pretty
nasty with the 1.2 at f/2, for example, taking on the aperture shape.

I honestly think this was the first time I stopped down the 50/1.2 as far
as f/2.

> I'm missing the 24mm-70mm range (except the 28-200) so would like a good
> bokemeister for that. I might consider an 85 to 135mm too if it really
> offers something special.

The Nikon 85/1.4, 105/2, and 135/2 are all schmucklemeisters. Those last
two, with the defocus control, take some experimentation to get the hang
of; I have the 105, and it's a really, really nice lens, but I had to play
with it a bit and I found that on mine, the "neutral" point for the defocus
control is actually 2F rather than the midpoint. Evidently, it's common,
and some people find their particular copies have a different neutral
setting.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote:

> Also, it seems to me that the 50/1.2 at f/2 has better background bokeh
> than the 50/1.8 at f/2. The amber highlight in the 50/1.2 @ f/2 shot
> has almost no bright ring effect at all, just an aperture shape
> problem. The portion of brick wall at the extreme left is less smooth
> in the 50/1.8 @ f/2 shot, as is the vertical bars in the left-most
> doorway.

Interesting points. The shape of the highlights had me ignoring the
other stuff. Now that I look with what you've pointed out in mind,
the rest of the look does seem better. Now, who says aperture shape
doesn't play a role?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

I have a Sony A100 DSLR and the 500 mm f8 lens bokeh in low light drives me crazy. Why should you have to spend time with PS when you just need a lens that has good bokeh? It takes so much blur to get rid of it, that you end up with a washed-out mess. With enough light, the lens is dead on, but if the background is dim, I get those @#%$ doughnuts that are darn distracting. Am currently looking for a faster lens.

Why the fuss over lens bokeh? It's a creative effect. You want to be creative with your photography, it's a tool. An out-of-focus image with an object that looks like it was blown up like a fuzzy balloon can make a statement about that object. Dig?