The ultimate Bokeh thread; pics please

8930951207_dda4eb716a_c.jpg

M7, 35mm lux asph fle, Arista Premium in f76+
 
I still maintain that, the larger the f-number, the smoother the bokeh. For example, your typical f/4 lens has better bokeh than your typical f/1.4 lens - but less of it. What to do? Use a bigger piece of film, and a lens with a longer focal length 🙂 I challenge any short tele (~100mm) on this earth to compete - both technically and artistically, with the Nikkor-T*ED 360mm f/8 on 4x5inch film:

9097046038_1ee966511c_o.jpg

(Nikkor-T*ED 360mm f/8.0, Ilford HP5+, Linhof Technika)

This is the only conventional (i.e. non soft-focus or STF-like) short tele I have ever seen that has absolutely no bright edges to out-of-focus highlights, even extreme ones like sun reflecting off water ripples:

9094816357_f82db9db46_o.jpg

​
 
...I inherited this lens from my uncle, who is a retired photographer and the reason I got into photography myself. It's the Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4, in this case mounted on a Canon 5D mkii. He purchased it from Nikon in Hawaii in the 60s (I think), from the first authorized Nikon dealer in the US. From what I understand this has become a fairly rare/collector's lens these days, but in keeping with my uncle's "working photographer" philosophy, it is soon to be sent off for AI-S conversion so I can shoot it on FE/other Nikon AI-S bodies. It will live to see another few decades of being put to, you know, actual work. Uncle Stan would've wanted it that way.

8494378398_025155d390_b.jpg


8494389132_bf7d9cb003_b.jpg


I'm not a "bokeh snob" (if there is such a thing), and to be honest I find bokeh from most modern f/1.x lenses to be quite satisfactory. IMHO, agonizing over bokeh, CA, and other relatively "small" details can make you forget about the overall image, except in extreme cases with extremely crappy optics. I've always loved the Nikkor-S for its astigmatism or "swirl."

8493306897_58b31beca1_b.jpg


8357134088_fce750dc14_b.jpg


Last one: the Nikkor-S 5.8cm on a Nikon FE, wide open (all of these shots were wide open. Ilford Delta 400 pushed two stops to 1600 in D-76.

8443213863_3f780590f8_b.jpg
 
honozooloo said:
...I inherited this lens from my uncle, who is a retired photographer and the reason I got into photography myself. It's the Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4, in this case mounted on a Canon 5D mkii.
Click to expand...

Excellent example of why the lens matters so much less than the vision behind the photograph! This being a bokeh thread, I guess it's the one place where we are allowed to discuss (and obsess over) this elusive trait of lenses, but I think very few here will disagree with you: Bokeh does not maketh the photograph.

P.S. I shoot a Nikon F, and my most-used lens on it is the period Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2.0 lens. A lovely, charismatic lens - with strengths and weaknesses.
 
My odd assortment of lenses

My odd assortment of lenses

One of the advantages of the new mirrorless cameras is that they can accept so many different lenses via adapters. I have a Fuji X-Pro1 and an odd assortment of lenses. I thought I'd put up some examples of bokeh from these lenses. I've also included the Fuji 23mm Fujinon lens on the X100S camera.

23mm Fujinon at f/2
med_U14844I1372033106.SEQ.0.jpg


CV 58mm SL II (Nikon F mount) at f/2:
med_U14844I1372033107.SEQ.1.jpg


Helios 44-M 58mm at f/2:
med_U14844I1372033107.SEQ.2.jpg


CV 40mm Nokton SC at f/2:
med_U14844I1372033107.SEQ.3.jpg


CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar at f/2.5:
med_U14844I1372033108.SEQ.4.jpg


Tomorrow I'll post the remaining 5 lenses in my 'collection'.

Here's the remaining five.

Flektogon 35mm f2.8 (Exakta) at f2.8
med_U14844I1372120020.SEQ.0.jpg



OM E.Zuiko Auto-T 135mm f3.5 at f3.5
med_U14844I1372120021.SEQ.1.jpg



Tamron CF Macro MC 35-70mm f3.5 at f3.5
med_U14844I1372120022.SEQ.2.jpg



Petri CC Auto 55mm f1.8
med_U14844I1372120023.SEQ.3.jpg



Konica AR 28mm f3.5 at f3.5
med_U14844I1372120023.SEQ.4.jpg


As you can see, the variation in image quality between lenses costing $600 and $30 is pretty slight. I've always thought that nearly all 'modern' lenses will get you 95% of the image quality you want, no matter the cost. (If you want that other 5%, I'm told you need to fork over the big bucks for Leica or Zeiss glass.)
 
Last edited:
philosomatographer said:
Bokeh does not maketh the photograph.

P.S. I shoot a Nikon F, and my most-used lens on it is the period Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2.0 lens. A lovely, charismatic lens - with strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

LOL, I must agree-eth with you about bokeh not making the photograph. For an area that is, by definition and quite literally, not the focal point of the photo, bokeh sure does get obsessed over (and I mean on the internet in general, not here). I wonder if the oil painting message board has a conversation string where people obsess over the bottom edge of their canvases (haha, probably they do)? That's a shaky analogy at best but you get the idea.

I love vintage glass, and honestly I've come to prefer softer, less "perfect" lenses with signature instead of merciless corner-to-corner sharpness and flare resistance. With 90% of the world using the same mass-produced modern lens designs, sensors, and image processing software to do their work, using an unconventional lens is one way to differentiate your work...and one that isn't as easily replicated in post production.

Also...yay Nikon F! My first camera ever was an FE I inherited in the 80s...but my second camera (and the one that taught me the most about photography) was also an F. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom