bokeh & 3D look
- Thread starter Joe P
- Start date
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
OK, here's my reason for asking for opinions.
Years ago I bought a used and ancient 55mm f/1.2, a lens that I discovered afterwards has a reputation for being soft and having tonnes of veiling flare. It's also known for having so-so bokeh. Shot wide open, I'd say that's a fair assessment -- the lens isn't sharp, it's riddled with flare and the background, though very blurry, has jarring bokeh. Too bad, but it cost me only $50 so I wasn't heartbroken that it sucked.
However, if shot at ~f/2, the lens is tack sharp, contrasty and its bokeh, at least in my opinion, looks nice. OK, Maybe not as creamy and smooth as the new 58mm f/1.4, a recent lens that has been optimized for bokeh, but definitely not ugly.
Anyway, the lesson I learned yesterday is that aperture not only affects the amount of blur (well, duh!) but it can also radically change the character of the blur. At f/1.2 my old 55mm has ugly bokeh, at f/1.4 it's OK, and at f/2 it's rather good, which is the aperture I shot it at.
Joe
P.S. Here's a picture from the new 58mm f/1.4 (not mine), a lens optimized for smooth bokeh.
It's hard to compare it directly with my picture, but the bokeh of the old 55mm f1.2 doesn't look too shabby.
Years ago I bought a used and ancient 55mm f/1.2, a lens that I discovered afterwards has a reputation for being soft and having tonnes of veiling flare. It's also known for having so-so bokeh. Shot wide open, I'd say that's a fair assessment -- the lens isn't sharp, it's riddled with flare and the background, though very blurry, has jarring bokeh. Too bad, but it cost me only $50 so I wasn't heartbroken that it sucked.
However, if shot at ~f/2, the lens is tack sharp, contrasty and its bokeh, at least in my opinion, looks nice. OK, Maybe not as creamy and smooth as the new 58mm f/1.4, a recent lens that has been optimized for bokeh, but definitely not ugly.
Anyway, the lesson I learned yesterday is that aperture not only affects the amount of blur (well, duh!) but it can also radically change the character of the blur. At f/1.2 my old 55mm has ugly bokeh, at f/1.4 it's OK, and at f/2 it's rather good, which is the aperture I shot it at.
Joe
P.S. Here's a picture from the new 58mm f/1.4 (not mine), a lens optimized for smooth bokeh.
It's hard to compare it directly with my picture, but the bokeh of the old 55mm f1.2 doesn't look too shabby.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
IWC Doppel
pfm Member
Not sure why when I log in I lose the imbedded pictures and just get links. Anyhow, yes nice picture I like the reflection on the glasses and feel of the picture.
I have been chasing the nirvana of bokeh and depth for some time and think there are a number of things at play
The speed of transition between in and out if focus
The characteristics of the lens design including aperture blades
The sensor and unbuilt or post process noise reduction and sharpening
Anyway my favourite lenses for depth are the 35mm Summicron MkIV at f2.8-4, the 35mm Summilux double A f1.4-5.6 and the 24 Elmarit at most apertures
Favourite bokehs 50mm f1 Noctilux and 75mm Summilux wide open
I have been chasing the nirvana of bokeh and depth for some time and think there are a number of things at play
The speed of transition between in and out if focus
The characteristics of the lens design including aperture blades
The sensor and unbuilt or post process noise reduction and sharpening
Anyway my favourite lenses for depth are the 35mm Summicron MkIV at f2.8-4, the 35mm Summilux double A f1.4-5.6 and the 24 Elmarit at most apertures
Favourite bokehs 50mm f1 Noctilux and 75mm Summilux wide open
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
I changed my post from link to inline image
