Think you know bokeh

D

dskphotography

Member
Local time
1:17 PM
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
39
Location
riverside ca
View My Gallery
just shot something yesterday after i printed it i had a thought are any of you here good enough to guess the lens type amount of aperture blades or even the lens give it a shot
 

Attachments

  • bokeh small.jpg
    bokeh small.jpg
    150.5 KB · Views: 0
thats why this is a great post the guesses are going to be randon its just a disgustingly fast lens 1600 iso film just watching the forums bad bokeh good bokeh no one really cn tell the difference unless its a technical shopt of a single light reflection at different lengths away at different focus points i just wanted to see the differences in peoples guesses
 
dskphotography said:
thats why this is a great post the guesses are going to be randon its just a disgustingly fast lens 1600 iso film just watching the forums bad bokeh good bokeh no one really cn tell the difference unless its a technical shopt of a single light reflection at different lengths away at different focus points i just wanted to see the differences in peoples guesses
Click to expand...

That mean you got your Nokton ?

I agree with you generally for modern good designs, and both Elmarit and Nokton are such, but
identification is particularly difficult when the size of the subject can not be identified,
For example that cup could be the big holy grail or an egg cup.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that it is a symmetrical/double gauss design lens. The doubling in OOF is very typical for overcorrected lenses of that type. Naming a specific lens would be hard since variations in that family are relatively minor.

I can tell that it's not very good bokeh though.
 
varjag said:
My guess is that it is a symmetrical/double gauss design lens. The doubling in OOF is very typical for overcorrected lenses of that type. Naming a specific lens would be hard since variations in that family are relatively minor.

I can tell that it's not very good bokeh though.
Click to expand...
True. It looks like it could have been made with most any 50mm at about f/1.4; what you see as being doubling, and I call "muddying" looks typical of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 crop (LTM, FD, EF, etc.), even the modern Nikon 50 f/1.8 wide open

But it does look like a 50mm at around f/1.4, close-focused. If the scan were "better", perhaps a few more details may give up a "characteristic" of a given lens, but this is just too...muddied...
 
i do not know boke.
i do not care to know or learn.
i think the whole concept has been warped out of sanity.
i think buying a lens based on boke is near lunacy and indicates way too much time on one's hands and a near nuerotic obsession with gear.

but that's just me 😉

joe
 
Last edited:
I was pretty sure looking at it that the shot was taken wide open- there is no obvious out of round in the large circles of confusion.
The circles are also 'ring like' in form, i.e. hotter at the outside edges.
Reminds me of the Pentax 50 F 1.4 lens.
I am no expert and don't care to be one, but I have noticed that poor bokeh is a little like jpeg artifacts- once you notice it, it'll irritate you. If you'd rather not be irritated by it, DON"T KEEP LOOKING AT THESE THREADS.
 
nikon 50 1.2

nikon 50 1.2

i truly love my nikon 50 1.2 the bokeh isnt perfect but it is a great lens its overcorrected and un natural its very similar to all the other major brand fast 50s of the 80s but i cant afford a noctolux so its what i got just wanted to hear some thoughts on it thanks for participating its been fun 😱 by the way Gabriel M.A. vbmenu_register("postmenu_568726", true); hit it dead on nearly 50 1.2 nikon ais not the best bokeh but it sure is interesting to hear all the guesses
 
350D_user said:
I blame "bokeh" for the death of the "Depth of field blur" term. 😉
Click to expand...

Bokeh is only the quality of the DOF blur, not the amount of blur. As the above example shows, DOF blur isn't always so smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom