der.chris.tian
Established
Hi,
I own a color-skopar 35/2.5 C. It's pretty sharp and has a nice contrast, but.... I can hardly get any bokeh out of it. Even wide open it is not really big. Is it only me, or do you have the same experiences with it?
For instance... when I look at pictures taken with a Summi 35/2.0 like this one or this one it is a HUGE diffenerce, although the focal length and the max aperture is kind of the same (well 0,5...).
Now I don't want to spend 1000€ on the summi if there is maybe another possibility which offers an decent bokeh as well. Do you have any suggestions on this? 35mm. M39 oder Leica M Bajo.
Or do you think "What the hell is he talking about?" and you have some examples made with your 35/2.5 C which show a great bokeh? If so, feel free to show it. Maybe mine is somewhat broken... ; D
I own a color-skopar 35/2.5 C. It's pretty sharp and has a nice contrast, but.... I can hardly get any bokeh out of it. Even wide open it is not really big. Is it only me, or do you have the same experiences with it?
For instance... when I look at pictures taken with a Summi 35/2.0 like this one or this one it is a HUGE diffenerce, although the focal length and the max aperture is kind of the same (well 0,5...).
Now I don't want to spend 1000€ on the summi if there is maybe another possibility which offers an decent bokeh as well. Do you have any suggestions on this? 35mm. M39 oder Leica M Bajo.
Or do you think "What the hell is he talking about?" and you have some examples made with your 35/2.5 C which show a great bokeh? If so, feel free to show it. Maybe mine is somewhat broken... ; D
le vrai rdu
Well-known
my brother get sometimes a little bokeh with his color skopar http://www.flickr.com/photos/14210009@N06/2465202489/
but I've never seen something like the picture you posted with a skopar
but I've never seen something like the picture you posted with a skopar
Last edited:
der.chris.tian
Established
Hm. Was it a 35mm (focal length) Skopar?
le vrai rdu
Well-known
yes, color skopar 35f2,5
der.chris.tian
Established
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Silly question, perhaps, but in your Skopar usage, is the subject typically as close, and the background typically as far as in the samples you're showing? If you're shooting subjects at medium and far distances, no, there won't be a lot of sepration to give you significant bokeh.
RSphoto
Newbie
DoF ( Depth of Field).
Graham Line
Well-known
All sorts of 35/2.5 photos here. Most of the renditions are pretty nice and smooth. You may need a wider aperture with a 35 for dramatic defocused effects.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cv35cs/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cv35cs/
minoltist7
pussy photographer
Bokeh is function of two things: distance to the object, and distance between object and background.
You can't get very blurred background if object isn't close enough. But, for people shots it's often impossible .
Here object is close to the camera, and bokeh is more prominent
both shots with 35/2.5 Color-Scopar C
You can't get very blurred background if object isn't close enough. But, for people shots it's often impossible .
Here object is close to the camera, and bokeh is more prominent
both shots with 35/2.5 Color-Scopar C
cjm
Well-known
You just have to get closer to your subject and have a distant background.
Stpiduko's portraits using a 35mm skopar on Flickr tend to have bokeh.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eamon/901667755/
Stpiduko's portraits using a 35mm skopar on Flickr tend to have bokeh.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eamon/901667755/
der.chris.tian
Established
Okay maybe I should try another roll and put all attention on the distances and an open aperture. But actually I'm used to getting kinda close...
cjm,
yep, they're nice but the tags are a bit confusing, though. He could also have tagged the 35mm because of the film size. i've just written him a mail. We'll see.
But hm.. I also don't want to get THAT close all the time to get a decent bokeh. For instance... If I did this picture here with the 35/2.5 I'm pretty sure that the background wouldn't be as blurred as it is here. It's made with the Ultron 35/1.7.
(picture by user Tun)
cjm,
yep, they're nice but the tags are a bit confusing, though. He could also have tagged the 35mm because of the film size. i've just written him a mail. We'll see.
But hm.. I also don't want to get THAT close all the time to get a decent bokeh. For instance... If I did this picture here with the 35/2.5 I'm pretty sure that the background wouldn't be as blurred as it is here. It's made with the Ultron 35/1.7.
(picture by user Tun)
Last edited:
wallace
Well-known
If really the Skopar is guilty, you should consider a Canon 35/2.0 instead of the Summi.
Wallace
Wallace
der.chris.tian
Established
I'll check it.
e.
Maybe I should also consider a ND filter to get rid of small apertures in daylight. Yes. Good idea.
e.
Bought. Could use it on a Ultron anyway... ;D
e.
Maybe I should also consider a ND filter to get rid of small apertures in daylight. Yes. Good idea.
e.
Bought. Could use it on a Ultron anyway... ;D
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
I associate the skopar with sharpness, and not necessarily great bokeh. That's not to say you can't get great bokeh with the skopar, though. See Marc-A's shot "Homage to Joseph Koudelka" for an example of what this lens can do in the right hands.
Edit: Here's a link to the shot in the Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=85478&ppuser=4396&sl=m
Edit: Here's a link to the shot in the Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=85478&ppuser=4396&sl=m
historicist
Well-known
>on a tangent, I think Bokeh and dpeth of field aren't quite the same thing. Depth of field is a factor of how big the film is (bigger film or sensor, narrower depth of field), the aperture (1.4 narrower DoF than 2.8 etc.), and how close one is to the subject (closer, narrower DoF).
Bokeh is more a subjective description of how the out of focus parts of the image look, smooth or with jarring lines around highlights etc.
So lenses, both focussed at 1m, both 50mm, both F2, used on 35mm film, would always have the same depth of field, but not necessarily the same bokeh.
Bokeh is more a subjective description of how the out of focus parts of the image look, smooth or with jarring lines around highlights etc.
So lenses, both focussed at 1m, both 50mm, both F2, used on 35mm film, would always have the same depth of field, but not necessarily the same bokeh.
der.chris.tian
Established
Really? Now that's interesting.
szekiat
Well-known
i'm not too sure that the film size has anything to do with it. Strictly from an optics point of view, a 80mm lens on MF film has the same DOF as that of one on 135 film. They just provide a different field of view as the 135 film is like a centre crop of a 6x6 frame. Smaller sensors/films have an apparent greater DOF only because they use a much shorter focal length lens to achieve the same field of view so a P&S will need a 7mm lens to achieve 35mm field of view on 135 film.
DOF is strictly speaking the relationship between the focal length, and the aperture. The amount of detail captured in any particular depth depends on the placement of the object within this circle, hence the often made reference to subject-background distance.
DOF is strictly speaking the relationship between the focal length, and the aperture. The amount of detail captured in any particular depth depends on the placement of the object within this circle, hence the often made reference to subject-background distance.
Turtle
Veteran
There is an fairly epic difference in OOF blurriness between a 35mm shot at f2 and f2.5 because we are right on the cusp of the effect at this combination of FL and aperture. Shoot a 135mm lens and the difference betwen those same apertures is not so significant, but still there.
the 35 1.7 is very highly regarded, but if you dont want to spend the money on the asph cron, look at the ZM Biogon. Beautiful OOF. Smooth transitions and supremely sharp flare and ditortion free lens overall. The new Summarit, being 2.5, again is likely to produce less differential focus com[ared to a f2 lens, although of course if the subject is close and the background far, you can still get good separation...only less than at f2. This is more noticeable when the background is not that far away.
the 35 1.7 is very highly regarded, but if you dont want to spend the money on the asph cron, look at the ZM Biogon. Beautiful OOF. Smooth transitions and supremely sharp flare and ditortion free lens overall. The new Summarit, being 2.5, again is likely to produce less differential focus com[ared to a f2 lens, although of course if the subject is close and the background far, you can still get good separation...only less than at f2. This is more noticeable when the background is not that far away.
Didier
"Deed"
Maybe you should go closer. With f2.5 and 35mm focal length and 1m distance, you have 10cm DOF. So it's possible to get some bokeh behind, as shown in picture below (Pancake-1, but should be the same optical design as the C version).
Didier
der.chris.tian
Established
Yea, with testing the ND filter I bought, I now get a pleasant bokeh (plus I have to get closer as everyone mentioned). Here's a result:
