The Great Bokeh Controversy: Snare or Delusion?

Bokeh is a Japanese word that refers to the subjective visual impression of the out of focus areas of an image. Just because bokeh isn't objectively measurable doesn't mean it's BS, but there's certainly been a lot of BS written about it. What imaging characteristics contribute to beautiful bokeh? What kind of lenses that are most likely to be "bokeh monsters?"? Which vintage and contemporary lenses should bokeh fanatics go for? Just ask me and I'll give you my arrogant but educated opinions-:)
 
Click to expand...
I am shooting my Carl Zeiss Ultron again after retiring it for 30 years or so. It has nice creamy bokeh in many cases, but wide open can become a little wild at times. Also, it is unfortunate that it appears to be 5-blades for the aperture sometimes leading to a pentagonal pattern in the bokeh. I have a few other lenses with good bokeh (Schneider-Kreuznachs, Sonnars, Biogon, Tessar). I think it is the lenses with bad bokeh that are the most troublesome (the 18-55mm Fujinon zoom on my Fujifilm XT-2 sometimes has bokeh I do not care for). I notice some Japanese lenses also have nice bokeh, but I am talking more about my personal lenses.
 
Counterintuitive: 5-bladed diaphragm is better than 6

Counterintuitive: 5-bladed diaphragm is better than 6

Your Ultron has nice bokeh if memory serves. Generally the more blades in a lens diaphragm the more circular the opening and the better it is for nice bokeh since spot highlights will be round, which is pleasing to the eye. However a 5-bladed diaphragm is preferable to a 6-bladed one because the 6-sided honeycomb effect is a more noticeable artifact. BTW, postwar Rolleiflexes and many other TLRs have 5-bladed diaphragms and few complain about their bokeh which is generally considered outstanding. Go figure.
 
In my opinion the background blur should not disturb or detract from the main motif. After all that's the whole point of an out of focus background; to enhance the point of interest. I don't care much for swirls and bubbles and other fancy disturbances.
 
Kai-san said:
In my opinion the background blur should not disturb or detract from the main motif. After all that's the whole point of an out of focus background; to enhance the point of interest. I don't care much for swirls and bubbles and other fancy disturbances.
Click to expand...

I'll toast to that; though sometimes bubbly can be ok (champagne may have been more appropriate)- this is the Ultron, probably wide open (no pentagons here) from around 1976ish


Wine Glass by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
Hello Jason - I'm a longtime admirer of your writings - back from the Modern Photography, Popular Photography days! I finally was able to get all three of your Camera Collecting books!

For me, the only "bad bokeh" is that which is distracting, cluttered, or "busy" - not sure really what to call it.

Unfortunately, mirror lens "doughnut" bokeh often does this.

Foreground bokeh, if a large enough area, bothers me.

Oddly enough, bokeh where highlights are in the shape of aperture blades, especially 5 blades, is appealing to me. I've seen it so much it seems normal and evokes a certain "night time city life" mood to me.

I do have a 135/2 Defocus Control Nikkor and I have to admit it has produced almost the smoothest softest bokeh I've ever seen. The absolute smoothest is from a 40/2.8 Kilfitt Makro-Kilar D.
 
Pál_K said:
...

Oddly enough, bokeh where highlights are in the shape of aperture blades, especially 5 blades, is appealing to me. I've seen it so much it seems normal and evokes a certain "night time city life" mood to me.

...
Click to expand...

Here is some pentagram bokeh (Ultron), but otherwise pretty creamy. Imagine this was around f5.6-8


Presenting Baobab by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
helenhill said:
oops sorry 'markjwyatt'
I was rearranging my photos

which One did You like ??
Click to expand...

I like all of them, but was referring especially to the 3 men. I think there were two pictures when I quoted. I removed them from the quote, because it gets overwhelming sometimes to keep quoting all he pictures. I don't think all lenses do well in both foreground and background bokeh.

Interesting thing about bokeh (for me at least), the first time around in photography (many a year ago), I really never thought about bokeh as a standard feature in an image. I mean I was very aware of it, but just did not think of it except in terms of DOF, and clearly (going through my old negs) I was experimenting with it, but at that time had no idea for instance that the Ultron was considered a premier bokeh lens. I suspect if I was using a lens with poor bokeh I would have compensated, maybe by shooting more Tri-X or HP5 for instance. Now I often think about it explicitly as I create an image (unless it is a fast shot), and even consider what lens I am using.
 
I guess my favorite kind is non-distracting: Smooth, no sharp edges or patterns.


Don't know what specific elements create it, but seems to me that it's been engineered effectively into lenses like 17/1.2 and 25/1.2 Olympus Zuiko Pro and Sony SEL90M28G macro. Then there's Sony's SEL100F28GM with apodizing element (haven't tried this one personally - I think I have enough large and heavy lenses already).
 
Best Bokeh Ever, is from a very old Petzal wide open at f 3.6. My big whole plate Darlot had 3 3/4” clear glass diameter and a 12” fl,
 
Kai-san said:
In my opinion the background blur should not disturb or detract from the main motif. After all that's the whole point of an out of focus background; to enhance the point of interest. I don't care much for swirls and bubbles and other fancy disturbances.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The 50 Summicron APO neither adds or detracts but directs the eye to the subject rendered with the purest colors and highest acuity. All you get stopping down is greater depth of field. The bokeh is neutral, soft and without meaningful CA.
 
I cannot answer all of those questions but my preference in shooting are fairly fast short to medium tele and long focal length lenses - especially those with "classic" optical designs such are Ernostar derivations / Sonnar etc : 75mm; 85mm/90mm; 105mm are my favorites. Of course I shoot normal and wide angle lenses when this is called for and some of them make pretty nice bokeh too - especially the standard lenses of course, but as it happens the above lenses are particularly adept at producing nice OOF imaging.

While I like good bokeh we all know it is somewhat situational - depending for example on the nature of the background and its distance from the point of focus. So I do not go"nuts" pursuing it though I am always gratified when I get it (Good bokeh that is - I very frequently shoot with open aperture so I always get some kind of bokeh.). In my "book" (as we say in Oz), though I very much like good bokeh, an interesting subject and sound composition are more important in producing a good image: I get bored "spitless" (see what I did there) looking at images, say, of flowers with soft bokeh in the background made just for the sake of producing soft bokeh. Though some people cannot seem to get enough of it. As far as I am concerned, I see too much of that kind of photograph, though not here at RFF fortunately.

Lenses in the class I mentioned above, that I have had good results with include the following (I can only speak of these as, although I would like to own every classic lens that takes my fancy, obviously I cannot - though my wife thinks I try. I am sure there are many many more than the ones listed below.

Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 Classic
Canon 85mm f 1.8 FL mount (Said to have the same optical design as the LTM version)
Nikon 85mm f1.4 (I only have the AF D version but it is excellent in this department)
Canon 100mm f2.8 chrome nose in FD mount.
Nikkor 105mm f2.5 (Rangefinder and early version of the F mount one)
Asahi Pentax 105mm f2.8 M42

I will not even get into 135mm lenses as there are too many here to mention. But I should say that there are any number of longer lenses which perform well in this department too- even the humble Asahi Pentax 135mm f3.5 can produce really nice bokeh (Due perhaps to its Sonnar design?). A couple of even longer lenses I can think of includes about any version of the Nikkor 200mm f4 (slowish but capable of excellent OOF results) and the Nikkor 180mm f1.8 (I can especially vouch for the early AF version which I own).

One thing I would be interested in hearing your response on, is something the guys over at Classic Lens Podcast described as "wet on wet" bokeh. Which I have to say is pretty sweet based on some images I have seen with the character they describe. Some people say it is just normal everyday good bokeh but true or not, in any event I rather like its "painterly" look - a bit like a watercolor.

Here is the Podcast link https://www.classiclensespodcast.com/e/53-wet-on-wet-bokeh/

And here is a link to an article in which it is discussed, with samples provided: https://tech.swiss-1.ch/wet-on-wet-bokeh/

The lens in the article above is a Raynox M42 135mm f2.8. As it happens, I have a very similar looking lens with another name which performs similarly to that in the article above (I forget the name and it is in storage and I do not have time to go hunting right now). I find this kind of bokeh attractive though the lens is not all that sharp wide open. Never the less it is OK in that department.

A final aside. I always used to get a smile (its a few years back now) and considerable enjoyment out of watching Kaiman Wong on DigitalRev's channel on youtube. In this video he goes out on a photo walk with "Garcia" a model who sometimes appeared as such on his videos and in this video does so in the capacity of an inexperienced photographer. The video compares the bokeh of the Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95 and the Canon 50mm f1.2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=38&v=tWU8DpTo5kg&feature=emb_logo

And a slightly more serious effort here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFJ96onYmu0
 
Jason Schneider said:
Bokeh is a Japanese word that refers to the subjective visual impression of the out of focus areas of an image. Just because bokeh isn't objectively measurable doesn't mean it's BS, but there's certainly been a lot of BS written about it. What imaging characteristics contribute to beautiful bokeh? What kind of lenses that are most likely to be "bokeh monsters?"? Which vintage and contemporary lenses should bokeh fanatics go for? Just ask me and I'll give you my arrogant but educated opinions-:)
Click to expand...
There are two main reasons I might dump a lens:
1. Lousy OOF areas; and
2. Never really gets very sharp.

And if I couldn't have both I'd sacrifice sharpness.
My definition of "lousy" is busy and distracting. I prefer the creamy/smooth variation.

18608831-orig.jpg

Leica MP
50mm Noctilux f/1 (latest E60 version)

18578074-orig.jpg

Leica M10-P
75mm Heliar Classic f/1.8 VM
 
Mr. Schneider…I would love to hear your arrogant and educated opinions…

I’m old-school as well…I paid little attention to “bokeh”, even as a professional in the 1990s. The character of the OOF areas concerned me very little. Either something was in focus or it wasn’t. I wouldn’t have known “creamy bokeh” if I had stepped in a puddle of it. I am now much more aware of it because of the attention that it receives.

When planning a shoot, I create a shot list in a notebook and previsualize each image. I list general parameters for each shot including the lens. I now find myself factoring in the OOF qualities when choosing a lens for a particular image. In a quiet portrait of a person with porcelain skin and flowing hair, sharp bubble bokeh will likely distract and draw the viewer’s eye away from the subject. Put the same subject flying a kite in a flowered field with hair blowing in the breeze, a more energetic bokeh may be called for. If I want swirly, bubbly, dreamy or creamy, I have a lens that will produce it, under the right conditions.

Specifics: I recently shot an outdoor environmental portrait of a musician, playing his guitar. The background was dark and out of focus but contained geometry that I used to frame the subject and guide the eyes around the image. It was important that those features and lines be subtle and out of focus, but present. I used a simple AF-S Nikkor 50mm f 1.8G and a Tokina AT-X Pro Macro 100 f2.8D. Both performed predictably and admirably. I also shot film in a Nikon FM2n with my trusty old Ai-converted Nikkor-SC Auto 50mm f1.4. That lens gives me very smooth low-contrast transition (and bubbly specular OOF highlights, but there weren’t any in that shot). I also brought my old Sonnar-formula Ai-converted Nikkor 105mm f2.5 (but I ran out of ambient light and lost the balance with my single strobe). Those four lenses are my go-to lenses for portraits partly because they allow me to use out-of-focus background features as compositional elements without rendering them in a distracting manner.

I don’t judge a type of “bokeh” as inherently good or bad. I see it as either appropriate or inappropriate for a certain image. I generally want it to go unnoticed unless it contributes something to the image. Nevertheless, it is an aesthetic element over which I have complete control through lens choice, distance and aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom