bokeh as a deciding factor

[back alley]

if it were up to me i would ban the word bokeh from all photo forums and ban any discussions about the topic.

but it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon...

i do have a curiosity though...how many people would either buy or not a buy a lens based on bokeh?

clearly, i'm thinking about the new cv 35/1.4 lens, a lens that shows great potential so far, excellent sharpness, small size and unbelievable value for the dollar.
i would never consider the leica 35/1.4 based on cost alone as this is a hobby for me and i'm just a regular working stiff but the cv lens is priced where i can afford one.

just wondering.
joe

 

[rover]

We could always use sofa???? 😉

Seriously though,

Bokeh is a consideration. Sockeyed made a great point in the other thread about the 40 Nokton, by 2.0 the bokeh smooths out and at 2.8 it is fine. I don't need a full 1.4 for the vast majority of my shooting, so to a certain degree Sockeyed opened my eyes to a reason to not make a decision based on sofa alone.

You will see my comments regarding two of Tim's photos in the other thread. I think testing any lens against light through leaves in a tree is a poor test, any lens is going to be as bad as it can be in those conditions. I think seeing more general photos will give a better depiction of the lens' performance overall and allow us to decide if we personally find the images from the lens naughty or nice.

 

[David Goldfarb]

I've occasionally decided not to buy a lens or to sell a lens on the basis of bad bokeh.

Soft focus and other classic lenses are all about the bokeh, so I've bought some classic large format lenses (like the Heliar in my avatar, which is not a soft focus lens, but has legendary bokeh) mainly for the bokeh.

 

[back alley]

david, is bokeh involved similarly in a decision involving just 35mm (format) lenses?

joe

 

[mfogiel]

Surely I would not be worried of a bokeh of a 6.8mm f4 lens for one of these digi crap cameras, which has infinite dof anyway, but if you envisage to need, or want to shoot 35mm lenses at wide apertures, the bokeh does count, and not only for the sake of fun, but for how your pictures actually appear. To illustrate the point:
this is a "bokeh testing shot" with the Nokton 35/1,2 wide open
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2178/2269883260_6e4a97aeec_b.jpg
another one, at middle distance
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2405/2269885020_20af8f9a6a_b.jpg
and another
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/1815891473_23fa3402f5_b.jpg

In these cases, it's not about something critical, but if the background blur is unpleasant and backlights come out shrieky, the shots just don't work.

Some examples with C Sonnar:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2275365004_0d5e6ce8da_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/866796648_05d341618a_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/2278266710_0c9565bee9_b.jpg

While the first two cases may seem pretty obvious and present to a degree in any 50/1.5 lens when shot wide open, the third one is, in my experience, a peculiar characteristic of this lens: at optimum aperture (ard f3.2) this lens has a tremendous bite, and an oof passage that simply collapses the definition of the image in a a matter of several centimeters, making it a perfect soft background machine.

 

[David Goldfarb]

david, is bokeh involved similarly in a decision involving just 35mm (format) lenses?

joe

Sometimes. Since one is limited by lens mount, there are fewer options. I once bought a 58/2 CZJ Biotar in M42 mount that I thought would have great bokeh and it didn't, so I sold it. I also had a couple of mirror lenses that I sold when I could afford a 600/4.5 refracting lens, mainly because the mirror lenses had lousy bokeh (as well as lower contrast). Examples here--

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=689715&postcount=119

 

[Krosya]

I think Bokeh is a very important factor. Even more so for a fast lens, as most people get them to use wide open, or they would get a cheaper, slower ones.
To not consider Bokeh is well.....unwise (I'm not trying to offend anyone, or hurt feelings) as "bad" bokeh can ruin the whole photo. Now, what one considers a bad bokeh comes down to personal preference.
And speaking of new Nokton 35/1.4 - I dont get this lens - it seems to be the same as 40/1.4 in just about every way, just more $$. So, what is the point?
Now, if it had characteristics/signature of a Nokton 35/1.2 - THAT would make this lens great. But as it is - I really don't see why would one get it.
I really had high hopes for this new lens, and......so far I can't say I'm very excited. OTOH, I'm very happy with Nokton 35/1.2.
Just my opinion.

 

[Krosya]

Oh yeah - one more thing - see here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50489

I think Bokeh DOES matter for many people based on that thread 😉

 

[David Goldfarb]

I see bokeh as the other side of sharpness, and both are important.

Sharpness is about figure; bokeh is about ground. Some painters historically concentrated on painting the subject and let assistants paint the background and the ornaments. Likewise, some composers have historically written melodies and left the harmony to the musicians, by writing figured bass in the baroque period or chord symbols in jazz. Some painters and composers; however, insist on doing the whole thing. If you are concerned about the whole image, and not just the subject, then bokeh is something to think about. If you think the texture of the out-of-focus portion of the image can be whatever it is, then you don't need to worry about bokeh.

 

[tripod]

Well-worded David.

 

[jbf]

The thing about bokeh, is that IMO it can be quite paramount to portraits.


I personally love to shoot portraits and there are times when harsh bokeh does nothing but (as mfogiel said) ruin a shot. How does it ruin a shot? Even if the background is out of focus, very sharp bokeh will draw attention to the background. It will become busy and distract the eye from the portrait.

 

[visiondr]

Why else would anyone buy a C-Sonnar? That lens, whatever you think of it otherwise, is ALL about the bokeh. It's not about speed or size or cost. There are plenty of technically better lenses out there in the same focal length. I happen to really dig how this lens renders OOF backgrounds/foregrounds. I think it's a legitimate reason to pick one lens over another. Seriously, who can REALLY tell the difference between a lens that can resolve 80 lp/mm vs one that merely resolves 60 lp/mm? In most modern optics, outright resolution is a non issue. They all perform very well. Bokeh, on the other hand, seems to me to be quite variable from lens to lens.

 

[varjag]

Ron, I'd rather say Sonnar is more about rendition, or look. There is much more to Sonnar look than just bokeh, although it is part of it.

(And yeah, I plan for ZM C-Sonnar as my main lens at some point)

 

[visiondr]

Ron, I'd rather say Sonnar is more about rendition, or look. There is much more to Sonnar look than just bokeh, although it is part of it.

(And yeah, I plan for ZM C-Sonnar as my main lens at some point)

Agreed.
I, too, plan to get a ZM C-Sonnar for the same purpose.

 

[David Goldfarb]

My point is that if you don't really care what the background looks like, then you don't need to worry about bokeh. Conversely, if you're not concerned about bokeh, then I'd say you don't care what the background looks like.

There have been painters who have cared enough about the background to paint it themselves, and there have been some who haven't. That doesn't mean they weren't great painters, but that to some extent, they weren't terribly particular about how the background looked, or at least not concerned enough to devote their own time to it.

 

[David Goldfarb]

Well, Rembrandt had many assistants and historians seem to believe that they worked on parts of paintings attributed to him. Still, he wasn't so bad.

 

[sienarot]

For me, yes bokeh is a deciding factor, but not the deciding factor. I believe (certainly for analogue photography) the lens is a more important part of the final photo than the camera. I like looking at a whole photo in its entirety (as opposed to those who only pay attention to certain aspects of it) and if the out of focus quality adds to the overall picture in a beneficial matter, then bokeh can't be a bad thing. However, with that said, I would never purchase a lens just because of its bokeh if all other aspects fail.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A minor factor, but not completely irrelevant.

One if the big advantages of the f/4,5 Apo Lanthars was 'the quality of the out of focus image' (as we called it in those days). Not much else justified the very high prices for these lenses on the used market, except a 'colour signature' which is even more elusive.

I still have a 150mm somewhere.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thomasw_]

yes, joe. definitely i do choose a lens based at least partially on its rendering of the out of focus areas.

 

[sevres_babylone]

how many people would either buy or not a buy a lens based on bokeh?

I bought a used Canon 50 1.5 (sonnar copy) after trying one out at a local RFF gathering, principally because of the way the out of focus areas look.