brian steinberger
Established
What makes the bokeh of say Mamiya RF lenses different than that of a MF SLR (Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad)?
I own and use almost exclusively the Mamiya 6 with all three lenses. And I do notice what is sometimes described as a "hard" bokeh with the Mamiya RF lenses. Some say it's "un-pleasing." I think it's unique, and the part of the image that is actually in focus to me appears sharper than SLRs. But why are they different? And what are your interpretations of each?
I'm only interested in talking about the bokeh of MF RFs vs. MF SLRs, nothing else.
I own and use almost exclusively the Mamiya 6 with all three lenses. And I do notice what is sometimes described as a "hard" bokeh with the Mamiya RF lenses. Some say it's "un-pleasing." I think it's unique, and the part of the image that is actually in focus to me appears sharper than SLRs. But why are they different? And what are your interpretations of each?
I'm only interested in talking about the bokeh of MF RFs vs. MF SLRs, nothing else.
wintoid
Back to film
Different lenses have different signatures, it's not really anything to do with brand, or format is it?
I know what you mean about the Mamiya 6. I didn't really get on with the lens signature. By comparison, I would say the Hasselblad 80mm is a little better, and the Pentax 67 90mm has a really beautiful signature.
I know what you mean about the Mamiya 6. I didn't really get on with the lens signature. By comparison, I would say the Hasselblad 80mm is a little better, and the Pentax 67 90mm has a really beautiful signature.
Last edited:
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I can´t see that RF vs SLR makes any difference in itself. You said it, the lenses make the difference.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Its not the camera but rather the lens mounted on it which determines the bokeh...unless one considers that the typical folder has a slower lens than the typical slr...
ZeissFan
Veteran
The rear element of a rangefinder lens tends to be closer to the film plane than an SLR lens. That could be one of the factors.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I think a lot of older lenses were better constructed, with more aperture blades that form round-shaped openings compared to most modern (non-Leica or VC lenses) lenses that only use 5 to 9 blades to form polygonal shapes. In backlighting this makes a lot of difference, maybe or maybe not in terms of actual bokeh but at least in the shape of the flare.
It always struck me as funny that the highly regarded portrait lenses made by Zeiss, like the Hasselblad 150mm, or the Rolleiflex 2.8 D-F series, had polygonal openings and looking back on old negatives I have shots with ugly flare ploygons -- disappointing after using many fine Leica and older large format lenses.
It always struck me as funny that the highly regarded portrait lenses made by Zeiss, like the Hasselblad 150mm, or the Rolleiflex 2.8 D-F series, had polygonal openings and looking back on old negatives I have shots with ugly flare ploygons -- disappointing after using many fine Leica and older large format lenses.
brian steinberger
Established
Interesting. I guess I just didn't realize that each and every lens had it's own character.
So if every lens is different, aren't the greatest difference between RF and SLR lenses though since they are so different in design?
So if every lens is different, aren't the greatest difference between RF and SLR lenses though since they are so different in design?
david.elliott
Well-known
RF vs SLR matters very little with regard to bokeh. You can have rf lenses with great bokeh and others with ugly bokeh. You can have slr lenses with great bokeh and others with ugly bokeh.
Of course, one man's hideous harsh circles swirly nasty bokeh is another man's ooo-pretty.
Of course, one man's hideous harsh circles swirly nasty bokeh is another man's ooo-pretty.