80/2.8 CFE T* Planar-Not the Bokeh King!

[venchka]

Last night I was scanning more photos from the 80 CFE T* lens. Imagine my surpise, quickly turning to dismay, when I noticed the dreaded pentagonal out of focus highlights. Then I remembered a recent discussion here about the 5 blade aperture. Not pretty. Not pretty at all.

Grabbing the 105/2.5 Takumar off the Pentax 6x7 I counted 9 blades. That confirmed why I felt that this lens, and other Takumar 6x7 lenses, had pleasing out of focus rendering.

Planar stopped down. Pentax wide open. Go figure.

I'll get an example to share tonight.

 

[ishpop]

I think it is more a matter of where and what you are focusing on. I t CAN be a bokeh king if you want it to be:

 

[venchka]

Agreed. When photographing on my deck at home, the background has a zillion point light sources coming through the leaves on the trees. That's the background I was scanning last night. Something to be aware of down the road.

ishpop:

Thanks for proving me wrong. I'll try to get results as good. Well done!

 

[rxmd]

I think it is more a matter of where and what you are focusing on. I t CAN be a bokeh king if you want it to be:

In this kind of setting, however, pretty much any lens will be a "bokeh king": weakly textured backgrounds, area light sources, hardly any out-of-focus highlights, very large distance difference between foreground and background in the last two shots. When they speak of bokeh, people usually mean the way out-of-focus highlights are rendered, not the fact that out-of-focus areas look out-of-focus. Any 80/2.8 lens will produce a smeared-out background in this case, this is no challenge at all.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Good/bad bokeh isn't determined by the number of aperture blades. If you don't like pentagonal shapes, that's one thing, but all of the images shot with Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes since the 1920s make a pretty good record for me.

I just came back from the Avedon exhibition at the ICP. Gorgeous stuff, especially the photographs made with the older Rolleiflexes. I didn't notice any pentagonal highlight shapes. And, if there had been some, i don't think they would have made any difference.

As someone said above - it says "this is a photograph." Just like shooting in black and white does. Just like using selective DOF that differs from human eyesight.

"Bad bokeh," to me, is the complication and doubling of shapes. Now, That is ugly.

My new favorite lens (50/1.8) makes incredible bokeh, but it doesn't start to do that until about f2.8. Some great lenses simply aren't great at every aperture. Even the "bokeh king" 35 Summicron does funky things at certain apertures, at certain distances, with certain subject matter.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Back in the ancient 1960's I remember reading and hearing endless arguments about lenses on Rolleiflexes. They were available with your choice of a 75mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenotar or Zeiss Planar. or an 80mm Schneider Xenotar or Zeiss Planar.

The less expensive Rollieflex T had a Zeiss Tessar while the Rolleicord had a Schneider Xenar. It was generally conceded that the Zeiss lenses had brutal sharpness while Schneider's glass had a more pleasing rendition. The term "bokeh" had yet to cross the Pacific.

 

[venchka]

Al,

I love how Tessars, especially the longer ones, render out of focus areas. Someday I'll have one for my 4x5 camera.

 

[Keith]

Al,

I love how Tessars, especially the longer ones, render out of focus areas. Someday I'll have one for my 4x5 camera.

I regard the Tessar clone on my Iskra as one of the finest lenses I own ... I have yet to sample the delights of the Planar on my Hassy yet though.

Too many cameras and so little time! 😛

 

[Todd.Hanz]

ah, those messy pentagonals, I don't give them much nevermind...

Todd

 

[venchka]

Just what I needed-another camera

Just what I needed-another camera

Fair enough Todd. I also noticed a bit of flare. I need a hood. I suppose if I buy a hood and a B60 to 67mm adapter, I'm commited to keeping it? 😀

I shot another roll of film on my way home from work yesterday. This is fun. Efke 25 in Rodinal on the horizon.

 

[shadowfox]

Ze bokeh of ze Planar 100/3.5:

NOTE: This lens is on loan, I don't have it anymore 🙁 I kinda like it.

 

[ferider]

I'm with Fred. Most movies show Pentagonal bokeh. Looks kind of cool, as long as the edges are not highlighted, or double lines are created.

Some people pay extra for old Leica lenses with Pentagonal apertures.

 

[FrozenInTime]

One of your notches is missing !
And you were holding the camera up-side down overhead ?

 

[FrozenInTime]

The 110FE at f/2 does strange things with the bokeh of strong edges in the middle distance :-( (I had a bubble problem when developing this film :-( )

 

[Trius]

Al,

I love how Tessars, especially the longer ones, render out of focus areas. Someday I'll have one for my 4x5 camera.

I look for those on the auction site sometimes, specifically the Zeiss 210. Ken Lee got me looking at that lens.

 

[venchka]

Same here. Thanks Ken!

 

[nksyoon]

Both pentagonal and round highlights here with Rolleiflex 80/2.8 Planar:

Here with Rolleinar attached:

 

[shadowfox]

One of your notches is missing !
And you were holding the camera up-side down overhead ?

What do they do? (the notches)

I'm holding the camera normally.

 

[FrozenInTime]

What do they do? (the notches)

I'm holding the camera normally.

On the Hasselblad the double notches normally end up on the left side of the print when the camera is used looking down into the WLF.

If there's any more to them than that, I'm afraid I don't know.

 

[Pherdinand]

Wait.
Do you mean pentagonal highlights or pentagonal flare spots.

Flare spots are not better if they are circular.
Use the lens at full bore and aperture blades won't matter at all.

It's not fair to expect a multi-blade slr lens, it has to close down automatically pretty quick so ...