New Bokeh Page

[Meleica]

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/bokeh.htm

Dan
www.antiquecameras.net

 

[oftheherd]

Thanks for the link.

 

[Meleica]

a forum has been added to the page ( near the bottom ) to post your comments on lens bokeh

 

[sockeyed]

I agree that the bokeh on the CV 40/1.4 can be harsh, but this only seems to be the case between 1.4 and 2.8. After that, it becomes quite soft and pleasant. It is still quite useable wide open, one just has to be careful about the background.

Overall, I think that it's a great lens - very sharp, great color rendition (I have the SC version), and nice depth. The price is fantastic, too.

 

[aizan]

neat! lots of pages linked i haven't seen before.

 

[Pherdinand]

Dunno but i don't really like the 'bokeh' example for the summicron 4th generation etc.
Just look at those lights on the right - what's that??? And the skyline has a weird coloration.
Maybe it's a bad example but i don't like it too much.
What I do like is the Rokkor 58/1.2 examples CE Nelson shows on the photo.net classic cameras forum. Man i want one of those lenses! Possibly with a l"lens cap" 🙂

 

[RubenBlaedel]

Dunno but i don't really like the 'bokeh' example for the summicron 4th generation etc.
Just look at those lights on the right - what's that??? And the skyline has a weird coloration.
Maybe it's a bad example but i don't like it too much.
What I do like is the Rokkor 58/1.2 examples CE Nelson shows on the photo.net classic cameras forum. Man i want one of those lenses! Possibly with a l"lens cap" 🙂

I think that it is the summicron 35 mm I have and the Bokeh on my lens is truly very good - the pictorial example is a bit strange !

 

[Flow]

I have the summicron 35mm 4th gen. iI like it quite a lot, too. I think the weird looking picture may be because of the scanning.


Flowen

 

[Meleica]

the reason, I think, so many old timers dont believe in bokeh is because, most lenses, pre 1970 or so, were not as technically good as post 1975, thus most older lenses have decent to very good bokeh....at least thats my hypothesis...

 

[aizan]

i also get the feeling that most photos were all in focus, as well. isn't this shooting wide open thing a new fashion brought on by af?

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I'm surprised that the current 50 cron only rates a 5 ... I find the out of focus signature on it quite pleasing.

 

[Huck Finn]

I'm surprised that the current 50 cron only rates a 5 ... I find the out of focus signature on it quite pleasing.

I've got a huge problem with this Bokeh page. Tom, the "5" is just someone's opinion. Attaching a rating scale gives the false impression that there is something scientific about it. Not when it comes to something as subjective Bokeh.

Mike Johnston of "Sunday Morning Photographer" & "Luminous Landscape" has written about the variety of factors that affect Bokeh, i.e. aperture, distance from subject, contrastiness of background, lighting, etc. In other words, almost any lens can produce bad bokeh depending on the conditions.

It amazes me that within a few months of its release the 40 Nokton has already made the "bad bokeh" page on this list. I have read user reports which have repeatedly stated that they like this lens & its bokeh. Sean Reid liked the lens in his review. The only thing he didn't like was the focal length because it doesn't work on his equipment. Judgments that are otherwise drawn from scanned internet images are highly unreliable. And yet, here it is on the list. I trust Sockeyed's assessment rather than opinions on internet forums from people who haven't used the lens. And Sockeyed has explained the variations that he has seen.

The 40 Nokton is just an example of what I see of a misuse of this page. A lens like the 35 Summicron IV has decades of user opinions to have established a consensus, but a few months? I'm not buying it. Not when I've seen working photographers like Sean & Adam Gori label it a winner. And not when I've seen photographs that contradict the opinions that have been bandied about.

The page strikes me as a marketing tool. Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it's a creative idea. But it needs a lot more work before it will be useful. The few photos are more useful than rating scales. Let the public draw their own conclusions.

Huck

 

[titrisol]

I'm not sure if I even get the concept of Bouquet .... :bang:
Is this good, bad or ugly Bouquet?
and why?

 

[Pherdinand]

I'd say it's good.
I define good as one that does not distract but ADDS to the main subject's appearance. That IS a matter of background objects too, not only lens.

 

[Meleica]

<<The 40 Nokton is just an example of what I see of a misuse of this page>>>

wow...hold on Huck....read the line...it says lens MENTIONED as having bad bokeh....I didnt say it DOES - hell, I have never used it....but there is a lot on the net about its poor bokeh....and dont take it so seriously - its the internet for cryin-out-loud, not CNN....

 

[aizan]

ring ring. as you could see on sean's fast lens test, all of the lenses were funky wide open and closeup. they got better stopped down a bit.

 

[MacDaddy]

...and if you read Mike Johnston's Sunday Morning Photographer article "Why 40mm?", guess what lens he demoes QUITE effectively as having good bokeh by real world examples? That's right! The CV Nokton 40mm! As other posters point out, the perception of bokeh is both subjective and technical... in the eyes of the beholder AND dependent on the shooter's technical skills with the particular lens!
Rob "MacDaddy" White

 

[richard_l]

i also get the feeling that most photos were all in focus, as well. isn't this shooting wide open thing a new fashion brought on by af?

It's not a fashion. Among other things, it's a way to minimize the distraction of a fussy background. There were lenses, such as the Summicron, designed to be used wide open, before there was AF technology.

 

[peter_n]

I've got a huge problem with this Bokeh page. Tom, the "5" is just someone's opinion. Attaching a rating scale gives the false impression that there is something scientific about it. Not when it comes to something as subjective Bokeh. {snip}

Huck

Well said Huck, I couldn't agree more. There is an unbelievable amount of pseudo-science floating around the internet about lenses. Mike Johnston's PDF article on bokeh (download from lulu.com) is a classic example (I choked on my breakfast reading that one), as you point out one person giving lenses a scale rating on a subjective assessment is definitely not scientific.

All these pseudo-scientific reports on MTF graphs or whatever using a sample of one are deceptive too. And as Huck points out, scanned images are unreliable as well, although I have to confess I use them in my own decision-making but I try to see as many examples as possible. Images and user experience with the lens (preferably together) should probably hold more weight than anything else. And after all that you have to remember that user experience is subjective too.

 

[jlw]

Canon Cat, having temporarily morphed into Nokton Cat, sez:

"What's so bad about my bokeh? Looks pretty smooth to me..."

[Okay, some people will hate it and some people won't see what the fuss is about. 40mm f/1.4 C-V Nokton at f/1.4.]