Pablito
coco frío
Make that 4 cents
yanidel
Well-known
Meaning that if someone uses bokeh as part of an artistic approach, you would not consider him as a serious shooter ?
x-ray
Veteran
I knew it would go this direction. You know the answer.
leicashot
Well-known
Seriously?
Seriously?
For 'most' 'working' photographers, bokeh is honestly the last thing they are thinking about.....seriously, I know quite a few.
At the end of the day, it's a 50/1.1 lens for a grand.....alowwing a photographer to achieve sharp results at a stop faster ISO and shutter than a typical 1.4 lens, and that's great for Leica photography, regardless of whether or not the bokeh makes you horny or not.
Seriously?
For 'most' 'working' photographers, bokeh is honestly the last thing they are thinking about.....seriously, I know quite a few.
At the end of the day, it's a 50/1.1 lens for a grand.....alowwing a photographer to achieve sharp results at a stop faster ISO and shutter than a typical 1.4 lens, and that's great for Leica photography, regardless of whether or not the bokeh makes you horny or not.
x-ray
Veteran
Dead on! You got it.
yanidel
Well-known
So wedding photographers are not 'working' people and just fooling around I guessFor 'most' 'working' photographers, bokeh is honestly the last thing they are thinking about.....seriously, I know quite a few.
At the end of the day, it's a 50/1.1 lens for a grand.....alowwing a photographer to achieve sharp results at a stop faster ISO and shutter than a typical 1.4 lens, and that's great for Leica photography, regardless of whether or not the bokeh makes you horny or not.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, here you have the busy bokehs for sure!
Not smooth at all.
Now guess what lens this is:
And if you can't (no shame in that), just tell me which lens had the most busy-bad bokehs making little bokehs
With completely different subject matter and lighting, I can't see how anyone is supposed to compare bokeh. I don't much like the out-of-focus areas in either shot but I'd hesitate to ascribe any of the difference to 'bad bokeh'.
Cheers,
R.
How can any lens that is faster than F1.4 be "Ho-Hum?". About the only reason I can think of is that the particular application of the lens is not taking advantage of its speed. Once the new owner's start taking advantage of the speed, and more images get shown in the forum, this notion of "ho-hum" will disappear.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Its hard to understand why people get so passionate, and then bitter about stuff like this, cant you just have a debate without all the heat?
Anyway, you can achieve the look in your photos that this lens will give you with another lens half the cost, half the weight and half the size, and with realy similar dof, so the only thing you are really gaining is two stops, not two stops with a unique look. Its just two stops. Alot of people were expecting a whole lot more than that. And thats why these are not backordered for eight years. Of course tons of people that bashed the noct can now have their perfect very fast lens, so whats the big deal? I think alot of that noct bashing had more to do with elitism bashing than actual lens bashing and I think ultimately the sales figures on this lens reflect that, but this all seems pretty simple to me. Listening to some of you guys go round on this is odd. Its awesome that someone was able to get such a stable and sharp image out of a lens at f1.1. Sadly, not too many people really care.
Anyway, you can achieve the look in your photos that this lens will give you with another lens half the cost, half the weight and half the size, and with realy similar dof, so the only thing you are really gaining is two stops, not two stops with a unique look. Its just two stops. Alot of people were expecting a whole lot more than that. And thats why these are not backordered for eight years. Of course tons of people that bashed the noct can now have their perfect very fast lens, so whats the big deal? I think alot of that noct bashing had more to do with elitism bashing than actual lens bashing and I think ultimately the sales figures on this lens reflect that, but this all seems pretty simple to me. Listening to some of you guys go round on this is odd. Its awesome that someone was able to get such a stable and sharp image out of a lens at f1.1. Sadly, not too many people really care.
dseelig
David
Bokeh has never made me horny.
Paul T.
Veteran
Well, here you have the busy bokehs for sure!
Not smooth at all.
Now guess what lens this is:
And if you can't (no shame in that), just tell me which lens had the most busy-bad bokehs making little bokehs
You've made the point.
These are both terrible photos. there is no real difference between them. What photo editor would pay money for them? If you're only looking at the bokeh, there is usually something wrong with the photo.
Bokeh is just part of a package of characteristics that make up a good lens. Concentrating on just this one aspect is fatuous.
I say this as a Sonnar fan, who will never buy this lens, because it is not what I need. But the fact that CV are giving people this choice is fantastic.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I'd be willing to admit my mistake if I didn't like the Nokton, so please don't think this is stubborn pride or something. I like the lens just fine. I went into the deal simply expecting a lens that I could handhold in darker conditions than I can my Summicron. I can do exactly that with the CV. It's big, and that's a bummer, but I understand that from technical perspective. The bokeh has been described as uninspired, and I'm okay with that, too. It's not like it's throwing huge mirror telephoto doughnuts all over the place. My only complaint, and it's a user issue, not a lens issue, is that f1.1 is a harsh mistress and you know in a moment when you've missed your focus. I would never be able to afford a Noctilux, so I'm just fine with my humble CV. I won't be selling, my trusty Summicron, however.
yanidel
Well-known
Bokeh is important to me. This shot was taken yesterday and though F1.4 or above would have given me more resolution, I went for 1.2 to have the characterisic bokeh and rendering of the 60mm Hexanon wide open. I wanted the magician to be surrounded by a surrealistic setting.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Which would you choose?
Which would you choose?
I know what I would prefer, but I'm not a working, 'serious' photographer, merely somebody that pushes his own button when tripping the shutter. So, I guess I'm wrong just because of that already
Honestly, I can hardly believe there's people on this thread that only look at what's in focus when eyeballing a picture. I reckon you have clients looking at your shots like that, but they're not photographers, that's why they hired you. I feel a truly serious photographer should be concerned with every aspect of a shot, not just the in-focus bit. But, I'm probably wrong, right?
Which would you choose?
I know what I would prefer, but I'm not a working, 'serious' photographer, merely somebody that pushes his own button when tripping the shutter. So, I guess I'm wrong just because of that already
Honestly, I can hardly believe there's people on this thread that only look at what's in focus when eyeballing a picture. I reckon you have clients looking at your shots like that, but they're not photographers, that's why they hired you. I feel a truly serious photographer should be concerned with every aspect of a shot, not just the in-focus bit. But, I'm probably wrong, right?
When I pull out the Canon 50/F1.2, Canon 50/0.95 or Nikkor 55/1.2, it's to shoot in the dark. That's the point of an F1.1 lens as well. "Bokeh criticism" for a $1000 range F1.1 lens! What a laugh.
Just got back from Vacation, and I was able to get a lot of shots with that $90 Canon 50/1.2 on the Bessa R2. Lot's of people with DSLR's and zooms, not even trying.
The point of super-speed lens is to shoot in limited light.
Florida Aquarium had a room set up for tanks with UV lighting for fluorescent fish.On the way in, they had a video that projected to a wall of mist.
Bessa R2, 50/1.2 wide-open, 1/4sec with Kodacolor 400.
Ho-Hum picture of my Kid? At least I could get the shot in near total darkness.
If I want Bokeh shots, I use a Sonnar.
Just got back from Vacation, and I was able to get a lot of shots with that $90 Canon 50/1.2 on the Bessa R2. Lot's of people with DSLR's and zooms, not even trying.
The point of super-speed lens is to shoot in limited light.
Florida Aquarium had a room set up for tanks with UV lighting for fluorescent fish.On the way in, they had a video that projected to a wall of mist.
Bessa R2, 50/1.2 wide-open, 1/4sec with Kodacolor 400.
Ho-Hum picture of my Kid? At least I could get the shot in near total darkness.
If I want Bokeh shots, I use a Sonnar.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
One more thought on the subject
One more thought on the subject
So, what is bad bokeh anyway?
Here's a stab at a definition:
Bad Bokeh is when the out of focus parts of a shot are still sufficiently distinct to get the viewer to determine what background items, people or shapes can be distinguished from the out of focus areas, thus directing attention away from the in-focus part of the shot.
I feel my English isn't up to par when it comes to constructing definitions, but hopefully I got the idea across. Alterations and alternate phrasing welcome.
EDIT: Brian, I got the Jupiter-3 and its stellar, there's some shots with it in my Flickr account and more to follow
One more thought on the subject
So, what is bad bokeh anyway?
Here's a stab at a definition:
Bad Bokeh is when the out of focus parts of a shot are still sufficiently distinct to get the viewer to determine what background items, people or shapes can be distinguished from the out of focus areas, thus directing attention away from the in-focus part of the shot.
I feel my English isn't up to par when it comes to constructing definitions, but hopefully I got the idea across. Alterations and alternate phrasing welcome.
EDIT: Brian, I got the Jupiter-3 and its stellar, there's some shots with it in my Flickr account and more to follow
Last edited:
Paul T.
Veteran
I am not decrying the importance of bokeh. But the two photos posted were a great example. That Nokton shot was not bad because of the bokeh; it was because it was a bad composition, and the element that was supposed to be in focus, wasn't.
As for the bicycle seats, I prefer Number 1 - almost entirely down to the composition, not the bokeh.
And yes, I agree, OOF areas are important, and good bokeh is better than bad bokeh, all other things being equal. But they usually aren't.
As for the bicycle seats, I prefer Number 1 - almost entirely down to the composition, not the bokeh.
And yes, I agree, OOF areas are important, and good bokeh is better than bad bokeh, all other things being equal. But they usually aren't.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What is 'bad bokeh'?
It's when the background is distractingly out of focus.
This may mean that it's too sharp, so you see things that would be better hidden
OR
that it's too soft, so you start wondering about what the **** caused the weird blobs floating about in the background. By that definition, both the bicycle pics exhibit bad bokeh. Like Paul, I prefer the composition of the upper shot, but I find the background of the lower shot less unpleasant.
I am more and more convinced that 'bokeh' is so much a function of subject matter, lighting and choice of aperture that to ascribe 'good bokeh' or 'bad bokeh' to a lens design is often pointless.
Take Yanidel's musician shot, for example. Great pic, though wise use of selective focus. But the actual quality of the o-o-f image is not (to my eyes, on my monitor), anything remarkable. As soon as I start looking hard at the background, in fact, I actually dislike the effect in the windows in the building in the background; I suspect there may be some sort of interference effect in the resolution of the vertical bars. But that's not what I look at, and unless someone starts banging on about bokeh, I don't believe many other people do, either.
EDIT: Before this thread started, I'd just done a new 'Bokeh' module for www.rogerandfrances.com, but not posted it on the site. Now, I think I'll revise it in the light of the comments here.
Cheers,
R.
It's when the background is distractingly out of focus.
This may mean that it's too sharp, so you see things that would be better hidden
OR
that it's too soft, so you start wondering about what the **** caused the weird blobs floating about in the background. By that definition, both the bicycle pics exhibit bad bokeh. Like Paul, I prefer the composition of the upper shot, but I find the background of the lower shot less unpleasant.
I am more and more convinced that 'bokeh' is so much a function of subject matter, lighting and choice of aperture that to ascribe 'good bokeh' or 'bad bokeh' to a lens design is often pointless.
Take Yanidel's musician shot, for example. Great pic, though wise use of selective focus. But the actual quality of the o-o-f image is not (to my eyes, on my monitor), anything remarkable. As soon as I start looking hard at the background, in fact, I actually dislike the effect in the windows in the building in the background; I suspect there may be some sort of interference effect in the resolution of the vertical bars. But that's not what I look at, and unless someone starts banging on about bokeh, I don't believe many other people do, either.
EDIT: Before this thread started, I'd just done a new 'Bokeh' module for www.rogerandfrances.com, but not posted it on the site. Now, I think I'll revise it in the light of the comments here.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Bokeh is important to me. This shot was taken yesterday and though F1.4 or above would have given me more resolution, I went for 1.2 to have the characterisic bokeh and rendering of the 60mm Hexanon wide open. I wanted the magician to be surrounded by a surrealistic setting.
that is the classic hex look. I really need to get one of those 60mm's, so hard to find. the 50 1.2 is a thing of beauty though and there is something really special about that lens. I cant imagine who is chosing the nokton over the 1.2 hex given that they are more or less the same price.
yanidel
Well-known
Roger, I understand your point on the windows. This effect appeared on several lenses I owned, most famous for it was my Cron IV at F2. It does not bother me but here we get into perception and taste, so I'll try to have the building owners close their shutters next time for you
Just wanted to make the point that bokeh is important to some people, be them "serious" or not.