leicashooter
Established
Moose
Moose
Leica M9, Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. at f/5.6
Moose
Leica M9, Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. at f/5.6
jcrutcher
Veteran
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
Leica M-E, Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 III
jcrutcher
Veteran
kokoshawnuff
Alex
M7, 35mm lux asph fle, Arista Premium in f76+
photony texas
Light Sensitive
awslee
Well-known
jcrutcher
Veteran
jcrutcher
Veteran
She is gorgeous!
gsgary
Well-known
Jupiter 8 on a M4-P
jcrutcher
Veteran
2WK
Rangefinder User
35mm Nokton 1.4 S.C. M6TTL
tumblr_mlu01tRNZq1qg58vdo1_1280 by phi.design, on Flickr
SAM by phi.design, on Flickr
tumblr_mlu01tRNZq1qg58vdo1_1280 by phi.design, on Flickr
SAM by phi.design, on Flickr
jcrutcher
Veteran
philosomatographer
Well-known
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:
(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:
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:
(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:
honozooloo
Established
...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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
philosomatographer
Well-known
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.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
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
CV 58mm SL II (Nikon F mount) at f/2:
Helios 44-M 58mm at f/2:
CV 40mm Nokton SC at f/2:
CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar at f/2.5:
Tomorrow I'll post the remaining 5 lenses in my 'collection'.
Here's the remaining five.
Flektogon 35mm f2.8 (Exakta) at f2.8
OM E.Zuiko Auto-T 135mm f3.5 at f3.5
Tamron CF Macro MC 35-70mm f3.5 at f3.5
Petri CC Auto 55mm f1.8
Konica AR 28mm f3.5 at f3.5
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.)
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
CV 58mm SL II (Nikon F mount) at f/2:
Helios 44-M 58mm at f/2:
CV 40mm Nokton SC at f/2:
CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar at f/2.5:
Tomorrow I'll post the remaining 5 lenses in my 'collection'.
Here's the remaining five.
Flektogon 35mm f2.8 (Exakta) at f2.8
OM E.Zuiko Auto-T 135mm f3.5 at f3.5
Tamron CF Macro MC 35-70mm f3.5 at f3.5
Petri CC Auto 55mm f1.8
Konica AR 28mm f3.5 at f3.5
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:
ruby.monkey
Veteran
honozooloo
Established
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.
