Tom Needs to Shoot Less and Read More Lens Reviews!

[Steve B]

Sorry, it makes me sea sick.

Well, I have to say that that's almost certainly the most honest feedback I've ever gotten on one of my photographs. Thanks,,,,,,,,

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Well, I have to say that that's almost certainly the most honest feedback I've ever gotten on one of my photographs. Thanks,,,,,,,,

The Bokeh on the shot you posted is kinda jarring. It's not the worst bokeh; my 50mm f1.4 AF-Nikkor takes that prize, but its not smooth either.

Here's a portrait with the Olympus 40mm f2; a lens with nice smooth bokeh. Its focal length is too short for portraits, you see the slight wideangle distortion in her face, but the Bokeh is nice.

Anna

The Olympus 85mm f2 has even smoother Bokeh and is a great portrait focal length.

Dee Dee

 

[alan davus]

All this makes me wonder. For just about any lens ever made there's pundits that say it's the best thing since sliced bread and conversely others that reckon it's a load of crap. Is there one lens out there that everyone universally agrees is an absolute classic?. If there is pray tell and I'll buy it tomorrow just to shut said pundits up.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

one of the versions of the Leica 35mm f2 Summicron for the M cameras is. I beleive its the last non-asph. version. what its known for is its bokeh, and I've never heard anyone disparage it in any way. I have never used it; I don't use Leicas doe to the cost, but I have seen many, many images from it and cannot fault any of them I have seen for their Bokeh.

 

[Roger Hicks]

one of the versions of the Leica 35mm f2 Summicron for the M cameras is. I beleive its the last non-asph. version. what its known for is its bokeh, and I've never heard anyone disparage it in any way. I have never used it; I don't use Leicas doe to the cost, but I have seen many, many images from it and cannot fault any of them I have seen for their Bokeh.

Yeah.... I had one and sold it because I preferred the Summilux. By f/5.6 there's not a lot in it; at f/2 to f/5.6, the Summicron wins; at f/1.4, there's no contest.

Long before the word 'bokeh' appeared, a friend of mine (deceased these ten years) reckoned that much of the appeal of the original f/4.5 Apo Lanthars was 'the quality of the out-of-focus image'. And long before that, people talked about 'plastic rendition'.

My suspicions are as follows:

Some people are incredibly sensitive to the quality of the out-of-focus image. Others aren't. Yes, there is 'bad bokeh' but it's got to be really awful before I notice: I defy anyone not to notice the out-of-focus image in Thambar pics with the centre stop in place, but otherwise, I really don't care in most cases.

Some people who aren't sensitive to it, and are rotten photographers to boot, have latched on to it as another excuse why their pictures are rubbish.

Others who 'test' lenses rather than taking pics are keen on bokeh as it's something else that provides an excuse for not shooting.

Once it's pointed out to you, it is quite likely that you will pay more attention to the quality of the out-of-focus image, but I have grievous doubts as to whether this will make anyone a better photographer.

If you notice the bokeh before the picture, it's probably a rotten picture anyway. Either that, or you have difficulty in recognizing good pictures. Or, of course, like the earlier sea-sick poster, you may be far more sensitive to it than the vast majority of people.

EDIT: Oh: and a hell of a lot depends on the subject matter and lighting.

Incidentally, a lens I've never heard a bad word about is the 150/6.3 Tessar.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[KoNickon]

I think Roger kind of sums it up. If bokeh isn't important to you; fine -- just don't assume it shouldn't be important to anyone. And many, many factors go into how it looks, like subject matter and lighting.

 

[kevin m]

Leica 35mm f2 Summicron for the M cameras ... I beleive its the last non-asph. version. what its known for is its bokeh, and I've never heard anyone disparage it in any way.

Well I'll oblige you: It's mediocre wide open. It's performance is bettered by many newer designs, most at a fraction of its cost. It's grossly, laughably overpriced relative to it's performance, ($1,500! 😱 ) and offers proof that Leica owners can be very, very silly people. Yes, I had one. I sold it back when they were going for $800 and thought it a poor value then.

If you really want a pre-asph 35 Summicron, have someone slap you, then buy a 40mm Rokkor or Summicron instead. Your wallet will thank you.

 

[ferider]

Here is a nice earlier article from Harold Merklinger (1996): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

Where in the picture the blur is located becomes an issue when aperture convolution and coma are combined.

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

The terms been around since before 2000, I think.

It's an angels on pins discussion, for sure. Unless you're a lens designer it seems a binary issue; you either like a lens or not.

 

[Nando]

I looked into getting a 50 Nokton at one point but I wasn't really turned off by its bokeh. I think the rendering has more of a modern look to it and I wanted a more classic look. At the time, I went with a Sweeneyfied J3 because I love the Sonnar look and I couldn't find a nice Canon 50/1.5. If the Zeiss ZM Sonnar-C was available at the time, I'd probably would have opted for that lens instead. I have since added a few more 'classic' 50mm's - a Summitar, a Summarit, 50/3.5 Elmar, and a Soviet I-22. The 50 Summitar is probably my favourite of the bunch.

I've come a full circle now and I'm seriously considering a 50 Nokton again. However, I really want a 50 Summilux-ASPH - the price is hard to swallow though. I figured that it would take me about a year to save up for one.

 

[Trius]

I believe the official RFF term is now sofa.

 

[Tom A]

I must admit that the term Boke or Bokeh always confused me a bit (then lots of stuff do} - To me it was always that fuzzy stuff, either ahead or behind what I wanted in focus!
Sometimes it bugged me as I obviously had not paid attention to my aperture and other times it looked kind of nice. Admittedly I never saw it as a major function of a lens.
I did have the perfect Bokeh lens some years ago. It was a Elcan 90mm f1.0 (and you thought your Noctilux had shallow DOF!). This was not the infamous M-mount lens with 50/100/300 ft focus rings, this came from a CRT screen sensing system. It was big and had no helicoil.
I did adapt a M-mount to it, put it on a M2 and realized that the fact that it was not coupled, nor had a helicoil did not matter. It totally obscured the rangefinder and viewfinder on the M2.
By scientifically testing it (this involved a tape measure, a large table and a small toy model of a 1956 T-bird) - putting the car paralell to the tape measure and rolling it backwards and forwards !mm at a time and taking a shot, I did establish that focus was at 753 mm(not 752 or 754 either) and what you got was the whole list of spherical abberations, flare, coma etc.
Bokeh, The whole Bokeh and nothing but Bokeh!

The lens was later used as a Christmas present to a friend who likes lenses!

 

[kevin m]

I would not notice the difference between a Sonnar and a Smegmatar...

The Smegmatar is a very nice lens, but it tends to weep some sort of fluid on the iris blades and inner lens elements and it's really messy and costly to clean. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Smegmatar is a very nice lens, but it tends to weep some sort of fluid on the iris blades and inner lens elements and it's really messy and costly to clean. 😀

Dear Kevin,

Smells funny, too. Even worse than an old FSU ER case. Or maybe not...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

By scientifically testing it (this involved a tape measure, a large table and a small toy model of a 1956 T-bird) - putting the car paralell to the tape measure and rolling it backwards and forwards !mm at a time and taking a shot, I did establish that focus was at 753 mm(not 752 or 754 either) and what you got was the whole list of spherical abberations, flare, coma etc.
Bokeh, The whole Bokeh and nothing but Bokeh!

The lens was later used as a Christmas present to a friend who likes lenses!

I knew you wouldn't laugh at your fellow lens-lover friends! 😉

I'm not a reviewer or anything, but like anything that is worth appreciating, I appreciate a good lens. Like a good wine. Or a good relationship. And a good paycheck.

Talking about it doesn't mean you can't appreciate it.

I think that's why there are only a handful who can pull a tasteful nude: those who can think beyond objects and fast-food gratification.

BTW, I like the samples you posted not long ago. How do you so prolifically develop and scan all that film?! I'm jealous.

 

[kevin m]

Smells funny, too. Even worse than an old FSU ER case. Or maybe not...

I have a Jupiter 12 I've kept because I think it has 'character,' but maybe I've just confused that with 'odor.' 😀

 

[Peter Klein]

Lens connoisseurs who are also Red Dwarf fans? The mind boggles. . .

😀

--P

 

[skibeerr]

I had lousy focussing on my Nokton with close up in combo with my M3.
Then I tested all 4 M lenses I own on the M3, still blury focus clos up.
So the M3 whent to the hospital for rf allignment and got back yesterday.
I am now going to redo the test. If it still gives blury focus close up I will sell everything and start fishing ;-)

 

[Trius]

If it is still out of alignment, it's worth nothing, so just send the whole kit to me. I will pay freight, of course.

 

[Pablito]

The Smegmatar is a very nice lens, but it tends to weep some sort of fluid on the iris blades and inner lens elements and it's really messy and costly to clean. 😀

Do you mean the Stigmatacron? 😀 😀