photophorous
Registered User
Was it really a wild guess, or did you look at my previous posts? 😎
You're exactly right.
Poll: Which Bokeh do you prefer?
- Thread starter photophorous
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 64
- Views 985
Was it really a wild guess, or did you look at my previous posts? 😎
You're exactly right.
photophorous
Registered User
I agree. However, just to play the devils advocate, the level to which the subject is engrossing may be diminished by a distracting background. As photographers, we take many things into consideration when it comes to distracting backgrounds. This is just one of them. Most of the time it is one of the least important considerations, but not always.
maddoc
... likes film again.
photophorous
Registered User
I've had the Heliar Classic for several years and always liked it a lot, but I saw a deal on the Planar and couldn't pass it up. I thought, based on all the praise it gets, that I would be more happy with it than the Heliar, but I'm really on the fence about it. I shot this entire roll of Provia comparing the lenses hoping it would push me in one direction or the other, but it hasn't.
Most of the shots were newspaper on the wall, to compare sharpness, but I decided to shoot some real subjects like this too. In all of the shots, the Zeiss clearly exhibited a cooler color...or the Heliar was warmer...which ever way you want to look at it. I tried to balance these two shots before posting them, so not to make it too easy on you. 😀 I prefer the Heliar's color, but maybe that's because I'm accustomed to it.
In terms of sharpness there were no big surprises. The two lenses are actually very close, but the Zeiss has a slight edge from f/2 until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4. The Heliar has a moderate contrast and the Zeiss is high. The Heliar also vignettes noticably at f/2 but it's gone by f/2.8.
In normal conditions I think both lenses have very nice bokeh. I just wanted to see how they handled a challenge. I think the results could have been a lot worse. Both are worlds better than some of my cheap old SLR lenses would have been.
It was fun. Thanks for playing.
Paul
Most of the shots were newspaper on the wall, to compare sharpness, but I decided to shoot some real subjects like this too. In all of the shots, the Zeiss clearly exhibited a cooler color...or the Heliar was warmer...which ever way you want to look at it. I tried to balance these two shots before posting them, so not to make it too easy on you. 😀 I prefer the Heliar's color, but maybe that's because I'm accustomed to it.
In terms of sharpness there were no big surprises. The two lenses are actually very close, but the Zeiss has a slight edge from f/2 until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4. The Heliar has a moderate contrast and the Zeiss is high. The Heliar also vignettes noticably at f/2 but it's gone by f/2.8.
In normal conditions I think both lenses have very nice bokeh. I just wanted to see how they handled a challenge. I think the results could have been a lot worse. Both are worlds better than some of my cheap old SLR lenses would have been.
It was fun. Thanks for playing.
Paul
bmattock
Veteran
That was interesting, thanks.
nome_alice
Established
interesting. they have very similar character. i wouldn't buy either though 😉
Matus
Well-known
Now - indeed I am also surprised by the similarity. However given that these tho are VC Heliar and Zeiss Plannar, than I guess the top is plannar and the bottom Heliar. The circular shape of the out of focus areas in the bottom shot makes me think that it comes from a lens like heliar or tessar (My Rolleiflex T makes similar OOF areas).
But it seems that it takes sonnar to turn the distant bright points into blobs instead of donuts and rings ... 😉
But after all this is a very good news. Used Plannar is not that much more expensive than the Heliar and focuses closer.
But it seems that it takes sonnar to turn the distant bright points into blobs instead of donuts and rings ... 😉
But after all this is a very good news. Used Plannar is not that much more expensive than the Heliar and focuses closer.
gdi
Veteran
I think the OP created a good torture test (the second looks a lot like Noctilux boke 😀) - I bet most "normal" shots with either would end up nice. I wouldn't discount either lens based on this.
photophorous
Registered User
Yeah, this was no easy subject for any lens. This was meant to be a comparison of these two lenses, not an overall judgment of either. Both of these lenses do very well under normal conditions. Maybe a 50mm f/2 lens exists that could produce nice smooth bokeh in a situation like this, but I've never seen it.
Paul
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've only just got back to this thread ... and congrats to Maddoc! 😀
I always liked the first image over the second ... there appears to be a lot more detail in the suspended glass ball or whatever it is and the overall look appeals to me. Zeiss glass rocks IMO and I'm currently considering dumping all my other M lenses and going all Zeiss ... part of this is to do with how impressed I am by the Planar I got with my Hasselblad recently. It's a pretty rough old lens with a scratch and some cleaning marks on the front element but I love what it produces!
I always liked the first image over the second ... there appears to be a lot more detail in the suspended glass ball or whatever it is and the overall look appeals to me. Zeiss glass rocks IMO and I'm currently considering dumping all my other M lenses and going all Zeiss ... part of this is to do with how impressed I am by the Planar I got with my Hasselblad recently. It's a pretty rough old lens with a scratch and some cleaning marks on the front element but I love what it produces!
Tim Gray
Well-known
I voted for #2 just because it was a bit more interesting. Both of them were kind of distracting, but if the subject was stronger (understandable for the test), it wouldn't have been an issue. However, I think I'd actually have chosen two, just not on the basis of bokeh alone.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I have to admit, I'm stumped. I have to say that #2 is just slightly more horrid than #1.
Having said that, I'm going to guess the top one is the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and the bottom one is the 35mm f/1.4 CV. Unless, of course, the poll's been rigged and has a minute but important undisclosed caveat.
I first thought the top one was the 50mm Summitar at f/2. But no way the DOF would be that resolved in the background.
It'd be far easier to determine if we knew whether these are uncropped shots on film or full-frame digital.
If these are cropped, I think this is a 50mm lens, without an older Leica involved. Possibly an "undocumented" CV supplier lens?
Having said that, I'm going to guess the top one is the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and the bottom one is the 35mm f/1.4 CV. Unless, of course, the poll's been rigged and has a minute but important undisclosed caveat.
I first thought the top one was the 50mm Summitar at f/2. But no way the DOF would be that resolved in the background.
It'd be far easier to determine if we knew whether these are uncropped shots on film or full-frame digital.
If these are cropped, I think this is a 50mm lens, without an older Leica involved. Possibly an "undocumented" CV supplier lens?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Keith, thanks !! 🙂
Honestly, I would *not* like to see a Noctilux shot taken under these conditions, especially around f/1.0 ....
Honestly, I would *not* like to see a Noctilux shot taken under these conditions, especially around f/1.0 ....
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The wooden fence on the grassy knoll looks better in picture number 2
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
the second image got more exposed than the first one.
Other than that, there's no real difference.
I could imagine that with a less borign subject the difference will be even less noticeable.
Other than that, there's no real difference.
I could imagine that with a less borign subject the difference will be even less noticeable.
Woodmancy
Newbie
Not much difference between them.
Not much difference between them.
The time difference involved in switching lenses is creating a difference - some highlights are present in one image but not in the other. My first impressions were in favor of #1 but after sober second thought, I don't see much difference. I see both of them has having very interesting bokeh (everyone has their own opinion of what is nice bokeh)
I've been fascinated by bokeh and how photographers use it. I have a thread going on getdpi.com (photographing your bokeh) which has created lots of discussion.
Keith
Not much difference between them.
The time difference involved in switching lenses is creating a difference - some highlights are present in one image but not in the other. My first impressions were in favor of #1 but after sober second thought, I don't see much difference. I see both of them has having very interesting bokeh (everyone has their own opinion of what is nice bokeh)
I've been fascinated by bokeh and how photographers use it. I have a thread going on getdpi.com (photographing your bokeh) which has created lots of discussion.
Keith
Woodmancy
Newbie
PS
It's in the micro 4/3 section
Keith
It's in the micro 4/3 section
Keith
MartinL
MartinL
IMO, hummingbird feeders are just not that interesting. So the subject here becomes the bokeh- - -which is of technical interest, maybe. It's a problem for me because I don't like effects that call attention to themselves. Either lens might have the advantage depending on the photo subject-in-context. In real-life photography 1) how many people actually choose to purchase a lens based on multiple trials of how it renders bokeh; and 2) how many people select from multiple lenses that they own, one lens for a particular shot rather than another?
sahe69
Well-known
You took the words right out of my mouth. Too restless to my taste.
Similar threads
