Bokeh of 45mm

scorpius73

scorpius73

Well-known
Local time
6:08 AM
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
589
How would you guys rate the bokeh of the 45mm f2 lens for the contax g series? also how does it stack up a leica 50mm f2 summicron? thanks guys, just curious.
 
I dont have any leica lenses...but I have had hassy, mamiya, nikon, pentax, konica, canon...etc

Its the best of the best in my opinion...and my favorite portrait lens is the 90mm G lens...and then the nikon 55mm micro....the nikon 105 2.5 is nice as well but not as contrasty in my opinion.

check out the lens reviews on photodo.com
 
The 45/2 has pleasing bokeh to my eye, though it can be harsh in some instances. One shot I have really surprised me in this regard. It was, however, only one shot of many, many. Therefore, I still think it's fine. I've not shot with a Summicron, so can't make a comparison myself, though from examples and reports it is supposedly more desirable bokeh wise, at least for monochrome. I think it'll be more "creamy" than you'll find the 45/2. I'm sure they are both excellent, and I'll have the Summicron at some point, most likely.
 
It's very sharp and has excellent bokeh. Out of all my lenses, the 45mm/F2 is "The" nicest, although my 40mm 'cron has slightly more pleasing bokeh.
 
I'm more and more aware that bokeh changes with the nature of the background. Here, the 45 Planar is cranked nearly full open, probably about f/2.8, since it's inside a store and the film speed was set to 250. Looks pretty decent to me...
 
Yup. That sure looks like the 45mm Planar look. This lens is truly amazing. Too bad it doesn't come in an M or F mount. :cool:
 
Frank, it comes with an M mount! Just a bit longer than 45 mm :)
And for your SLR needs, shop for a Contax 139Q with 50/1.7.
 
You mean the 50. I haven't read anything about it. Is it as good (or better) than the 45mm? I'll have to read more about it before I even starting thinking about buying one.
 
Frank, there is also the possibility to have the lens converted to M mount and, of course, manual focus; coupled, no-less.
 
Because I'm moody, what I wrote yesterday or yesteryear isn't important. Only what I wrote today. :p
 
Unfortunately, I didn't have any of the harsh examples to quick edit for posting. Here are three with some hasty editing. The first two are on Velvia, wide open, and the last is on Tri-x, probably wide open, but perhaps at f/2.8.
 
smoke bokeh

smoke bokeh

Bokeh smoothness is also, I think, related to aperature. At wide open, the aperature of a given lens is circular. Anything less than wide open, and the aperature is less circular and more pentagonal. This effects the look of the bokeh: circular or more angled.

I regularly shoot the 35Planar, and at wide open, bokeh is very smooth and pleasing - it's possible though to stop it down to f4 or 5.6 and occassionally get a hint of pentagons in the bokeh.

I've attached an interesting bokeh effect with the 35Planar (G1). This was shot in Montana during forest fire season in 2000. The smoke was so thick that we had to cut our stay short. The smoke, though, really added to the photo fun - adding "grain", and really enhancing bokeh when the DOF situation was right. Film was Elite chrome 100. Photoshop: crop, minor level adjustment for contrast and color balance.
 
The SOFA is very nice on the 45, but I think the 90 is better.

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern as to when the 45 becomes harsh, which I would guess would stress many lenses: cluttered backgrounds, wide open. Stopping down in such scenes to something past 2.8 typically renders a nicer OOF area.

Treehouse.. your shot above was done wide open (from what you can remember), right?
 
jano,

Yes - probably was wide open, guessing from the shallow DOF. Certainly f2 or f2.8.

With the 35, I have experimented quite a bit with shallow DOF (I like isolating the subject from the background), and I concur with your assessment of a "busy" background, combined with bright frontlighting, giving less pleasing results - which I would define as drawing attention away from the subject of the photo.

Of course, one of the reults of shooting wide open is a loss of maximum sharpenss - which is really only noticeable when you have the original slide on the light table. Whether you project to a screen, or scan and digitize, you end up losing somehting in the translation. The same is true of the bokeh: it is smoother and less obtrusive in the original transparency.
 
The COUCH is really nice! ;)

Seriously, the bokeh is rather pleasing on these shots. Rather interesting on some wide-open, but this is a pretty good lens. I wonder if they kept the same formula for their new M-mount 50mm?
 
I'm not obsessive about boke, but I would rate the 45/2 as being pretty good, in the sense that it's usually smooth but occasionally has problems w/busy backgrounds. Unfortunately, I don't have very many wide-open examples on line. Here are a few (the last has some motion blur, a little from me & a little from the subject, that makes everything a little "swirlier" than normal):

http://static.flickr.com/35/72673685_5007ab1cf8_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/34/73403429_a7036d63ec_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/15/68435040_43eaaf9e31_o.jpg

I also haven't used any of the modern Summicrons to use as a comparison., but here's an example from a 50s "rigid" 'cron:

http://static.flickr.com/23/25322202_a3af1c62aa_o.jpg

& 1 from "dual range" from the same period:

http://static.flickr.com/34/72208730_b91d671279_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom