The suppliers seem to have a cartel with high starting prices. My Schneider Betavaron 50-125 enlarger zoom has only 5 blades forming a strong starry diaphragm, but creamy smooth bokeh - maybe its 800g of glass has something to do with that! Ah, but those Russians are often no longer cheap. Number of blades alone doesn't guarantee admirable bokeh. Ditto for the Minolta 85mm f/1.4, they took pains to make the aperture iris blades curved to give a circular opening at most/all have copies of those first four and they're indeed bokeh wizards.
#Good vs bad bokeh examples movie#
Sony has reissued this lens as 135mm f/2.8 STF and positions it as a movie lens (hence the T-stop rating). Minolta made a 135mm f/2.8 "STF" with a secondary circular aperture to give really gorgeous OOF highlights. Personally the CZ Jena (M42) 135/3.5 and Pentacon 135/2.8 have some of the nicest bokeh around, as well as the cheap Russian Jupiter-137. Although the Pentax-M 135/3.5 is one of the less stellar examples. Generally all/most 135mm's are Sonnar derivatives and have more pleasing bokeh than the 50mm's. And (2) the Super-Macro-Takumar 100mm f/4 which is a Heliar design. softer) and is slower (f/2 vs f/1.4) than Planar designs, has less hard-edge OOF because it has some residual uncorrected spherical aberration.Ī couple Pentax lenses which are legendary for their bokeh are (1) the rare 58mm f/2.4 Takumar, which is a Sonnar and not a Planar (58mm is the shortest you can make a Sonnar for SLR, the 50mm Sonnars are for rangefinders). The Zeiss Sonnar which has less correction (e.g. the dirt-cheap Russian Helios-44 has a 15-blade iris. Most people care about the in-focus image, not the out-of-focus image, hence most modern lenses, which are very sharp, have hard-edge OOF highlights.Īlmost all 50mm lenses are Planar designs (except Leica, apparently.) and would show the above characteristics, although the polygonal issue can be fixed by more blades, e.g. Unfortunately, if you have Gaussian OOF, you'll also have tons of spherical aberration. brightest at the center, fading off gradually as you approach the edge). The ideal OOF highlight would be Gaussian (e.g. If you look at the blur circle "on edge," your image would show a sharp edge, with a "hole" or "pit" in the center (plotting brightness versus radius of the blur circle). The problem is that the highlights will become polygonal (depending on how many blades on your aperture iris). You can get rid of both by stopping down to around f/4. Also notice that off-center the OOF highlights are oblong "cats eye." The sharp edges are due to over-correction. Even if you're not going to purchase a new lens, you can browse through their reviews and get a feel for different kinds of bokeh. does a good job of looking at the bokeh in their lens reviews.
Knowing that, you can place the out-of-focus elements in the center, and the in-focus elements at the corners or, at least avoid bright and out-of-focus points of light at the corners. With this image, you can see that the bokeh is smooth at the center of the image, but develops a lopsided halo toward the corners. Usually, stopping down a little will make the blurry areas smoother, so you could experiment at f/1.7 or f/2.0. That said, the lens determines the bokeh. We need some indicator that it is truly out of focus. I think my brain sees the hard edges and tries to figure out whether it is in-focus or not. Here, we have in-focus and quite out-of-focus, but because the out-of-focus is mostly bright points with hard outlines, it doesn't look like soft, out-of-focus blur. Harsh bokeh (when hard-edged out-of-focus points are considered negative) can be partially mitigated by having an object that transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus, so the eye can "read" what the bokeh represents. One issue is that there's no transition between in-focus and out-of-focus. I agree that the bokeh in this image is distracting. And it doesn't matter whether viewers know what "bokeh" is, it matters whether visual elements detract from conveying the intended image. I agree that there is no "good" or "bad" bokeh in the absolute sense.
0 kommentar(er)
