R
raj
Comment on the bokeh of the attached picture, is it good or bad and why.
Picture taken with NX 28-80 at 80mm wide open.
Picture taken with NX 28-80 at 80mm wide open.
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
magnolia70123
Active Member
Was this picture taking wide open at the wide or tele end. There is a website which reviews bokeh. They explained it as the abilibity of he lens to have the background off focus, but not in such a total blurred state as your picture. It seems bokeh is the blurring of certain elements in the background not everything. If I remember correctly the effect shown in you photo is what they attribute to a poor performing cheap lens where everything is blurred in the background. Iam really surprised at the effect your picture shows. Is it a function of you scanner? Does the actual print look this way. As soon as I locate the name of the website Iam thinking about, I'll post it to you.
magnolia70123
Active Member
Correction I did note picture was taking at the 80mm end. Go to Google and search for List of Camera Lenses with Good(and Bad) Bokeh. Also the Google search under Bokeh yields excellent sites. Good luck and enjoy.
This seems to be a good explanation of good and bad bokeh:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
R
raj
Sorry for delay in answring as out on the week end. The pictures looks like what I have posted. it was scanned from a 5x7 glossy print. 300x300 pixel part was cut and posted here.
My interepretation is that it is a bad bokeh something similiar to a mirror lens. I have observed this also in another picture. No doubt the picture was sharp with good color and contast but bad bokeh. Has someone observed such from a 24-85? or it is a better lens!
My interepretation is that it is a bad bokeh something similiar to a mirror lens. I have observed this also in another picture. No doubt the picture was sharp with good color and contast but bad bokeh. Has someone observed such from a 24-85? or it is a better lens!
M
mike_nunan
Sorry to contradict Alan, but I would regard that as fairly "bad" bokeh. I put the word bad in quotes, because for certain images this look can actually work well -- I even happen to like the donut bokeh from catadioptric (mirror) lenses sometimes, so call me a weirdo!
Anyway, "good bokeh" is generally accepted to mean that the blur circles are brighter in the centre than at the edges. If you look at the circle just to the lower right of the subject's earlobe, you can clearly see that the outer edge of the blur circle is brighter than the centre. This is perceivable in other bright spots elsewhere in the image. Where the background is more of a mish-mash, it looks a touch bitty and busy, rather than being a smoothly blended, indistinct dapple.
Note that some people worry more about the outer shape of the blur circles, and for this reason I've heard some people say that the Planar 50/1.4 has bad bokeh. They say that because it has only five diaphragm blades (in the C/Y AE version anyway) and hence gives a pentagonal shape to blurred highlight points. That may be true, but a mish-mash background without bright highlights is still rendered very smoothly because the brightness distribution isn't biased towards the edges of the blur areas.
Regards,
-= mike =-
Anyway, "good bokeh" is generally accepted to mean that the blur circles are brighter in the centre than at the edges. If you look at the circle just to the lower right of the subject's earlobe, you can clearly see that the outer edge of the blur circle is brighter than the centre. This is perceivable in other bright spots elsewhere in the image. Where the background is more of a mish-mash, it looks a touch bitty and busy, rather than being a smoothly blended, indistinct dapple.
Note that some people worry more about the outer shape of the blur circles, and for this reason I've heard some people say that the Planar 50/1.4 has bad bokeh. They say that because it has only five diaphragm blades (in the C/Y AE version anyway) and hence gives a pentagonal shape to blurred highlight points. That may be true, but a mish-mash background without bright highlights is still rendered very smoothly because the brightness distribution isn't biased towards the edges of the blur areas.
Regards,
-= mike =-
I don't know how the Bokeh ex&le of the Leica 180/2.8 APO showed up so badly. I never got bad Bokeh from the 2 I've owned before leaving the R system. It's a puzzle to me.
I'll try to put an ex&le here to demonstrate the smooth Bokeh of a Leica M lens. It's a daylight shot from a 50mm Noctilux shot wide open at f/1.0 using a ND filter and slower film.
I'll try to put an ex&le here to demonstrate the smooth Bokeh of a Leica M lens. It's a daylight shot from a 50mm Noctilux shot wide open at f/1.0 using a ND filter and slower film.
M
mike_nunan
Hi Marc,
I think the 180/2.8 APO is ok, the bad ex&le was from the APO-Telyt 180 f/3.4 (don't even know for sure but I'm assuming that's an R-mount lens). The Noctilux has done a stunning job on your ex&le shot, and by those standards I can certainly see why you are among those who view the Planar 50 as being inferior. I think a Leica M system is in my future somewhere, but right now funds are tight so I'm just enjoying the gear I already have. I'm not short on cameras so it's probably no bad thing!
Incidentally, with reds like that was the fire hydrant shot taken on Kodachrome?
Regards,
-= mike =-
I think the 180/2.8 APO is ok, the bad ex&le was from the APO-Telyt 180 f/3.4 (don't even know for sure but I'm assuming that's an R-mount lens). The Noctilux has done a stunning job on your ex&le shot, and by those standards I can certainly see why you are among those who view the Planar 50 as being inferior. I think a Leica M system is in my future somewhere, but right now funds are tight so I'm just enjoying the gear I already have. I'm not short on cameras so it's probably no bad thing!
Incidentally, with reds like that was the fire hydrant shot taken on Kodachrome?
Regards,
-= mike =-
Hi Mike, funny, I thought the reds were muted from the upload, they're even more "red" in the print. The film was Fuji 160 neg.
The Leica 180/3.4 (it is a R mount) is quite an old lens made for the military at first. Detail was the overriding concern in it's design. The current 180/2.8 APO is a terrific performer, maybe the best in class, especially in the area of Bokeh.
The Leica 180/3.4 (it is a R mount) is quite an old lens made for the military at first. Detail was the overriding concern in it's design. The current 180/2.8 APO is a terrific performer, maybe the best in class, especially in the area of Bokeh.