Pentax Lens Bokeh
Jeremy
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MaryAllen.jpg
T P
>Can Leica beat this?
>
>http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MaryAllen.jpg
Yes, Leica lenses can easily beat that. This shot is a poor choice
for any such comparison, because it displays bokeh that is far from
smooth, with some very obtrusive (and subjectively very unpleasant)
bright ring highlights. If smooth bokeh is considered an important
aspect of lens performance, the shot demonstrates a poorly designed
optic. Anyone claiming this as an example of good bokeh clearly has
not even the most elementary understanding of what good bokeh is.
Unfortunately, several Pentax lenses display such poor design, sadly
including the three recent (and extremely expensive) "Limited Edition"
lenses. Pentax claim these were designed with bokeh as a priority,
but they actually show the harsh bokeh that is typical of a design
that has been over-optimised to gain a high MTF index at the expense
of other important optical characteristics such as bokeh and
distortion.
Of course what we have here is just another example of Jeremy's
profound ignorance of even the most basic principles of optics. His
obsession with his sadly outdated, and by 21st century standards,
optically inadequate screw mount Takumar lenses precludes any
possibility of objective judgement, whether quantitative (as with MTF)
or qualitative (as with bokeh). Jeremy's absolute ignorance (or is it
stupidity?) means that he continually claims that his obsolescent
Pentax lenses are the optical equivalent of today's Leica and Zeiss
glass when they are patently not.
Some more modern Pentax lenses equal Leica and Zeiss equivalents in
one optical characteristic, for example bokeh, or apparent sharpness.
But there are very few Pentax lenses that can compare with Leica and
Zeiss for a combination of two or more such characteristics. With
few, if any, exceptions, Pentax lenses are like most others; they are
compromised in some way to obtain a target price point.
Those select few Pentax lenses that do offer a combination of
sharpness and bokeh that could be compared with Leica and Zeiss glass
fall down in other areas, notably distortion, where many Pentax lenses
show rectilinear distortion that would not be acceptable to other mass
manufacturers such as Nikon and Canon, let alone Leica and Zeiss.
Where Leica and Zeiss beat Pentax, and by a huge margin, is in the
careful optimisation of an optical design so that exemplary standards
of resolution, contrast, flare resistance, distortion, aberrations, 3D
micro-contrast and out-of-focus effects can be obtained *all at the
same time*. Pentax have not yet shown that they can achieve this,
whether in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s or now.
Unfortunately, Jeremy's complete lack of knowledge of even the most
basic of optical principles allows him to select a photo which serves
to prove only that Pentax lenses are a very, very long way behind
those from Leica and Zeiss. And given the disappointing performance
of the "Limited" lenses, with harsh bokeh and truly alarming levels of
distortion, especially for the very high prices charged, it looks
unlikely that Pentax will ever catch up.
Meanwhile, Jeremy floats on his cloud and plays with his screw mount
Pentax lenses, completely oblivious to their inadequacy when compared
with Zeiss and Leica glass. Oh what a sad man he is.
T P
There is another shot in the same gallery which illustrates smooth
bokeh, albeit with slightly disappointing sharpness, although the
small size of the scan makes it difficult to tell whether this is a
feature of the optics, poor focusing, camera shake or a poor scan:
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/tonyduffey.jpg
I do wonder how Jeremy managed to miss that one!
;-)
T P
>
>I do wonder how Jeremy managed to miss that one!
And this one too:
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MichaelGilburt2.jpg
It seems to take a particular brand of ignorance to post an example of
harsh bokeh to illustrate the abilities (?) of Pentax glass, when two
perfectly good examples of smooth bokeh were also available in the
same gallery. The last example was captured with a Pentax 100-300mm
zoom, which demonstrates that Pentax are one of the few lens
manufacturers who can obtain smooth bokeh from zoom lenses.
Of course Jeremy is not aware of this either ...
"Load. Take aim at foot. FIRE!!!!"
;-)
Alan Browne
Jeremy wrote:
> Can Leica beat this?
>
> http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MaryAllen.jpg
>
>
Jeremy, showing a 14 Kb 500 x 326 pix image which does not appear to be
particularly sharp and which has JPG compression artifacts is hardly the
way to make your case. I suspect also that there were sharpening
artifacts, but these have been clobbered by poor compression.
IN point, look at the crap around the lighthouse, and the crap around
the noise speckles in the sky and on the water.
Secondly the the foreground bokeh in this shot is atrocious.
Seriously, you have no idea how to present a case.
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Alan Browne
T P wrote:
> TP wrote:
>
>>I do wonder how Jeremy managed to miss that one!
>
>
> And this one too:
>
> http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MichaelGilburt2.jpg
>
TP: nice self portrait.
brian
It *appears* to me that the sample image shows bright-ring bokeh in
the foreground, and that the background bokeh is disturbed by
atmospheric turbulence. Not entirely clear that the lens doesn't have
good background bokeh. Of course, its optically impossible for a lens
to have ultra-smooth bokeh on both sides of focus (background and
foreground defocused points). You can have neutral bokeh on either
side, but most people don't consider neutral bokeh to be good bokeh.
Leicaddict
post a lot of photos with a number of comparison shots. Although it is a
Leica Forum, still there are quite a number of non-Leica shots. Another good
Leica site is the LUG. Again many photos are posted, including non-Leica. So
far, I haven't seen any respondant who much less knows what a Leica is, let
alone its signature.
--
THE REAL LEICADDICT
"The Gonzo God of SnapShots"
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:r4Bvb.12622$Rk5....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jeremy
"brian" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c459ba.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > Of course what we have here is just another example of Jeremy's
> > profound ignorance of even the most basic principles of optics.
What we have here is an individual that has a history of disruptive behavior
on numerous newsgroups, typically by posting insulting comments about other
posters, and by holding himself out as an expert on virtually all subjects.
This is the same person that claimed, on another NG, to know where Osama
Bin Laden was hiding! On yet another NG, he bemoaned having to cancel his
trip to Iraq, because of the pending US/British military action there.
It goes on and on.
He has offered NO credentials to back up his claims of being an expert. His
name is completely unknown in photographic circles. He has never published
a book, or even an article in a photographic magazine. Yet, he knows
everything about the craft.
It's pure bull.
Every time someone challenges him to post some samples of his work, to
demonstrate his knowledge, he quietly shuts up for awhile, until the storm
blows over.
He can't show anything, because he is a fraud. If his continual boasting
was not so pathetic, it might even be funny.
So, I ask this pompous gasoline-pumper again: please, show us samples of
your work. Someone as knowledgeable as you must have an incredible
portfolio. PLEASE, let us have a look.
Don't tell us, SHOW US.
Now go and hide for a few days. Better yet, go to Iraq, as you said you
were going to do earlier this year.
Jeremy
comments--he was quoting Poulsen, and my previous post was directed toward
him.
Sorry, Brian.
T P
>
>What we have here is an individual that has a history of disruptive behavior
>on numerous newsgroups,
Yes, Jeremy, you certainly disrupt this newsgroup by posting your
ignorant, ill-informed and factually incorrect nonsense (truly the
worst kind!).
Lewis Lang
>From: T P t...@nospam.com
>Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 4:04 AM
>Message-id: <4d4urvk0e1icusigs...@4ax.com>
SNIP
Hi Tony:
I guess I'll have to disagree w/ you, at least in part, here. The 31mm Ltd.
Pentax lens I tested out on a Pentax *ist D (digital) had extremely smooth
bokeh and 3D/microcontrast to rival the 35mm f/2 (non-asph, the one I have
experience with) Leica M lens. Though the background in the test shot had no
light sources to show bright ringing bokeh, so you may be right on that point.
I mention all this only because few lenses match, in my mind, the clarity of
the 35mm f/2 and 1.4 M lenses (both of which I have experience with) and this
31mm Ltd. should really read Leica M on the barrel, not "Pentax Ltd." I have
heard the asp versions are even better but at the cost of the smooth buttery
bokeh which is one of the characteristics the M lenses excel at. Personally I
think Jeremy's boekh shot is quite smooth, bright ringing of hilights aside, it
looks sharp enough, but at the size it is and on the web its hard to judge much
about micro-contrast. It doesn't seem to have that "Leica glow" (if by "Leica
glow" you mean the large format tonality/micro-contrast Leica/Zeiss/Schneider
and a very few others are famous for) however it does seem at least in the
Nikon/etc. general range of sharpness and I'd be happy to shoot it if I owned
it. I think Jeremy may be right about the workmanship/build quality, but
optically speaking its hardly in the dog leagues, arf arf! :-)
Actually, where Pentax matches Zeiss (and Leica?) is inthe anti-reflective
coatings on the lens that prevent flare/ghosting which are about a match for
Zeiss but w/ perhaps a little less surreal micro-contrast/"sizzle" (ie. more
natural/slightly toned down contrast than/relative to the Zeiss look)
Regards,
Lewis
P.S. - Pleasant shot, Jeremy, though I might have moved the camera slightly to
the left to compare size/shape relationships between the similarly shaped
flower/lighthouse. Better stop here before I do a critique and have to charge
you ;-)
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <2nburvcas8c1qg3ss...@4ax.com>
I don't know if its the lens, the background shapes or both but that seems like
circular bokeh to me - where the out of focus portions (green
grass/reeds/whateveris curving back there) seem to curve around the center
point of the lens - almost like "Vertigo" w/o the stairs or crapping Alfred
Hitchcockian birds...no wait, that's also "High Anxiety" ;-)
Lewis
I'm serious about the circular bokeh effect, though. Not quite dizzying but its
there. A better choice of bokeh would have more coma wings in it so it would
match the subject in shape/form/subject matter a la Hitchcocks "The Birds"
(sorry, couldn't resist, but still serious about the circular bokeh).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 1:52 PM
>Message-id: <rnNvb.31593$Mv3.6...@wagner.videotron.net>
Someone's been clipping my yearbook pictures... wait a minute, no, they've
never come out so good, must be somebody else's yearbook picture or a really
sour fashion shoot ;-).
Regards,
Lewis
T P
>I don't know if its the lens, the background shapes or both but that seems like
>circular bokeh to me - where the out of focus portions (green
>grass/reeds/whateveris curving back there) seem to curve around the center
>point of the lens - almost like "Vertigo" w/o the stairs or crapping Alfred
>Hitchcockian birds...no wait, that's also "High Anxiety" ;-)
Hmmmm ... keep taking the High Anxiety pills, Lewis!
>I'm serious about the circular bokeh effect, though. Not quite dizzying but its
>there.
Yes, I agree.
>A better choice of bokeh would have more coma wings in it so it would
>match the subject in shape/form/subject matter a la Hitchcocks "The Birds"
>(sorry, couldn't resist, but still serious about the circular bokeh).
OK, Lewis, I think that's enough Hitchcockian references for now ...
;-)
Jeremy
> cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
I notice that this self-ordained EXPERT on every matter under the sun has
YET to post some examples of his allegedly superior work, for us to
critique.
He claims that he shoots as much as 50 rolls per day. He claims that he is
an expert on photography.
So, where's the beef?
Last time he posted anything, it was roundly criticized and he took it off
the web within a few hours. I wonder how it can be that this photo guru,
who claims to have owned virtually every camera/lens system under the sun,
is unable to show anything to the rest of us mere mortals.
I could use some photographic inspiration. Heck, I might even be as
knowledgeable as T.P. one day . . .
So, Mr EXPERT, I ask you again: "SHOW US SEE SOME SAMPLES OF YOUR SUPERIOR
WORK!"
I'm willing to bet that he won't do it--because he runs and hides whenever
anyone challenges him on this point.
Bill Tuthill
>> http://pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MaryAllen.jpg
>
> It *appears* to me that the sample image shows bright-ring bokeh in
> the foreground, and that the background bokeh is disturbed by
> atmospheric turbulence. Not entirely clear that the lens doesn't have
> good background bokeh. Of course, its optically impossible for a lens
> to have ultra-smooth bokeh on both sides of focus (background and
> foreground defocused points). You can have neutral bokeh on either
> side, but most people don't consider neutral bokeh to be good bokeh.
So do lens designers generally chose to have smoother bokeh on the
far side than on the near side?
Nonetheless I have seen excellent near-range bokeh, especially in movies
(where lenses are far better than what we r.p.e.35mm denizens own).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 6:27 AM
>Message-id: <e4n3svc04nj1h12mv...@4ax.com>
No, wait... someone's shown up in my backyard and brought me some more
references, I see someone at my "REAR WINDOW", he's a "STRANGER ON A TRAIN" but
he looks a little "PSYCHO" (I'll stave off more jokes here and ask the question
that begs to be asked - how would I be able to tell???) because he's using a
"ROPE" to climb "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" up "THE 39 STEPS"...
;-)
Collin Brendemuehl
> "Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>
> >Can Leica beat this?
> >
> >http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MaryAllen.jpg
>
>
> Yes, Leica lenses can easily beat that. This shot is a poor choice
> for any such comparison, because it displays bokeh that is far from
> smooth, with some very obtrusive (and subjectively very unpleasant)
> bright ring highlights. If smooth bokeh is considered an important
> aspect of lens performance, the shot demonstrates a poorly designed
> optic. Anyone claiming this as an example of good bokeh clearly has
> not even the most elementary understanding of what good bokeh is.
>
> Unfortunately, several Pentax lenses display such poor design, sadly
> including the three recent (and extremely expensive) "Limited Edition"
> lenses. Pentax claim these were designed with bokeh as a priority,
> but they actually show the harsh bokeh that is typical of a design
> that has been over-optimised to gain a high MTF index at the expense
> of other important optical characteristics such as bokeh and
> distortion.
Unfortunately that's true of the 43/1.9 but not of the 31mm & 77mm.
Spend some time with them instead of reading articles.
The 31mm will impress anyone.
The 77mm, on the other hand, had been equalled by Pentax' A*85/1.4.
In a comparison performed by PDML members a comparison of the A*85/1.4
to the Zeiss equivalent was performed. And to eliminate all variables
they used only one roll of film!
The results were interesting. The Zeiss was, typically, just a hair
sharper at the edges. (A typlical Pentax design characteristic.)
BUT -- there are other concerns.
WRT flare resistance, there's nothing to equal Pentax. Including Leica.
There's one PDML member who also shoots Leica.
He in fact posted a shot with Pentax' outstanding A15mm lens
and the Leica group raved about it. But it weren't no Leica lens!
It was better.
> Of course what we have here is just another example of Jeremy's
> profound ignorance of even the most basic principles of optics. His
> obsession with his sadly outdated, and by 21st century standards,
> optically inadequate screw mount Takumar lenses precludes any
> possibility of objective judgement, whether quantitative (as with MTF)
> or qualitative (as with bokeh). Jeremy's absolute ignorance (or is it
> stupidity?) means that he continually claims that his obsolescent
> Pentax lenses are the optical equivalent of today's Leica and Zeiss
> glass when they are patently not.
I'm amazed how many 35mm true believers don't use anything with a larger
film format. If they did, they'd all realize the compromises made by
ALL 35mm lens systems. Go to any good 120 film system and you'll see
the perspective improvement. Not just detail. Accuracy of horizontal
and verticals changes noticably. Less coma, etc. Just plane better.
No matter how good any 35mm system is, it's not that good.
It's good for some things -- like the convenience it was designed for.
But you can do so much better for less money in any good medium format system.
That's the advantage of a better optical system.
> Some more modern Pentax lenses equal Leica and Zeiss equivalents in
> one optical characteristic, for example bokeh, or apparent sharpness.
> But there are very few Pentax lenses that can compare with Leica and
> Zeiss for a combination of two or more such characteristics. With
> few, if any, exceptions, Pentax lenses are like most others; they are
> compromised in some way to obtain a target price point.
Nonsense.
> Those select few Pentax lenses that do offer a combination of
> sharpness and bokeh that could be compared with Leica and Zeiss glass
> fall down in other areas, notably distortion, where many Pentax lenses
> show rectilinear distortion that would not be acceptable to other mass
> manufacturers such as Nikon and Canon, let alone Leica and Zeiss.
But you pick and choose optical characteristics to suit your argument.
Flare resistance is equivalently important.
Nothing beats modern Pentax coatings.
> Where Leica and Zeiss beat Pentax, and by a huge margin, is in the
> careful optimisation of an optical design so that exemplary standards
> of resolution, contrast, flare resistance, distortion, aberrations, 3D
> micro-contrast and out-of-focus effects can be obtained *all at the
> same time*. Pentax have not yet shown that they can achieve this,
> whether in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s or now.
You named the one item that you haven't evaluated -- flare resistance.
The A series was the best at that. See above comments.
> Unfortunately, Jeremy's complete lack of knowledge of even the most
> basic of optical principles allows him to select a photo which serves
> to prove only that Pentax lenses are a very, very long way behind
> those from Leica and Zeiss. And given the disappointing performance
> of the "Limited" lenses, with harsh bokeh and truly alarming levels of
> distortion, especially for the very high prices charged, it looks
> unlikely that Pentax will ever catch up.
Optical principles? Neither of you have stated any.
All of the Gaussian, retro-focus, etc, of 35mm systems fall short.
There are no plasmats (that I'm familiar with) in 35mm.
(correct me if I'm wrong, but please be specific)
They'd be too large.
> Meanwhile, Jeremy floats on his cloud and plays with his screw mount
> Pentax lenses, completely oblivious to their inadequacy when compared
> with Zeiss and Leica glass. Oh what a sad man he is.
True-believing posters sure make this fun!
So quit spending your money on a film format the size of a postage stamp
and pick up a real camera. Maybe a Mamiya 6 or 7, or Pentax 645 or 67,
or anything that'll show you what good lens design really is!
CRB
KC8TKA
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 4:07 PM
>Message-id: <10c1a061.03112...@posting.google.com>
I have owned both (Zeiss w/ T* coating/Pentax SMC lenses) and find both to be
virtually equal in the flare department so I think this is a shared title as
far as to number one in the flare department, with the Zeiss having the edge in
contrast and both having excellent bokeh (both fore and aft for my Zeiss
28mm/2.8 Distagon - rare (bokeh good nokeh in foreground and background for any
lens). I looked at a 20x30" blow up off my old (gone) Leica R 28mm f/2.8
Elmarit (2 cams w/ an extra 3rd cam added) and in parts it has ultra smooth
bokeh while near the corner it was very slightly de-doubled in a strange way
(could have been just the pool/lawn chair/whatever in the background) so even a
good bokeh lens can have areas of the frame where bokeh is less than ideal.
Don't know why I mentioned this, just felt like sharing it.
Lewis Lang
SNIPS OF INTERESTING POINTS FORE AND AFT
>Unfortunately that's true of the 43/1.9 but not of the 31mm & 77mm.
>Spend some time with them instead of reading articles.
>The 31mm will impress anyone.
>
Been there, done that ;-) Some of the best bokeh/micro-contrast on the planet,
I just wish they'd come out w/ a 23mm/2.5 (Has to be an odd focal length and
aperture to be a Ltd. lens ;-)) Ltd Pentax lens... I hear rumors? of an 18mm
Ltd. (don't remeber where, on the web?) but would really prefer something in
the 23-25mm range as 24mm is my favorite/"normal" focal length.
>The 77mm, on the other hand, had been equalled by Pentax' A*85/1.4.
>In a comparison performed by PDML members a comparison of the A*85/1.4
>to the Zeiss equivalent was performed. And to eliminate all variables
>they used only one roll of film!
>
Are these tests on the web? Could you supply an URL, please?
>The results were interesting. The Zeiss was, typically, just a hair
>sharper at the edges. (A typlical Pentax design characteristic.)
>BUT -- there are other concerns.
How does the 24mm f/2 AL compare in micro-contrast and bokeh to the superb 31mm
Ltd? Is it the others equal like the 77/1.8Ltd./85/1.4 combo?
TIA
Jeremy
> >to the Zeiss equivalent was performed. And to eliminate all variables
> >they used only one roll of film!
> >
>
> Are these tests on the web? Could you supply an URL, please?
>
I thought I saw that very article quoted in a post on this NG within the
past few days.
The poster, who was known to shoot with Leica, uploaded an image made by a
Pentax, and he intentionally lied about it as having come from a Leica. The
image received a number of comments from Leica users praising the high
quality of Leica glass.
It was nothing scientific, of course.
Bob Monaghan has conducted tests where people were asked to identify which
brand of lens took which photo--and they were unable to consistently
associate the correct images with their respective lenses.
William D. Tallman
<snip>
>>OK, Lewis, I think that's enough Hitchcockian references for now ...
>>
>>;-)
>
> No, wait... someone's shown up in my backyard and brought me some more
> references, I see someone at my "REAR WINDOW", he's a "STRANGER ON A
> TRAIN" but he looks a little "PSYCHO" (I'll stave off more jokes here and
> ask the question that begs to be asked - how would I be able to tell???)
> because he's using a "ROPE" to climb "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" up "THE 39
> STEPS"...
>
> ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis
ROFL!! Good 'un, Lewis!
Bill Tallman
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 8:05 PM
>Message-id: <vs575ms...@corp.supernews.com>
Thanks, Bill. Occaisionally my sense of humor does a "cameo".
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 6:15 PM
>Message-id: <zqvwb.20445$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Thanks Jeremy. Does anybody have the actual URL (if there ever was one) or
remember what it might be or remember pieces of it (the URL)?
TIA
Jeremy
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031124200956...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Lewis:
I believe that he mentioned that it was posted on the Leica Users Group.
You might want to try a Google search on this NG over the past 30 days--I am
almost certain that I saw the post right here within the past couple of
weeks.
I don't believe that there was a specific URL (I don't know where the LUG
can be found--sorry)
Collin Brendemuehl
I have the 43/1.9.
And while the compromise in design produces an unappealing bokeh wide open
it's really a very, very nice lens @ f8.
Pentax has unfortunately had some dogs like the M28/2.8 and A35/2.8.
But the outstanding lenses include that A15, K30/2.8, FA24/2, FA35/2,
FA31/1.8, A35/2, A50/1.7 (yes, that cheapie is very under-rated!),
FA77/1.8, FA85/1.4, and a few other very outstanding examples.
IOW Pentax glass is a good choice if one picks from the nicer lenses.
Avoid (as with Nikon, Canon, etc) any of the cheap package zooms
and one will get a nice lens. Or, get one of the outstanding ones
and let the Nikon/Canon/Leica/Zeiss true believers fight it out
and spend more timie arguing than shooting.
I worry little if any about test results and comparisons.
If the pics are sharp enough then they're sharp enough.
Let the geeks argue specs.
Collin
Bandicoot
news:vs4mm6q...@corp.supernews.com...
> brian <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
http://pentaxuser.co.uk/egallery/albums/October_2003_gallery/MaryAllen.jpg
> >
> > It *appears* to me that the sample image shows bright-ring bokeh in
> > the foreground, and that the background bokeh is disturbed by
> > atmospheric turbulence. Not entirely clear that the lens doesn't have
> > good background bokeh. Of course, its optically impossible for a lens
> > to have ultra-smooth bokeh on both sides of focus (background and
> > foreground defocused points). You can have neutral bokeh on either
> > side, but most people don't consider neutral bokeh to be good bokeh.
>
> So do lens designers generally chose to have smoother bokeh on the
> far side than on the near side?
Yes. The reasoning being that you will far more often take a picture of
something in front of an out of focus background, than you will of something
partially obscured by an OoF foreground. Probably a reasonable assumption.
Nikon's DFC lenses let you choose which side of the plane of sharpest focus
the 'best' bokeh will fall, I'm not aware of anyone else doing this. I'm
also not aware of any lenses specifically designed to give better foreground
than background bokeh - probably be a very limited market, though it is the
sort of thing I could imagine Schneider or Rodenstock doing in LF lenses if
they saw enough demand. (That said, Nikon makes LF lenses, but not, as far
as I know, any that use their DFC mechanism.)
Here's a question: will reversing a lens place the 'good' bokeh on the other
side of the plane of focus from where it would be otherwise?
Peter
Bandicoot
news:10c1a061.03112...@posting.google.com...[SNIP]
> I have the 43/1.9.
> And while the compromise in design produces an unappealing bokeh wide open
> it's really a very, very nice lens @ f8.
>
> Pentax has unfortunately had some dogs like the M28/2.8 and A35/2.8.
>
> But the outstanding lenses include that A15, K30/2.8, FA24/2, FA35/2,
> FA31/1.8, A35/2, A50/1.7 (yes, that cheapie is very under-rated!),
> FA77/1.8, FA85/1.4, and a few other very outstanding examples.
>
> IOW Pentax glass is a good choice if one picks from the nicer lenses.
> Avoid (as with Nikon, Canon, etc) any of the cheap package zooms
> and one will get a nice lens. Or, get one of the outstanding ones
> and let the Nikon/Canon/Leica/Zeiss true believers fight it out
> and spend more timie arguing than shooting.
>
> I worry little if any about test results and comparisons.
> If the pics are sharp enough then they're sharp enough.
> Let the geeks argue specs.
>
> Collin
Good sense. Can I add to your list of 'Pentax Greats'?
A20/2.8, K28/3.5, K35/3.5, K or A 50/1.4, K85/1.8, A*85/1.4, K105/2.8,
FA100/2.8 Macro, A*135/1.8, FA*200/2.8, M* or A* 300/4, FA*300/4.5
All of these are first class lenses. There are some fine zooms too.
I agree with you about the 30/2.8 - excellent lens and sometimes quite
cheap: people who don't know what a fine performer it is can price it down
because of the unusual FL.
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2003 9:50 AM
>Message-id: <10c1a061.03112...@posting.google.com>
Thanks Collin for the lens list. I had the 50/1.7 A when I was into Pentax MF
and I loved its clarity, color saturation and bokeh. I suppose the F and FA
versions of this lens are the same as the A but the "paranoid in me" would
probably get the 50/1.7 A just to be sure I would be getting the same great
quality I got in the early 1980's when I owned that lens. One of these years I
guess I'll have to persuade the Pentax boot at the PHOTO PLUS EXPO show to let
me use the 24mm f/2 on an *ist D or MZ-S with film as I tested this lens years
ago on a rickety? tripod on some screen door wire just to see how it would
render it when wide open aperture(s) were used and it didn't do too well.
Nowadays I'd probably use flash or a better tripod and/or real people subjects
to get an idea for the micro-contrast, color saturation, flare and bokeh which
interests me a lot more than a USAF resolution chart(s) when I was hunng up on
that aspect of photography (more than a decade ago.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2003 3:04 PM
>Message-id: <106978746...@eunomia.uk.clara.net>
Thanks for adding to the list, Peter :-).
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <hvywb.18777$Rk5....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Thanks Jeremy :-). I thought that the LUG was some specialized opt-in
email/mailing list group and so wouldn't be carried by google unless it was
hosted on web pages by Yahoo!/etc. I guess I'll have to dig around the net and
see what i can dredge up, but thanks for alerting me to this.
Bob Monaghan
Hi Lewis!
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html (and blind.html and
blindtest.html for proposal and rationale for blind/double-blind lens
testing). These are for medium format lenses, ranging from zeiss planar on
rolleiflex to hasselblad zeiss lenses to bronica nikkors and kowa pro
lenses down to chinese DF4 pilot $75 6x6cm SLR for the low end. After you
pull out the three element lens models, the others give such close
performance that I and most others can't reliably tell them apart. This
has been an interesting learning experience for me and others out there
too! ;-)
I am planning on repeating this experiment using a variety of 50mm lenses,
including a leica summicron, minolta f/1.7, nikon f/1.8 and f/1.4,
pentax 50mm, contax/yashica, topcon, and other models with side by side
shots of the same subject, same lighting, same tripod, same film, same
processing, possibly this vacation if we get a spell of good weather ;-)
I will be quite interested to see if 35mm users can tell apart those
slides by the brand of lens that took the images ;-)
but given that there hasn't been any statistically significant differences
after many volunteer tests on the high end multi-kilobuck lenses against
the $100-ish used lenses, and even worse, the $100-ish Kowa 85mm and
bronica nikkors have so far been the highest rated lenses over my zeiss
rolleiflex and hasselblad lenses, I wouldn't want to bet the 35mm lenses
will be any easier to split out by brands ;-)
grins bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2003 9:25 PM
>Message-id: <bq0ve3$8uk$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>
>Hi Lewis!
>
>see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html (and blind.html and
>blindtest.html for proposal and rationale for blind/double-blind lens
>testing). These are for medium format lenses, ranging from zeiss planar
>on
>rolleiflex to hasselblad zeiss lenses to bronica nikkors and kowa pro
>lenses down to chinese DF4 pilot $75 6x6cm SLR for the low end. After you
>pull out the three element lens models, the others give such close
>performance that I and most others can't reliably tell them apart. This
>has been an interesting learning experience for me and others out there
>too! ;-)
>
>I am planning on repeating this experiment using a variety of 50mm lenses,
>including a leica summicron, minolta f/1.7, nikon f/1.8 and f/1.4,
>pentax 50mm, contax/yashica, topcon, and other models with side by side
>shots of the same subject, same lighting, same tripod, same film, same
>processing, possibly this vacation if we get a spell of good weather ;-)
>I will be quite interested to see if 35mm users can tell apart those
>slides by the brand of lens that took the images ;-)
>
Sounds like a great idea, let us know if/when you have an URL. Might want to
try some shots w/ out of focus background for a bokeh check too :-)
>but given that there hasn't been any statistically significant differences
>after many volunteer tests on the high end multi-kilobuck lenses against
>the $100-ish used lenses, and even worse, the $100-ish Kowa 85mm and
>bronica nikkors have so far been the highest rated lenses over my zeiss
>rolleiflex and hasselblad lenses, I wouldn't want to bet the 35mm lenses
>will be any easier to split out by brands ;-)
>
>grins bobm
The results from a Bronica Nikkor MF lens (S2? vintage) was exquisitely sharp
w/ nice color saturation, but I saw this years ago and am remembering from
memory.
I don't know how easy or hard it will be able to tell differences over the web
(the great leveler?) not only in sharpness but in color rendition, bokeh,
flare, micro-contrast, etc. though I have usually (but not always) been able to
pick out Leica lenses. It is much easier for me to do the selection on a light
table with a good loupe but that's kinf of hard to do over the internet ;-) and
I have an ancient machine in which even 100K images are (almost too) large
files ;-) ;-).
>--
>***********************************************************************
>* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
>
>********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Regards,
Ron Todd
wrote:
>
>Hi Lewis!
>
>see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html (and blind.html and
>blindtest.html for proposal and rationale for blind/double-blind lens
>testing). These are for medium format lenses, ranging from zeiss planar on
>rolleiflex to hasselblad zeiss lenses to bronica nikkors and kowa pro
>lenses down to chinese DF4 pilot $75 6x6cm SLR for the low end. After you
>pull out the three element lens models, the others give such close
>performance that I and most others can't reliably tell them apart. This
>has been an interesting learning experience for me and others out there
>too! ;-)
>
>I am planning on repeating this experiment using a variety of 50mm lenses,
>including a leica summicron, minolta f/1.7, nikon f/1.8 and f/1.4,
>pentax 50mm, contax/yashica, topcon, and other models with side by side
>shots of the same subject, same lighting, same tripod, same film, same
>processing, possibly this vacation if we get a spell of good weather ;-)
>I will be quite interested to see if 35mm users can tell apart those
>slides by the brand of lens that took the images ;-)
Looking forward to reading the results. My guess is no statistical
difference here either.
>
>but given that there hasn't been any statistically significant differences
>after many volunteer tests on the high end multi-kilobuck lenses against
>the $100-ish used lenses, and even worse, the $100-ish Kowa 85mm and
>bronica nikkors have so far been the highest rated lenses over my zeiss
>rolleiflex and hasselblad lenses, I wouldn't want to bet the 35mm lenses
>will be any easier to split out by brands ;-)
>
>grins bobm
Best Regards.
*****************************************
Boycott list:
Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video, Heinz
Foods, Ontario & Quebec provinces,
Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."
For those who are unclear about the situation, California is the Clinton - Davis model for the rest of the United States of America.
T P
>
>I notice that this self-ordained EXPERT on every matter under the sun has
>YET to
... blah, blah, blah.
Your self-restraint didn't last very long, Jeremy, did it? Where's
the strong, mature person who was never going to read, or respond to
any of my posts ever again?
Truth is, you are too childish and too weak to resist. Maybe you lack
the self confidence needed to show restraint? You certainly have a
large number of valid reasons to lack self-confidence.
Have a nice day, little boy.
;-)
T P
>
>So do lens designers generally chose to have smoother bokeh on the
>far side than on the near side?
Of course, because smooth OOF backgrounds are generally more important
to a shot than smooth OOF foregrounds.
You would probably enjoy using a Nikkor DC 105mm or 135mm f/2. The
Defocus Control (= DC) allows the smooth OOF to be shifted to the
foreground, to the background or even divided between the two.
It's fun to play with these lenses, however after a short time I got
very bored with playing with the DC ring on my 135mm DC and after that
always left it set in the middle. It was then I realised that I was
wasting my time with defocus control and sold the lens.
Jeremy
> Your self-restraint didn't last very long, Jeremy, did it? Where's
> the strong, mature person who was never going to read, or respond to
> any of my posts ever again?
>
> Truth is, you are too childish and too weak to resist. Maybe you lack
> the self confidence needed to show restraint? You certainly have a
> large number of valid reasons to lack self-confidence.
>
> Have a nice day, little boy.
Once again, this self-appointed "expert" declines to post any samples of his
work. He posts nothing because he probably has nothing to show.
He boasts that he shoots "50 rolls a day," and that he has owned or used
virtually every high end camera and lens combination. He makes pompous
statements on all matters photographic, and he states tham as though they
were facts. But he shows us nothing.
He is a fraud. A fraud with a big mouth. The world is full of people like
that.
I ask again, Mr. EXTERT: "Show us your work. Let us see for ourselves how
much of an EXPERT you really are!"
He won't do it. He is not a photographer, he just parrots what he reads
about cameras and lenses. On other newsgroups, he represents himself as
being an expert on other matters. Everywhere he posts, he is an expert on
the subject under discussion.
He is probably a candidate for the insane asylum. If I'm wrong, let him
prove it. He won't answer me, just as he has not responded to others.
Instead he will bury himself back in his hole until the pressure subsides,
and then he will once again jump out of the shadows to attack some other
unsuspecting soul.
SHOW US YOUR BEST, MOST ARTISTIC WORK, MR. T.P. INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO
KNOW.
. . .but he won't. He never does.
Jeremy
I'd bet that you never owned or handled that lens. In fact, I'd bet that
you don't have any kind of quality camera system right now.
You talk alot, and people on this NG humor you, but you are as phony as a
three-dollar bill.
You give yourself away by boasting so much. No one could be as great as you
claim to be.
Prove me wrong, you fraud. I dare you.
Now go run and hide, until the pressure subsides. Except, it just may not
subside this time . . .
Bill Tuthill
>
> I am planning on repeating this experiment using a variety of 50mm lenses,
> including a leica summicron, minolta f/1.7, nikon f/1.8 and f/1.4,
> pentax 50mm, contax/yashica, topcon, and other models with side by side
> shots of the same subject, same lighting, same tripod, same film, same
> processing, possibly this vacation if we get a spell of good weather ;-)
> I will be quite interested to see if 35mm users can tell apart those
> slides by the brand of lens that took the images ;-)
Bob, you can borrow my Minolta 50/1.4 for this test if you want.
I won't need it this season to shoot Nutcracker ballet pictures,
because this year I have a role in the performance. I'll send it
with styrofoam peanuts if you promise to return in the same box.
Contact me by e-mail if you're interested.
My own testing showed that this 50/1.4 is a heck of a lot better
than the 50/1.7 I used to have, which might've been a dog.
Alan Browne
Ron, we do not give a shit about your right-wing boycott list.
If you do not like something, don't buy it, but shut up in the meantime.
Ron Todd wrote:
> *****************************************
> Boycott list:
>
> Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
> Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
> Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
> Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video, Heinz
> Foods, California,
Bob Monaghan
Hi Bill,
thanks for the offer; I suspect that I have too many normal lenses as it
is, and will have to cut back some otherwise the test will be too
overwhelming.
I plan to add a (nearly) wide open (f/2?) as well as f/5.6
and f/11(?) series of shots, so I get wide open performance, near optimal
f/stop resolution, and good DOF before diffraction really kicks in etc.
I also want to include some duplicate shots to see if folks can cluster
the shots from the same lens together (they can't on the MF blind test
study, they are just too close).
I also want to study lens variations, with samples of the same lens type
in 2 or 3 examples (nikon?). If I do three of each for a sample lens (say
50mm f/1.4 an 50mm f/1.8 nikkors), then we may see some good vs. bad lens
examples. That happened with the bronica nikkors, 2 were very good, but
one was poor (misaligned?).
I am thinking of doing a handheld set of test shots at 1/30th or so?
I haven't decided if I should try a zoom or two or ?? I have the worst
nikon zoom ever made, the 43-86mm original, which would be a good "bad"
lens example ;-)
So I suspect this will provide a pretty good set of tests for issues like
handholding losses, lens variations, brand effects, fixed vs. primes, and
so on ;-) It will take some time to pull out all the older cameras + 50mm
(topcon, M42..) which I haven't used this semester from storage/silica gel
but I should be able to get a pretty interesting series of experiments
from each camera/lens and roll of slide film ;-)
any suggestions on things to do beyond this? ;-)
regards bobm
Bob Monaghan
yes, a very good point; that is why I mail out the original slides to the
volunteers in the blind lens experiment; they get a set of two dozen or so
slides in open holders, can view them on light table with a loupe, and
sort them out. This is the actual film from the camera/lens shot, so it
avoids all the problems you cite with web scanning and displays etc. The
shots are side by side, and I repeat the same shot a number of times on
each roll of film, so they are basically identical, same time, same film,
same tripod, same camera/lens, same subject etc. - so not even losses from
duplicating slides comes into the experiment.
my plans are to do the same with the regular slide series, generate a half
dozen or so sets of test slides, then mail them out to volunteers who want
to see the differences for themselves.
After the volunteers see the slides and email me their results, I send
them the slide key, listing the random number on each test slide against
what camera and lens took it, so they can check again and see the
differences, knowing which camera and lens took which shot ;-)
makes a fun experiment; I could hardly believe how close the performance
on medium format was at typical landscape f/8 and f/16 stops in daylight.
The bronica nikkors you cited, of which I had and tested 3 lenses, did
very well in 2 cases, but the third example got generally lowest scores,
possibly due to misalignment or ?? So it shows lens variation is more
critical than lens brand ;-)
regards bobm
T P
>Once again, this self-appointed "expert" ...
Hey, Jeremy! You replied again!
Another promise made and broken multiple times ...
;-)
Bandicoot
news:bq63u8$r37$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
[SNIP]
>
> any suggestions on things to do beyond this? ;-)
>
Possibly for entertainment value.... how about 50mm medium format lenses
via adapters. You are then looking at lenses that are supposedly less good,
but using only their central portions. The CZJ 50mm Flektogon is easy to
get adapters for.
Just a thought ;-)
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <bq63u8$r37$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
I'm not Bill, but... :-)
Have you considered doing some bokeh tests at wide open (f/1.4) or f/2 (if
doing a mix of f/1.4 and f/1.8 and f/2 lenses) w/ a subject (a person?) about 4
or 5 feet away from the camera and a background 12 or more feet away from the
background that would include some branches (to test line dedoubling), folliage
w/ leaves (or pine needles or whatever) and other things with either details
and/or colors in the background to test background bokeh) and a foreground
object (more leaves) out of focus about 1-2 feet away from the camera to test
foreground bokeh.
Just a thought/suggestion... :-)
Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Bob Monaghan
Hi Peter,
yes, it is an interesting idea; the problem is I suspect folks would
readily see the cut film without perforations as on 35mm film and cheat
and lump them together ;-)
with medium format backs, I had to trim the image to the edges to cutoff
the "hasselblad vees" and other markers which would enable folks to tell
which camera took which photo from the back markings (see photo ads where
the hasselblad Vees are shown - in photos taken for a bronica lens ad ;-)
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/photoads.html ;-)
I did study the issue of Med Fmt vs. LF and 35mm quality, concluded that
35mm is generally higher resolution as optimized for less coverage, but
with enough $$ you can buy MF and LF lenses (Schneider..) which have such
high resolution that they are as good as the 35mm ones. But you can buy a
35mm lens that is really good for $150 or so, while the LF version might
be 15-20+ times that ;-) see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mfbest.html
Bob Monaghan
tested/aligned for infinity focus. The markings may or may not be accurate
at 4 or 6 or 10 feet. Focusing by eye adds a subjective factor, which may
not be repeatable, which could be more of an error source than the
differences between many lenses.
IIRC, a recent poster (Brian#### ?) noted that most lenses are not
optimized for foreground bokeh but background bokeh, so perhaps a set of
photos could be done to highlight background bokeh effects, which are more
often an issue in any case?
I tried to provide some foreground highlight/bokeh effects in my medium
format blind lens tests by positioning a fountain in bright sunlight
during the test shots in the foreground, to the side. See the sample photo
at top of http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html for layout. But like my
handholding test, this part of the experiment was a disappointment.
Another test I'd like to run is Roger Hicks flare test - using branches or
a set of power lines to see how well the lens splits bright and dark
areas.
The problem with too many tests is that you end up with a very complex and
intimidating test protocol ;-( You also end up burning a LOT of film, as
you need 6 to 12 or more sets of each slide shot to be able to mail some
out, esp. as some folks hang on to them to show their photo club friends
or forget to return them ;-( Unfortunately, I agree with you that this
can't be done well on a monitor from film scans, so has to be the original
slide film under study. ;-)
rbwalsh
> Have you considered doing some bokeh tests at wide open (f/1.4) or f/2 (if
> doing a mix of f/1.4 and f/1.8 and f/2 lenses) w/ a subject (a person?)
about 4
> or 5 feet away from the camera and a background 12 or more feet away from
the
> background that would include some branches (to test line dedoubling),
folliage
> w/ leaves (or pine needles or whatever) and other things with either
details
> and/or colors in the background to test background bokeh) and a foreground
> object (more leaves) out of focus about 1-2 feet away from the camera to
test
> foreground bokeh.
>
> Just a thought/suggestion... :-)
>
Lewis has a good idea. When I read poor TP's vitriolic comments much earlier
in the thread, I thought of this example (and thread) regarding the Leica's
King of Boke(h):
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004LWx
Clearly, focal distance, aperture, etc., etc. play a role.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2003 9:52 PM
>Message-id: <bq69pk$t8h$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>yes, good idea, but hard to do in practice. Most 50mm lenses are setup and
>tested/aligned for infinity focus. The markings may or may not be accurate
>at 4 or 6 or 10 feet. Focusing by eye adds a subjective factor, which may
>not be repeatable, which could be more of an error source than the
>differences between many lenses.
>
Why not try it anyway, or if you want to be extra careful/anal, like me;-), use
a measuring tape from the film plane index mark on the camera to the subject
him/herself. And/or just use the 4-5 feet test as a test of bokeh rather than
ultimate subject sharpness. People/portraits tend to be done more in this range
than at infinity, and even though I know there are people who care for nothing
else other than infinity performance (landscape and astronomica/sky/weather
usages), a majority of people still shoot people pictures/portraits in this
closer range and I feel it would be a mistake to forego this distance just
because of difficulty in focusing. Perhaps there is some kind of eyepiece
magnifier that would allow you more precise focusing if you must know sharpness
down to the nth degree at this range in addition to portrait background bokeh
effects. But "don't get your knickers in a twist" about ultimate sharpness, I'd
rather see even slight focusing errors than no portrait/bokeh test in this
important 4-5 foot range.
>IIRC, a recent poster (Brian#### ?) noted that most lenses are not
>optimized for foreground bokeh but background bokeh, so perhaps a set of
>photos could be done to highlight background bokeh effects, which are more
>often an issue in any case?
>
Sounds fair enough, though including something out of focus in the foreground
is not really a big deal if both the tree branches in the foreground and the
tripod is steady which should be the case so long as there are no earthquakes
about ;-). I really don't think that including both foreground and background
bokeh elements in the same shot is such a big deal because once you've placed
the subject and positioned the camera to record it and the background and the
foreground leaves or whatever, the test conditions are set and wont have to be
changed from shot to shot.
>I tried to provide some foreground highlight/bokeh effects in my medium
>format blind lens tests by positioning a fountain in bright sunlight
>during the test shots in the foreground, to the side. See the sample photo
>at top of http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html for layout. But like my
>handholding test, this part of the experiment was a disappointment.
>
Why do you consider it a disappointment?
>Another test I'd like to run is Roger Hicks flare test - using branches
>or
>a set of power lines to see how well the lens splits bright and dark
>areas.
>
Sounds good. Is that test in Roger's book "35mm Panorama" or in some other
book?
>The problem with too many tests is that you end up with a very complex and
>intimidating test protocol ;-(
I agree, but what I suggested above is not as hard as you might think once all
elements are set in place. The foreground/background test would be at a common
near or at wide open aperture on all lenses (if all lenses were 1.4s you could
do the test at 1.4, if there is a mix of 1.4s and 1.8s and/or f/2s you could do
the test w/ all of them at f/2). I am not really asking for a full range of
bokeh f/stops just at wide open (or near there, depending on your wide open
apertures of your various lenses as just mentioned). If you feel inclined to do
f/2.8, f/4, and/or f/5.6 bokeh shots that would be your decision, but the bokeh
tests do not have to be sharpness tests too covering the whole range of
f/stops, neither do they even have to be of the same subject (or focusing
distance, since all bokeh at infinity is virtually the same ;-)) as your
sharpness tests.
You also end up burning a LOT of film, as
>you need 6 to 12 or more sets of each slide shot to be able to mail some
>out, esp. as some folks hang on to them to show their photo club friends
>or forget to return them ;-(
I empathize with your plight here, but the only way to get a good range of
opinions is to show many people. Perhpas you know enough photographers and/or
photographers who know photographers so the slides would either never have to
leave your house/whatever and/or you could take it with you to some nearby
photogrphers/friends residence so you can be assured of getting your prints
back before you leave. The other alternative is to both be a trusting soul and
to find people who will be trustable so you don't have the problem of
non-returns and/or tellthem that only they can see it and not their photo
clubs/whatever so there's no inbetween places/venues for the slides to get lost
at...
Unfortunately, I agree with you that this
>can't be done well on a monitor from film scans, so has to be the original
>slide film under study. ;-)
>
>regards bobm
>--
Sad, but true ;-).
I'm sure you already have a list of testers filled but if you don't, you might
want to add me to your list as I'd love to try my hand/eye at various brands'
lens' sharpness/bokeh signatures. Either way, let me/us know the results as I'd
love to know. And possibly post alink, if we can't see them in person, at least
guessing on the web may not be an accurate representation but at least it
should be fun ;-).
Regards/Happy Thanksgiving,
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: "rbwalsh" brian...@e-mailanywhere.com
>Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2003 10:04 PM
>Message-id: <I2yxb.5513$Hr1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>
Thanks for the link, Brian, it was very interesting/informative. I still
maintain that the Pentax 31mm Ltd. lens is the best Leica lens for
bokeh/clarity that Leica never made ;-). I'd love to see even a 50mm bokeh
test. Funny, in the test they were complaining about the bright ringing, but I
've even found that to be a good attribute in some portraits I've taken
(strangely enough) so long as its in keeping with both the portrait/candid
subject/person, mood, situation, lighting, etc. I've also found my 50/1.8
Series E nikon to have variable bokeh (ultra smooth bokeh in overcast light w/
little background image coherence (complex bokeh which supresses background
details and makes the b.g. details seem even more out of focus than normal,
pooping out the subject)- the exact oppositte look of a Leica lens which pride
themselves, annd rightfully so on image coherence as a big factor in their
bokeh look, especially in lenses like the last 35mm f/2 M Summicron version 4
and the 75/1.4 M lens, and in backlit trees oof highlights/coc circles showing
up as somewhat ringed (but not overly "donutty" background highlights which I
strangely enough also find very appealing w/ the right subject - not that I
would pass up a smooth more coherent 35mm f/2 M v4 or 75/1.4 M if somebody gave
me those ;-)).
Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Lewis Lang
SNIPS
>I tried to provide some foreground highlight/bokeh effects in my medium
>format blind lens tests by positioning a fountain in bright sunlight
>during the test shots in the foreground, to the side. See the sample photo
>at top of http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html for layout. But like my
>handholding test, this part of the experiment was a disappointment.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh........ I see now. Definitely the wrong foreground subject to
test bokeh on - blurred motion/longer shutterspeed fountain shots in overcast
not only can't show bokeh effects well, they _are_ pure bokeh ;-). How do you
tell double lining, bright ringing, etc. on smudges of white (water)? ;-) :-(
Regards,
Ron Todd
wrote:
....
>
>I am thinking of doing a handheld set of test shots at 1/30th or so?
>
I find that an interesting variable but I can't see how you could
standardize it.
It might be interesting to stick motion sensors on a 35mm body and
measure different people releasing the shutter.
What your planning sounds really great and I am looking forward to
reading the results.
Best of Luck.
Best Regards.
*****************************************
Boycott list:
Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video, Heinz
Foods, Ontario & Quebec provinces,
Bob Monaghan
yes, very good analysis;
Format matters, but Brands within a format don't matter very much ;-)
That's the whole point of my blind lens testing efforts. Until I got back
the side by side shots, I was convinced as many on this NG still are that
brands mattered enough to justify major $$ for better lenses.
There may be situations in which some lenses perform better in the
corners, or in closeup work, or for backlighted flare. But for the vast
majority of shots, the brand of lens is irrelevant, the shot isn't limited
by the lens but by the photographer and qualities of film used.
For color print film, used by vast majority of non-pro shooters, the
resolution limits of the film are so much less than even modest third
party fixed lenses that the lens quality is probably wasted (e.g., 50 lpmm
film resolution, see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html )
this is good news for most shooters. After you see from side by side shots
of a typical landscape shot in daylight on slide film, as in my medium
format blind lens test, that the shots are too close to reliably tell
which lens took which photo, you can stop "lusting" after a $3k zeiss lens
because you have seen that your $85 Kowa lens is just as capable. Having
a choice, I just pick the camera I want for fun, because I want to use a
6x7RF, or a TLR, or a swing lens camera on a particular outing ;-)
the bottom line is that none of the people buying photographs mandate that
you use a particular pro lens line, but happily buy quality images taken
with any brand of 35mm camera.
on the other hand, format does matter - a lot ;-) One of the world's top
selling flower photographers (and author of HP's book on the subject) uses
a medium format camera with closeup lenses. the extra quality comes from
the larger format in use (6x6cm). This is why I mix and match 35mm and Med
Fmt in my own photography; when quality is important, it is MUCH MUCH
EASIER to get high quality from a larger negative of medium format size
Bob Monaghan
yes, I have tried to pick up an ADXL series dual axis accelerometer board
kit for such testing, but they are pretty rare even on ebay ;-( this would
let me monitor motion in two axes (x-y) and correlate it to the time the
shutter is open (PC flash synch).
Lots of cameras esp. medium format like bronica S2A have lots of vibration
and noise, but it is all after the film has been exposed and so doesn't
impact the image.
This is the problem with laser pointer vibration tests, unless you are
taking a photo of the vibration of the pointer on the camera taking the
photo, you can't be sure some of the motion is never seen on film as
the shutter isn't open yet, or has already closed by then... ;-) ;-) (see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vibration.html )
that URL shows falloff of tests by Keppler with multiple photographers at
slower speeds. Similarly, mirror lockup can provide up to 172% higher
resolution at certain speeds than non MLU shots, again per PopPhoto tests
you are very correct that the amount of vibration effect can vary for each
shot, depending on many factors including muscle fatigue, film exposure
synchronization with heartbeat, etc.,
The only solution I see to that is multiple shots showing the amount of
degradation. I also suspect that a dual lens test chart and real world
subject would be needed to show how such slow speed effects reduce
resolution and contrast by up to 50% or more (per Erwin Puts estimate).
I have a few photo books and articles that show this impact on the same
subject, one shot with a tripod and one without, showing losses. Again, I
think this would have to be on slide film, and would be hard to see on
most web site photos (or subject to less questions/challenges if on film?)
the good news is that it would probably only take a single camera and lens
test series, with say 6 shots at each shutter speed (and one set on a
tripod?), to be convincing that there is a large loss at slower speeds
used handheld?
my favorite subject for these tests in the past was a test with a bright
light bulb in reflector, covered by tinfoil, with some holes punched in
the foil with a needle. With the Tripod, you get minimal sized point light
sources, but handheld, you get all kinds of little squiggles ;-) this
varys with holding 35mm horizontally or vertically too ;-) This also works
best with a short telephoto lens, unless you have a high powered loupe, as
the magnification from 50mm shot at 10X or so is not as convincing as from
105mm or 200mm ;-)
I think this would be a more convincing test about the degradation from
camera shake. Seeing that bouncing light pattern makes it easy to
understand how points of light get smeared, and how that kills your
contrast and resolution, regardless how good the lens might be otherwise!
I guess I should do both tests here, one for the real world impact and
effect on resolution chart losses directly, and the second light bulb test
to show how the camera shake patterns vary, but none are as good as the
tripod patterns? But it only takes a few rolls of film and some luck to
provide a pretty convincing series of shots as part of this test ;-)
grins bobm
Bob Monaghan
re: flare test I can't recall exactly which book by Roger Hicks and
Frances Schultz, I have a number of their books too ;-), but I suspect it
was The Lens Book, which describes their go/no-go lens testing, using a
single roll of film, to assess flare, resolution etc. The black branches
or power lines against the bright sky is a rigorous test for veiling glare
type flare; you can also shoot into the sun or better yet at night with
bright light source to really see how lens handles flare, effects of
stopping down, and so on ;-) I also like that this real world test gets
around critics who carp that lens test chart testing is not real world ;-)
re: disappointment with bokeh tests
the highlights off the fountain show some interesting differences, with
some lenses yielding more "colorful" patterns (at high loupe powers) from
some kind of prismatic effect(?), but I realized that I was missing out on
the really important bokeh info. I tested the effects of foreground
highlights, but few lenses are optimized for better foreground bokeh, and
you rarely see it in many photos either. Most of the time, bokeh is a
background effect, and lenses are differentially optimized for background
bokeh rather than foreground bokeh, so you can't know about background
bokeh by testing foreground bokeh, as I did in this test.
Proposed Bokeh Test:
Luis Lopez Penabad has provided an example of bokeh testing and bad bokeh
from a zoom lens at the top of my bokeh page at
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/bokeh.html
I am thinking that what I need to do is find a similar situation, with a
background of leaves and trees which provides lots of background
highlights in a range of sizes, as in his example.
I am not sure if it matters what the subject is (?), so it might be
possible to use a person (in a chair) at a fixed distance (tape measured
as you suggest from tripod?, verified in viewfinder?).
I am not sure that 4-5 feet is the optimal distance for the subject, but
it probably doesn't matter in a background bokeh test? ;-) Even if the
subject is slightly out of focus, it is the background bokeh we are
assessing in a bokeh test. It might be better to shoot at 8-10 feet, so as
to avoid issues with closeup performance and provide convenient working
distance? The other reason is practical, since most of us don't shoot a
lot from 4 feet or 5 feet, but more often 8-10 feet with the 50mm lens,
yes? Again, someone could do a test using a range of distances and
f/stops, as well as subjects and backgrounds, but the number of shots
quickly expands hugely when you start to make 6-12+ sets for mailing out
;-)
Again, it may take some experimenting to figure out which f/stops are most
needed for such a test? Obviously, we expect the wide open shots to have
the most interesting and "best" bokeh. But I would also like to know how
much stopping down impacts the bokeh effect? Perhaps an wide open shot
(f/1.4, f/1.7 or f/1.8?), f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, f/8, f/16 for 6 shots each on
a roll of 36 exposure slides?
I do disagree in believing that it is useful or needed to keep the same
subject and lighting and background in such a test, to maximize the value
of the test. It is just hard to compare different lenses.
To make this a blind preference free test, we could group the shots
together, so a single slide binder would have 36 shots, each row of 6
shots from one lens, each labeled with a random number and f/stop label.
You could easily compare six lenses at a time on each sheet for bokeh
effects down the page, by f/stops across the page. Users would rate the
bokeh from best to worst (I can use non-parametric statistics here etc.)
in any case, something to think about, probably means I need more film ;-)
Bob Monaghan
yep, even worse, my handholding was too good ;-), or at least, it fooled a
number of folks into rating some of my handholding shots over tripod
shots. The reason was too high a speed (using 1/lens mm here, 1/75-1/90th
or 1/125th) and medium format (which is up to a stop better than 35mm,
because of the extra mass of the larger cameras per Photography for the
Serious Amateur tests with accelerometers).
I think I need to divide and conquer, doing a single test at a time,
rather than try to do everything with one set of photos at once like this.
that's why I'm thinking about one set of camera shake shots to demo that,
another set of shots on flare response, to demo that, and so on ;-)
this should also make the tests more interesting and easier to do quickly
for evaluators, and easier to setup as less complex for any one test ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Subject: blind 35mm lens tests - was Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2003 2:20 AM
>Message-id: <bq9drm$1md$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>
>re: flare test I can't recall exactly which book by Roger Hicks and
>Frances Schultz, I have a number of their books too ;-), but I suspect it
>was The Lens Book, which describes their go/no-go lens testing, using a
>single roll of film, to assess flare, resolution etc. The black branches
>or power lines against the bright sky is a rigorous test for veiling glare
>type flare; you can also shoot into the sun or better yet at night with
>bright light source to really see how lens handles flare, effects of
>stopping down, and so on ;-) I also like that this real world test gets
>around critics who carp that lens test chart testing is not real world ;-)
>
Yup :-). <IN MY BEST HANK HILL VOICE ;-)>
>re: disappointment with bokeh tests
>the highlights off the fountain show some interesting differences, with
>some lenses yielding more "colorful" patterns (at high loupe powers) from
>some kind of prismatic effect(?),
Water drops/jets refracting light at different angles makes for some nice
prismatic effects ;-).
but I realized that I was missing out
>on
>the really important bokeh info. I tested the effects of foreground
>highlights, but few lenses are optimized for better foreground bokeh, and
>you rarely see it in many photos either. Most of the time, bokeh is a
>background effect, and lenses are differentially optimized for background
>bokeh rather than foreground bokeh, so you can't know about background
>bokeh by testing foreground bokeh, as I did in this test.
>
Fine, if you only want to test background bokeh that's fine w/ me as I agree,
background bokeh is usually used in more/most? portrait shots, though having
said this, its still pretty easy to take a small tree limb w/ leaves that's
been blown to the ground and attach it via some tape/cord to a chair/light
stand in the foreground about a foot or two away from the camera so it will
become your outof focus foreground element when your camera is focused on your
subject at about 4 1/2 feet away. But its your call/foreground tree limb ;-).
>
>Proposed Bokeh Test:
>
>Luis Lopez Penabad has provided an example of bokeh testing and bad bokeh
>from a zoom lens at the top of my bokeh page at
>http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/bokeh.html
>
I've seen it. Canon 28-105 zoom, bokeh sucks ;-)
>I am thinking that what I need to do is find a similar situation, with a
>background of leaves and trees which provides lots of background
>highlights in a range of sizes, as in his example.
>
Yup :-).
Be sure to include an area that not only has tree leaves and branches but small
spaces between the leaves that let the bright skylight through that will form
out of focus circles/donuts whatever shaped hilights.
>I am not sure if it matters what the subject is (?), so it might be
>possible to use a person (in a chair) at a fixed distance (tape measured
>as you suggest from tripod?, verified in viewfinder?).
>
Just do your best job at measuring focus either w/ measuring tape from the
subject to the film plane marking on the camera, or, if you have decent
eyesight and/or a viewfinder magnifier, focus by eye back and forth (through
the point of focus) until you get the sweet spot (catchlights in the eye or the
iris of the eyes) in focus. Just make sure the subject stays put w/ their head
position and doesn't lean forward as some subjects might unconsiously do during
the course of the test. Back straight against the chair should be your/their
motto before each exposure of the test ;-).
Unless you're/others doing macro photography of flowers, insects, whatever, the
most common use of bokeh effects would be in the blurred backgrounds of
portrait shots, so yes, _please_ _do include a _person_ in a chair_, it will
aslo show us how that person pos and relates to the out of focus background
bokeh.
>I am not sure that 4-5 feet is the optimal distance for the subject, but
>it probably doesn't matter in a background bokeh test? ;-)
I hope you are jokng here. It matters absolutely. What's the point of bokeh
test unless you have some kind of bokeh effect to show - a closer focusing
distance will ensure a nice/observable out of focus background bokeh effect
(especially when the background is about 15 feet or more behind the person as
well/
Even if the
>subject is slightly out of focus, it is the background bokeh we are
>assessing in a bokeh test. It might be better to shoot at 8-10 feet, so
>as
>to avoid issues with closeup performance and provide convenient working
>distance?
Aboslutely not! You are trying to observe bokeh effects/qualities. By backing
away in your camera to subject distance you are sabotaging the very effect you
are trying to create/observe. This is "optical suicide" for a bokeh test. If
anything you want to get closer to the subject in a bokeh test to ensure that
the background will ber rendered suitably out of focus.
The other reason is practical, since most of us don't shoot a
>lot from 4 feet or 5 feet, but more often 8-10 feet with the 50mm lens,
>yes?
No, at least not me. Seriously Bob, are you afraid of getting too close to your
subject? There is no point in doing a bokeh test from 8-10 feet away from your
subject w/ a 50mm lens as there will be little bokeh to test. If you are going
to do the test from this distance you might as well save the money you would
have spent on this test's film/developing and put it towards something more
worthwhile like a good meal. At 8-10 feet you are getting nearly a full head to
feet shot w/ a 50mm lens. Portraits that have bokeh as an important factor w/ a
50mm lens (as opposed to the 85-135mm lenses used for tight head shots which
have nothing but too much bokeh/total blur to test at closer 3-5 foot
distances) need to be shot from closer distances than 8-10 feet, 4-5 feet is
adequate for a camera to subject distance to show background bokeh effects w/ a
50mm lens at or near wide open, w/ 4 feet being better as it would blur out the
background even more. (Camera to subject) Distance does count in bokeh! Don't
try to get away with anything over 4-5 feet as it will make the test sort of
pointless.
Again, someone could do a test using a range of distances and
>f/stops, as well as subjects and backgrounds, but the number of shots
>quickly expands hugely when you start to make 6-12+ sets for mailing out
>;-)
>
That's why I suggest the 4-5 feet range as being a good compromise between
closeness and distance and adequateyl being able to show b.g. oof effects when
a 50mm lens is used wide open.
>Again, it may take some experimenting to figure out which f/stops are most
>needed for such a test? Obviously, we expect the wide open shots to have
>the most interesting and "best" bokeh. But I would also like to know how
>much stopping down impacts the bokeh effect? Perhaps an wide open shot
>(f/1.4, f/1.7 or f/1.8?), f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, f/8, f/16 for 6 shots each
>on
>a roll of 36 exposure slides?
>
There is effectively no (very little) bokeh effects to speak of at f/16, f/8 is
kind of pointless to unless you are going to be shooting from very close up.
Plus, most slide pages that I know of are 5 images across, not 6. So a good
sequence might be wide open (f/1.4, f/1.7 or f/1.8?), f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 on
a 50mm lens at about 4-5 feet (or 4 1/2 feet to split the difference ;-)) from
the subject and a background that is at least 15 feet or more (more distance
(of any amount pof feet past 15 feet) from the subject to the background is
preferable, but that will depend on your location).
>I do disagree in believing that it is useful or needed to keep the same
>subject and lighting and background in such a test, to maximize the value
>of the test. It is just hard to compare different lenses.
>
Well what can I say, other than to me, it makes sense to keep as many variables
equal/similar as possible, that way we can focus (pardon the pun) on the one
thing that counts here, bokeh effects. Also, shooting bokeh tests under
different lightings (overcast vs. direct sunlight) will introduce other
complications that you definitely don't want in judging bokeh (like extra
highlights in the scene from reflections off of the leaves and other shiny
surfaces in the bright direct sunlight that won't be there on the overcast
shots). Its better to do the test right and keep all your parameters the same.
If this means even having to put off the bokeh test until you can do it under
the same lighting conditions for the same subject, then it will be worth the
wait because at least you will be testing the bokeh of the lenses and not the
bokeh effects introduced by the lighting conditions. Doing bokeh tests under
different lighting conditions is really the equivalent of doing two differnt
bokeh tests and comparing bokeh apples w/ bokeh oranges. There are better ways
to make fruit salads (a mess) w/o going to the time and trouble of doing it on
film ;-). Also, as an added plus, for those interested in portraiture/people
shots, it will be nice to see how, _under the same lighitng conditions_, each
lens will render not just the bokeh but the subject's skin tone, color
saturation of clothes, hair texture, etc.
>To make this a blind preference free test, we could group the shots
>together, so a single slide binder would have 36 shots, each row of 6
>shots from one lens,
Just occured to me, you say 6 shots, are you planning to put the slides into a
negative page _uncut_ and non-mounted?, then your mentioning of 6 slides makes
sense. For mounted slides it would be either 5 or 4 across, depending on how
one orients the slide page...
each labeled with a random number and f/stop label.
>You could easily compare six lenses at a time on each sheet for bokeh
>effects down the page, by f/stops across the page. Users would rate the
>bokeh from best to worst (I can use non-parametric statistics here etc.)
>
>in any case, something to think about, probably means I need more film ;-)
>
>grins bobm
Definitely more film ;-)
You could do several sets of ratings for more detail (I guess "more detail" is
a pun in a bokeh test ;-)):
Best to worse bokeh (you could do numbers but I would probably do the lens
brands coded in letters) ie.
From best to worse Bokeh (1. being the best bokeh lens and 5. (or the number
for however many lenses you are testing put here - if there are 7 lenses then
you would list them 1-7 from best bokeh lens to worse)). Best f/stops for best
bokeh w/i each brand of lens would be in parentheses from best* (left) to worse
(right) w/i parentheses to the right of each brand/letter code.
*Note, "best" bokeh (though obviously being a subject determination) does not
necessarily mean the shot w/ the seemingly most out of focus background but the
background w/ the most pleasing light distribution w/i the out of focus blur
circle (either a light center that fades off/darkens around the edges of the
blur circle or an even light distribution from the center to the edge of the
oof blur circles would be considered good/pleasing bokeh whereas oof blur
circle hilights that have either dark centers or lit centers but much brighter
edges (known as "ringing" or "donut" shaped light distribution would be
considered "bad"), least line de-doubling of the edges of branches/buildings or
other straight edged objects would be considered "good"/best, least deformation
of the oof coc due to internal vignetting and/or coma (ie. when oof circular
highlights are turned from circles into other shapes such as "footballs"/oblong
or elliptical circles (due to internal vignetting) and/or "bird wings or "v"
shaped highlights (normally due to coma) would also be considereed "good"/best
bokeh. For example: Brand C, listed as the best overall lens for good bokeh
below (this "C" is a code and C could just as easily stand for Leica or Pentax
or Minolta or Nikon instead of Canon) might have the _blurriest_ background
bokeh at f/1.4 (wide open) but might have the _best_ background bokeh at f/2.8
due to the lack of artefacts/abberations such as coma, internal vignetting,
cohesion of image detail w/i the blurred areas, most pleasing overall blur
effect, etc.
An equal sign next to/left of the f/ stop number in the parentheses means that
the rater thinks that that f/ stop has equally pleaing/unpleasing bokeh as the
f/stop to the left of it. For example: In the case of Brand "C", the rater
rates both f/2.8 and f/4 having equally good/pleasing bokeh and f/5.6 and f/1.4
as having the worse bokeh w/i that lens brand (Brand "C").
You might also have a separate comments section as to what each person thought
of each row (same brand lens) of the bokeh at different apertures (what were
the observable bokeh effects ie. light distribution w/i the coc, shape of the
oof coc blur circles at center and edges of the frame, any double lining of
branches/edges, integrity/cohesion of observable detail in the oof middleground
and backround areas, overall pleasantness/beauty unpleasantness/ugliness of the
bokeh effects):
1. Brand C (Best bokeh lens of all brands) ((Best bokeh f/stop) f/2.8, =f/4,
f/2, f/5.6, =f/1.4 (Worse bokeh f/stop w/i this brand of lens)
Comments: I considered f/2.8 and f/4 to have equally pleasing bokeh with high
image cohesion (details w/i out of focus areas in both the middle and
backgrounds) were easily readable/identifiable), no line de-doubling of tree
branches, evenly illuminated blur circle shapes hilights in the
background/spaces between the leaves of the trees that showed skylight, etc.
f/1.4 had massive gull winging towards the edges and very slight bright ringing
but otherwise was still very pleasing in effect w/ not as much image cohesion
as f/2/ or f/4 and just a slight hint of line dedoubling of the tree branches,
which, though not obtrusive or overly harmful to the appeal of the background
bokeh and overall image, were still "there" and readily observed.
2. Brand A (5 f/stops listed from best to worse bokeh)
Comments: (blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh......)
3. Brand D (5 f/stops listed from best to worse bokeh)
Comments: (blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh......)
4. Brand E (5 f/stops listed from best to worse bokeh)
Comments: (blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh......)
5. Brand B (Worse Bokeh lens of all brands) (5 f/stops listed from best to
worse bokeh)
Comments: "Land of the Donuts" - A haven for Homer Simpson at every aperture
except f/5.6. Massive amounts of line dedoubling, looks like an earthquake or
one of those 3d super imposed image comic books ;-). Are you sure this isn't
Luis Lopez Penabad's Canon 28-105 EOS zoom ;-)? Ok, which distorted bottom of a
Coke™ bottle was this lens cut from?
**I've only listed bokeh comments for the best and worse brand 50mm lenses both
to save on typing and because extra comments are optional.
***It might be good to put a detailed object in back of the subject (the
"middleground") to the subject's left or right slightly to show image
cohesion/clarity of detail w/i the slightly to moderately out of focus area in
the distance behind the subject, because, in shots showing two or more people
(candid or posed group shots portraits, closer made theatrical shots) at
different distances where one person, in the foreground, stands out in sharp
relief to a slightly blurrier person behind them (or in cases where portraits
are made w/ pieces of the environment behind/around the subject are shown
slightly blurrier (not in focus but not completely out of focus either) than
the subject, "image cohesion" affects the overall aesthetics of the
pleasingness of the image. You wouldn't have to use two people to show image
cohesion (I don't want you to have to do a casting cal, one real live person as
the subject is enough), just set up something (an object w/ detail like a
statue or a map or a dog (one who like s to sleep a lot and doesn't move), a
stuffed animal or doll???/you decide) in the middleground (or put objects at
various distances behind the subject to show image cohesion/bokeh effects from
the in focus subject area to the out of focus background) two feet behind the
subject (...also 5 feet behind the subject, ... also 7 feet behind the subject
- for multiple detailed objects in the middleground to show image cohesion
effects). Some of your detailed subjects could have shiny/reflective surfaces
(porcelain? statuettes/something else?) thatcould reflect other coc in the
middle distances to show how this is affected from the mddleground out further
into the background. Just a thought...
Once you have a "set up" (scene) then all you have to do is shoot them all w/
the same scene. Its more complex in writing than it would be to set up in
reality. Hopefully ;-). No, seriously, just have a camera on a tripod w/ 50mm
lens focused on a person sitting in a chair 4 1/2 feet away from the camera w/
various detailed objects at different distances behind that person and tree
leaves/branches in the distance 15 or (preferrably) more (30?/50?) feet away
with enough space inbetween the leaves to allow the sky behind them to show
through and make some nice "discs" (out of focus blur circles/circles of
confusion/"coc").
Regards and may all your bokeh be good bokeh ;-),
Lewis
P.S.- Take/keep good notes - ...unless you want to test all normal lenses from
the same brand ;-)
Bob Monaghan
Wow, thanks for the detailed comments and ideas ;-) The only big problem
is that the dang trees around here are losing their leaves, so I have got
to do some looking to see if there is still a convenient site for this
Xmas to do a trial shoot? ;-)
when I said I disagreed in believing... I meant I disagree with those who
believe we could just solicit samples of bokeh from multiple users of
different subjects, and that I believed that we needed to keep the same
subject and lighting conditions to reduce variables, just as you stated,
and what I did with my medium format blind lens tests, so we agree again
;-) I just worded that poorly, and the telnet bundled with this browser
doesn't let me quote or even copy and paste, so retyping is hard on memory
I doubt you/we will get much in the way of informative comments on bokeh
shape, though we can ask. I found that my two page blind test form (see
html version at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html - solicited useful
info on photogr. experience, loupe viewing setup/power etc.
I was going to do a telephoto lens comparison with medium format lenses as
a followup to the normal lens test, but there the necessity of dealing
with close focusing and errors is major issue.
I'm not wedded to 8-10 feet as a test distance, but select it as that is a
common distance setting for normal lens users. Nor am I insistent on
f/8-f/16 shots in a bokeh test, but some may want to see these settings
too. Accurate focusing on the main subject at 4-5 feet may vary, despite
efforts, but as I noted, we aren't evaluating resolution in the subject
plane in this test, but background bokeh. I will think about an extra
fixed (not water spray ;-) foreground subject for foreground bokeh checks,
but this may be problematic unless I find just the right site. The MF test
ended up being a pretty big project, with 10 camera bodies and 13 lenses
and meters and a heavy tripod, cable releases, paperwork, photocopied
large random numbers for putting in each shot (so the slides can't be
mixed up), tape to hold that down, film, lens hoods for all, camera
batteries, and so on ;-) Dang, just like work ;-)
but I keep being amazed that we argue a lot about this stuff, when all it
would take is a few simple tests and some slide sets to be able to
document issues like camera shake effects, MLU, bokeh effects, and so on.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: blind 35mm lens tests - was Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2003 9:51 PM
>Message-id: <bqbiep$kjo$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>
>Wow, thanks for the detailed comments and ideas ;-)
You're welcome :-). I hope it comes in handy! ;-)
The only big problem
>is that the dang trees around here are losing their leaves, so I have got
>to do some looking to see if there is still a convenient site for this
>Xmas to do a trial shoot? ;-)
>
Perhasp a park service, book or webiste on your areas might know of parks/etc.
w/ year round folliage/leaves on trees? Just a thought...
>when I said I disagreed in believing... I meant I disagree with those who
>believe we could just solicit samples of bokeh from multiple users of
>different subjects, and that I believed that we needed to keep the same
>subject and lighting conditions to reduce variables, just as you stated,
>and what I did with my medium format blind lens tests, so we agree again
>;-) I just worded that poorly, and the telnet bundled with this browser
>doesn't let me quote or even copy and paste, so retyping is hard on memory
>
No problem:
>I doubt you/we will get much in the way of informative comments on bokeh
>shape, though we can ask.
Never hurts to aks, and if you're going to do a test, might as well make it
detailed/worthwhile for future generations to argue about ;-).
I found that my two page blind test form (see
>
>html version at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html
I'll have to check it out.
- solicited useful
>info on photogr. experience, loupe viewing setup/power etc.
>
>I was going to do a telephoto lens comparison with medium format lenses
>as
>a followup to the normal lens test, but there the necessity of dealing
>with close focusing and errors is major issue.
>
Telephotos in 35mm alone have to be focused pricely, MF I would suppose even
more so since at equivalent angles of view (to their 35mm equivalents) the MF
has even less depth of field :-(.
>I'm not wedded to 8-10 feet as a test distance, but select it as that is
>a
>common distance setting for normal lens users.
Bokeh of a 50mm lens set at 8-10 feets is near non-existant. Better to test it
at 4/12 feet away (or 5 at the most), if you want this to be a worthwhile test.
At 8 feet w/ a 50mm lens your normal lens user is more concerned w/ getting all
of their subject in frame and doesn't give a whit about (background) bokeh.
Stick w/ 4 1/2 to 5 feet and you'll do fine/have some bokeh effects worth
seeing/testing/rating. I can't strees this strongly enough or enough times :-).
Nor am I insistent on
>f/8-f/16 shots in a bokeh test,
;-)
but some may want to see these settings
>too.
I doubt it. On a 50mm lens set at f/8 or higher w/ the subject about 5 feet
away there wont be much out of focus in your background to be even described as
bokeh since there wont be much blurring of the background to judge bokeh -- but
if you want to make more needless work for yourself ;-), plus there's always
the bokeh at f/22 to think about/test too ;-) ;-). <LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU DETECT
MY PLAYFUL SARCASM HERE ;-)>
Accurate focusing on the main subject at 4-5 feet may vary,
Practice (focusing), and not by enough to make much of a differnce on subject
sharpness or background bokeh if you are able to focus reasonably well.
despite
>efforts, but as I noted, we aren't evaluating resolution in the subject
>plane in this test, but background bokeh.
Definitely.
I will think about an extra
>fixed (not water spray ;-) foreground subject for foreground bokeh checks,
>but this may be problematic unless I find just the right site.
You can always bring a potted plant and set it on a folding table in the
foreground so it will be more or less at the same height as the subject, just
closer to the camera (for note/record, you also might want to measure camera to
foreground distance too, along w/ camera to subject and camera to middleground
objects at various distances behind the subject). I would strongly suggest
bringing some extra objects (even more (larger) potted plants to put 2 feeet,
5feet and 7 feet behind your subject so we can get an idea about image cohesion
and how rapidly focus falls off for each lens and whether there are any bokeh
problems in the out of focus middleground objects behind the subject.
The MF test
>ended up being a pretty big project, with 10 camera bodies and 13 lenses
>and meters and a heavy tripod, cable releases, paperwork, photocopied
>large random numbers for putting in each shot (so the slides can't be
>mixed up), tape to hold that down, film, lens hoods for all, camera
>batteries, and so on ;-) Dang, just like work ;-)
>
:-( ;-) But some things are worth it in the end... (knowledge and enjoyment),
beats vegging in fron of the tv to yet another rerun of an episode you've seen
twelve times already ;-).
>but I keep being amazed that we argue a lot about this stuff, when all it
>would take is a few simple tests and some slide sets to be able to
>document issues like camera shake effects, MLU, bokeh effects, and so on.
>
>grins bobm
>--
>***********************************************************************
>* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
>
>********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
>
Arguments are cheap, they're the cheapest form of "gas" around. Experience is
almost like work, almost everyone is willing to share it but almost nobody
wants to have to do it themselves unless they get paid for it. And so, to put
my mouth where my mouth is (or, perhaps, my foot where my mouth is), at least
let me say thank you in advance for this test/experience, even if I can't pay
you in real money.
<APPLAUSE> (and/or apple sauce, pick whichever is your favorite ;-).
Regards,
Lewis
Christoph Breitkopf
> The only big problem is that the dang trees around here
> are losing their leaves, so I have got to do some looking
They do that here too. Even if they don't lose them, they
change color, are shaking in the wind, and are hard to light
consistently (not owning a movie company, I have to rely
on the sun for light).
When starting out with bokeh test images (http://www.bokeh.de/en/),
I tried making a test pattern unsing a backlit black cardboard
with cut-out test shapes. Compared to trees, this has the
advantage of being excatly reproducible. Unfortunately this
has to be rather large for normal (non-macro) lenses to test
background bokeh. For most lenses the closes focus is about
10 times the focal length, and I've found that you need to
place the test pattern at least four times that distance to
get a large enough circle of confusion. That was too large
for my room and living partner ;-)
A darkened room with a few point light sources (LEDs perhaps)
might also work well.
So I used trees, too. I think to be able to compare lenses
of different focal lengths, the focusing distance and the
distance of the background need to be at fixed multiples
of the focal length. For my tree test shots, I usually
set the lens to 15x focal length, and try to find a tree
at about 50-100x focal length. Of course, sometimes I'm lazy.
And as noted the light and other factors change, so
the results are hard to compare. It's easy to spot really
bad lenses, but the large group of mostly neutral bokeh
lenses looks mostly identical.
Regards,
Chris
--
Bokeh test images: http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html
William Graham
"Christoph Breitkopf" <ch...@chr-breitkopf.de> wrote in message
news:m33cc4a...@eddie.mignet.magrathea.de...
> rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) writes:
> > The only big problem is that the dang trees around here
> > are losing their leaves, so I have got to do some looking
>
> They do that here too. Even if they don't lose them, they
> change color, are shaking in the wind, and are hard to light
> consistently (not owning a movie company, I have to rely
> on the sun for light).
God and Stephan Spielberg make their own light........
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2003 7:37 AM
>Message-id: <m33cc4a...@eddie.mignet.magrathea.de>
Hi Chris:
I've been to your site before and enjoyed it. I am still a fan of the 4 1/2 to
5 foot lens focusing distance for people shots because even when there are
trees in the background that you would like to see out of focus blur
circles/coc of, setting the lens at 15x focal length (50mm which equals 2
inches) would give a 2 1/2 foot (15 x 2 inches ='s 30 inches which ='s 2 1/2
feet) focusing distance - not too close for me, but closer than possibly the
majority of amatures and perhaps some pros would get for their people shots.
This (2 1/2 foot camera to subject distance) would be a semi-tight head and
shoulders shot w/ a 50mm lens - too close perspective-wise for most people that
don't have flat faces (or flat noses in particular) ;-). 8-10 feet as Bob
suggested wouldn't give enough bokeh w/ a 50mm lens even wide open at about
f/2. I feel that about 4/12 feet or so would be just right for a normalesque
people shooting distance/crop/perspective - sort of like Goldilocks and the
three bears w/ their porridge - "...and this bokeh was juuuuuuust right" ;-). I
realise that you weren't aiming for a portrait/people aspect in your tests,
Chris, but I just thought I'd rebring up this issue as I feel it is important -
different bokeh distances are best for different bokeh uses, even when they
include the same type of background (tree folliage w/ spaces for the sky in the
leaves to form blur circles).
Christoph Breitkopf
cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) writes:
> I've been to your site before and enjoyed it. I am still a fan of the 4 1/2 to
> 5 foot lens focusing distance for people shots because even when there are
> trees in the background that you would like to see out of focus blur
> circles/coc of, setting the lens at 15x focal length (50mm which equals 2
> inches) would give a 2 1/2 foot (15 x 2 inches ='s 30 inches which ='s 2 1/2
> feet) focusing distance - not too close for me, but closer than possibly the
> majority of amatures and perhaps some pros would get for their people shots.
> This (2 1/2 foot camera to subject distance) would be a semi-tight head and
Yep, it's a tight portrait distance for any focal length. Of
course, a tight portrait with a 20mm lens (or even 50, as you note)
looks kind of funny.
> shoulders shot w/ a 50mm lens - too close perspective-wise for most people that
> don't have flat faces (or flat noses in particular) ;-). 8-10 feet as Bob
> suggested wouldn't give enough bokeh w/ a 50mm lens even wide open at about
> f/2. I feel that about 4/12 feet or so would be just right for a normalesque
> people shooting distance/crop/perspective - sort of like Goldilocks and the
> three bears w/ their porridge - "...and this bokeh was juuuuuuust right" ;-). I
> realise that you weren't aiming for a portrait/people aspect in your tests,
> Chris, but I just thought I'd rebring up this issue as I feel it is important -
> different bokeh distances are best for different bokeh uses, even when they
> include the same type of background (tree folliage w/ spaces for the sky in the
> leaves to form blur circles).
I agree, but you have to limit yourself, or you get just too
many possibilies. Also, while you'd normally choose a slightly
longer focal length for tight portraits, there is still some
leeway - 100 - 150mm say. And, just maybe if you had a
problematic background, a harsh bokeh 135mm, and a smooth bokeh
85mm lens, and must shoot a tight portrait, having these lenses
compared at equal reproduction rations is a good think.
The variation of the background distance is a bit more artificial,
I admit - not something you'd do in a real shot. However, keeping
it at the same distance gived a huge advantage to longer focal
lengths. If the tests included only classical portrait focal
lengths, this would not be a large problem, but since I like
to include everything from fisheyes to long teles, there is
really no other option.
As with any lens test (or even more so) interpreting the results
and determining if/how they apply to ones own shooting habits
is really important. Taken at face value, 'tests' (such as mine)
can easily be as misleading as they can be helpful.
Lewis Lang
>From: Christoph Breitkopf ch...@chr-breitkopf.de
>Message-id: <m3ekvnv...@eddie.mignet.magrathea.de>
Hi Chris:
Just so you know, my suggestions/comments, though referencing your site, were
directed at Bob for his future 50mm portrait bokeh tests. My point was _for
him_ to shoot the 50mm bokeh portrait tests at about 4 1/2 feet, not for you to
do so. Also, all I wanted him to do was test the 50mm focal length (at
apertures from wide open to f/5.6) at that particular distance on a portrait
subject (person in chair) w/ objects in the foreground (1-3 feet in front of
the camera) and in the middleground (which would be an additional 2 1/2, 5, and
7 feet behind the subject (which is already at 4 1/2 feet from the camera) but
in front of the far off folliage background/tree leaves w/ sky blur circles) to
test out blur "transition"/cohesion/integrity of the more and more out of focus
objects (I believe I suggested potted plants to him on tables and/or chairs for
the foreground and middleground/behind the subject objects). Its hard to get
more specific or narrow w/ my parameters than this. :-)
I just appreciate Bob wanting to do the test and was giving him suggestions for
_his_ upcoming test, I wasn't trying to tell you (or suggest) how to run your
own website/tests on bokeh. Just trying to give Bob some helpful test to,
pardon the pun, "focus on the most important aspects of bokeh" in his portrait
50mm bokeh test to make it worthwhile.
I also appreciate what you did for bokeh testing and sharing your URL/results
with us.
Bob Monaghan
Hi Chris, thanks for the shared info and test page URL resources!! I am
still looking for an ideal and close site. One other possibility I am
going to explore is seasonal, namely, Xmas tree lights as bright light
point sources which would be reproducible and comparable, though
brightness might be problematic? ;-) Maybe I can use a Santa figure for
the subject too ;-) ;-)
As soon as I get semester finished, xmas stuff done, and some time, I am
going to get serious about this; I'm ordering film this week etc.
regards bobm
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Dec 2, 2003 8:12 PM
>Message-id: <bqj9pk$42e$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>
>Hi Chris, thanks for the shared info and test page URL resources!! I am
>still looking for an ideal and close site. One other possibility I am
>going to explore is seasonal, namely, Xmas tree lights as bright light
>point sources which would be reproducible and comparable, though
>brightness might be problematic? ;-) Maybe I can use a Santa figure for
>the subject too ;-) ;-)
SNIP
Hi Bob:
Please, oh, please say you're joking, Bob. Such a test might make Mrs. Santa
very happy but it would only show the bokeh of bright tiny point sources on a
subject that's about as human as Bart Simpson w/ only a slightly better
complexion ;-). Seriously, though, better to postpone the test till Spring (w/
real tree leaves and spaces between the of bright sky like in a real portrait,
not like the "Bokeh Nightmare Before christmas", than to do a portrait bokeh
test where neither the subject or the background resembles any kind of "normal"
portrait elements. (And this is from a person who detests/is the antitheses of
"normal"). How many portraits on average do you usually shoot that have tens or
hundreds of tiny little point sources inthe background? I am not ungrateful for
what you're doing, just the oppositte - but a portrait bokeh test w/ a Santa
statue/figure and Christmas lights sends chills up and down my spine (though
I'm sure many an elf w/ superior Leica gear and a superiority complex would
love to see the results). Human. Trees. Sky through Leaves. No bokus pokus
bogus shortcuts. No "Ho Ho Bokeho Yoko" P-L-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-A-S-E. Thanks.
My Bokeh Nightmare (50mm f/2 Leica R, focused roughly at about 6-8 feet, about
f/16 or so and all its missing are some Christmas lights to complete the
nightmare ;-)):
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st9.htm">"MONA SANTA"</A>
Santa? Bah Humbug!
Santa Bokeh? Bah Hokehm!
Christoph Breitkopf
> Just so you know, my suggestions/comments, though referencing your site, were
> directed at Bob for his future 50mm portrait bokeh tests.
Thanks, Lewis - I do manage to follow threads, even in spite of
some people's quoting habits ;-)
Note that my first post was a follow-up to bob, and anyway,
when posting to usenet, I intend (and hope) that I'm read by
more people than just the one I'm responding too.
So my points were just intended to show my testing (if you
can call it that) procedure, not to criticise your
suggestions.
Christoph Breitkopf
> Hi Chris, thanks for the shared info and test page URL resources!! I am
> still looking for an ideal and close site. One other possibility I am
> going to explore is seasonal, namely, Xmas tree lights as bright light
> point sources which would be reproducible and comparable, though
> brightness might be problematic? ;-)
Hmm, I think the higher the contrast, the easier to judge
the light distribution within the circle of confusion.
Exposing for the highlights should show this nicely.
Of course, given the color temperature of christmas tree
lights, I'd guess the circles might come out mostly
orange on daylight balanced film. ;-)
Lewis Lang
>From: Christoph Breitkopf ch...@chr-breitkopf.de
>Message-id: <m3ekvmi...@eddie.mignet.magrathea.de>
Thanks Chris. I got that. Just felt the need to emphasize, with Bob, what I
thought were the necessary parameters in order to make a worthwhile portrait
bokeh test (not too close or far away, etc.). I realise that your testing
procedures are strictly your own and for your own purposes even though you
share them w/ others.
Bandicoot
news:bq693n$t27$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> yes, it is an interesting idea; the problem is I suspect folks would
> readily see the cut film without perforations as on 35mm film and cheat
> and lump them together ;-)
What I meant was to use an adapter to fit the lens to a 35mm body - sorry I
wasn't clear enough. I see lots of adapters to fit P6 lenses (like the
Flek) to various 35mm bodies on *Bay, and I have a couple myself, one of
which allows me to use P6 lenses on my Pentax bodies with shift, taking
advantage of the bigger coverage.
>
> with medium format backs, I had to trim the image to the edges to cutoff
> the "hasselblad vees" and other markers which would enable folks to tell
> which camera took which photo from the back markings (see photo ads where
> the hasselblad Vees are shown - in photos taken for a bronica lens ad ;-)
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/photoads.html ;-)
Yes, I've enjoyed that page before!
>
> I did study the issue of Med Fmt vs. LF and 35mm quality, concluded that
> 35mm is generally higher resolution as optimized for less coverage, but
> with enough $$ you can buy MF and LF lenses (Schneider..) which have such
> high resolution that they are as good as the 35mm ones. But you can buy a
> 35mm lens that is really good for $150 or so, while the LF version might
> be 15-20+ times that ;-) see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mfbest.html
That I can believe. I use Schneiders on my 6x9 technical camera, and a four
lens kit (from 47 to 180mm) is probably as much as I want to invest. I love
the Schneider 80/2.8 Xenotar I have for my Exacta 66, but in truth the
difference between this and the CZJ lenses is pretty slight (especially the
180/2.8, but then that is a very special lens.)
Cheers,
Peter
Bob Monaghan
ah, yes, that makes more sense ;-) unfortunately, the cost of MF to 35mm
adapters is rather pricey (I have a set for hasselblad to nikon bellows
mount, still over $100 used etc., and other adapters hit $175, only a few
are low cost as with the Kiev/Exakta66 series you noted) ;-)
the bigger problem for me is that the better lenses are rarely used to
their full potential due to issues like color film (low resolution) or
motion (handholding, subject motion), inadequate lens hood and so on.
my general "discovery" is that lens are NOT the limiting factor, rather it
is our technique, and often, our choice of color (print) films that limit
our quality of results. This is esp. true now in 35mm, as slower fine
grained films are being lost e.g., ektar 25, kodachrome 25 (sob!!) etc.
;-)
in my view, this has tended to make medium format even more valuable for
its higher image quality, because you can't get there with color films now
using 35mm and really compete head to head (before Kodachrome 25 could
take on MF in the 1980s, but now it is history ;-( ) The B&W techpans
still offer some quality capabilities with the best 35mm lenses and
techniques. But overall, the 3.8-4.2X larger film area of Med Fmt SLRs
overwhelms the 35mm lenses, and the MF lenses with the same film could be
half as good and still produce better same sized images from better
tonality alone ;-) So even if the lenses are not as good in the edges, MF
images tend to have more quality capacity overall due to larger film area.
And if used in the center as you suggest on 35mm SLRs, they often still do
very well, and better than many films can record in resolution terms etc.
Bob Monaghan
yes, I appreciated Lewis' comments and suggestions, and I'm working on
these ideas, thanks to you all ;-)
in my blind lens tests on medium format, I was surprised by how many
people thought I should be comparing prints, rather than slides, and other
issues which interjected variables and problems easily avoided by better
test design(s).
so it is probably necessary to think carefully about what constitutes a
good or superior test regime for something like bokeh. I would like to
find something more repeatable (hence my testing of holiday lights for
point light sources underway now etc.) and low cost, so others could
perform similar tests on their own for fun and instruction.
there are also lots of questions, like how much bokeh may vary between
lens samples, which I would like to explore as well which would not be an
issue for some testers (see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/variations.html)
but the biggest problem with blind lens tests and volunteers is keeping
the test from being too intimidating, too long, and too complex...
Bob Monaghan
yes, good point. Guess this means I should use the clear white lights (as
I intended) and not the colored red/blue Christmas ones ;-) ;-)
my worry on light brightness is more about the more distant background
lights being bright enough to show well with a daylight background, though
I like the size and repeatability. I'm going to do some test runs of the
test first, but I have to get some lights and stands and so on ;-)
any ideas on how far back such lights might need to be? optimal size of
out of focus lights on slides? I suspect they would be fine, if large, for
infront of subject bokeh tests (square law losses avoided..)? Now if I
could just get one of my Xmas tree light happy neighbors to just setup
their lights in the right way... ;-)
Bob Monaghan
Darn! ;-) well, I guess it is back to the trees and leaves then ;-) But I
don't want any complaints that the images aren't exactly comparable...
I may still pick up a string or two of lights for my black velvet and
flare tests. Only black velvet around here has Elvis and some dogs at a
pool table, so I'll have to keep looking for that too ;-)
grins bobm
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2003 8:54 PM
>Message-id: <bqr9cl$5bh$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>
>Darn! ;-) well, I guess it is back to the trees and leaves then ;-) But
>I
>don't want any complaints that the images aren't exactly comparable...
>
Thanks, Bob. Time to put the tripod and the subject in cement shoes then - no
motion, no comparable differences ;-).
>I may still pick up a string or two of lights for my black velvet and
>flare tests. Only black velvet around here has Elvis and some dogs at a
>pool table, so I'll have to keep looking for that too ;-)
>
>grins bobm
Is Elvis playing poker w/ the dogs in a picture? ;-) Title: "You Ain't Noth'n
But A Hounddog"
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <bqr97s$53j$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>
>yes, good point. Guess this means I should use the clear white lights (as
>I intended) and not the colored red/blue Christmas ones ;-) ;-)
>
>my worry on light brightness is more about the more distant background
>lights being bright enough to show well with a daylight background, though
>I like the size and repeatability. I'm going to do some test runs of the
>test first, but I have to get some lights and stands and so on ;-)
>
>any ideas on how far back such lights might need to be? optimal size of
>out of focus lights on slides? I suspect they would be fine, if large, for
>infront of subject bokeh tests (square law losses avoided..)? Now if I
>could just get one of my Xmas tree light happy neighbors to just setup
>their lights in the right way... ;-)
>
>regards bobm
Bob:
Who are you talking to here? You neither use a quote nor address a specified
name in your post? Were you talking to me or somebody else and what is the
point/quote you're referencing?
TIA
Gordon Moat
> yes, good point. Guess this means I should use the clear white lights (as
> I intended) and not the colored red/blue Christmas ones ;-) ;-)
That just reminded me of a photo showing a Christmas tree, and some light
effects:
<http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n02_e.htm> there is also a
close focus shot of a flower. While some lenses focus closer than others, you
might be able to do an extension tube, or bellow test, and have an easier
defocus area rendition comparison.
>
>
> my worry on light brightness is more about the more distant background
> lights being bright enough to show well with a daylight background, though
> I like the size and repeatability. I'm going to do some test runs of the
> test first, but I have to get some lights and stands and so on ;-)
I think that a night exposure might work better. Using either mirror lock-up,
or mirror pre-fire (using self timer, etc.), would allow the camera to
settle, and have less chance of movement induced problems.
>
>
> any ideas on how far back such lights might need to be? optimal size of
> out of focus lights on slides? I suspect they would be fine, if large, for
> infront of subject bokeh tests (square law losses avoided..)? Now if I
> could just get one of my Xmas tree light happy neighbors to just setup
> their lights in the right way... ;-)
I understand your wanting to use * focus for common distance, but I think
standardizing a set closer distance would be much more useful. Does anyone
really look for defocus highlights from normal lenses at the * distance . . .
. . I doubt that happens often, and I think 2 m to 3 m would be more common.
>
>
> regards bobm
By the way, I have a Nikon 50 mm F2.0 AI as mentioned in that link above. It
is the deep barrel design, and not the short version. Compared to my later
f1.4 AIS, the defocus rendition is much
smoother, and with point light source, nor high contrast problems. I have
tried the Series E f1.8 (few samples), and a few of the f1.4, and f1.2 50 mm
Nikkors, and so far this f2.0 has the best defocus rendition. It also has
quick focus falloff, giving a distinct separation of the subject from the
background. It might be that this example I have was really well made, or it
could be that this particular lens is really that good.
Just something to think about with your upcoming 50 mm test, though I am not
sure if you have access to a 50 mm f2.0 AI. It compares very favourably to my
Leica 50 mm f2.0, though I am a little hesitant to state that all similar
lenses would perform the same, since I have only used one Leica 50 mm f2.0
(not enough sample variation).
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Bob Monaghan
Thanks for some good points and ideas for tests ;-)
We may need a suite of tests, perhaps a repeatable test for direct
comparisons (fixed night array, as you may be suggesting?) and a
subjective typical subject series as Lewis wants?
I can't recall anyone linking bokeh at macro distances with bokeh
performance at infinity, I would think lots of lens design issues might
intervene (i.e., maybe a lens where the entire lens moved (zeiss planar?)
would work, but a lens where element distances are varied, such as wide
angles with closeup corrections (nikon 24mm CRC..) might be problematic?).
I am interested in testing some lenses to see how the bokeh varies with
sample variation; I think I have 2 or 3 50mm f/1.4 nikkors I can use and
ditto 105mm f/2.5 etc.
I am in agreement about the 50mm f/2 nikkor; it is also perhaps the best
for macro work, and may well be the sharpest as well as cheapest of the
normal lens series to boot ;-) Again, this would be part of my interest.
I am wondering if Brian Coldwell's optical design software has enough
library lens designs, and the ability to project bokeh effects, to perhaps
provide an alternative approach too? Then the issue might be finding a
real world lens that performs as the designer intended? ;-)
but in the end, we are going to have to test these lenses for bokeh
effects if that is what we value, and that is part of the reason to think
this holiday season about how to setup such a test. I also think there is
merit in moving away from concern about lens resolution alone to other
factors like bokeh that can also impact image formation notably ;-)
Bob Monaghan
using white (Xmas) light bulbs etc. As I just posted, I suspect that we
need both kinds of tests, one for technical observation (repeatable, shape
and distribution behind and in front of lens..) and one for subjective
evaluation (as with your/our trees with leaves highlighted etc.
I am in an "open" campus lab afterhours, and to forestall security
problems, most software is not fully implemented; I'm using the browser
for telnet, and it doesn't support quoting, cut and paste from windows
(odd, as it M/S browser ;-) and so on ;-) On the other hand, it does
support reading articles in threads, so I forget not everybody does so
too! ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <bqu702$1uq$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu>
>
>Sorry Lewis, I was replying to Chris' points re: repeatable bokeh tests
>using white (Xmas) light bulbs etc. As I just posted, I suspect that we
>need both kinds of tests, one for technical observation (repeatable, shape
>and distribution behind and in front of lens..) and one for subjective
>evaluation (as with your/our trees with leaves highlighted etc.
>
>I am in an "open" campus lab afterhours, and to forestall security
>problems, most software is not fully implemented; I'm using the browser
>for telnet, and it doesn't support quoting, cut and paste from windows
>(odd, as it M/S browser ;-) and so on ;-) On the other hand, it does
>support reading articles in threads, so I forget not everybody does so
>too! ;-)
>
>regards bobm
No problem, but reading a post w/o a reference to whom you are speaking to is a
little bit like shouting "Is there a photographer in the house?" in Santa
Barbara (more photographers per capita than any other place besides Portland,
Oregon ;-) You could be talking to virtually anyone. Even if you can't quote,
it would be nice if you mentioned a name noew and then, though :-).
Regards,
Gordon Moat
> Thanks for some good points and ideas for tests ;-)
>
> We may need a suite of tests, perhaps a repeatable test for direct
> comparisons (fixed night array, as you may be suggesting?) and a
> subjective typical subject series as Lewis wants?
I think the night idea works better, since it is easier to get the lens to
wide open without introducing an ND filter, or needing a camera body with
really high shutter speed.
>
>
> I can't recall anyone linking bokeh at macro distances with bokeh
> performance at infinity, I would think lots of lens design issues might
> intervene (i.e., maybe a lens where the entire lens moved (zeiss planar?)
> would work, but a lens where element distances are varied, such as wide
> angles with closeup corrections (nikon 24mm CRC..) might be problematic?).
I don't know of any 50 mm lenses that have close range correction, unless
perhaps some of the macro lenses were built that way. Since more
photographers would likely stick to longer lenses to get defocus effects, and
mostly only wide angle lenses with CRC, I don't see that as a barrier to the
test. However, an extension tube might introduce some other effect, or
amplify some aberration.
>
>
> I am interested in testing some lenses to see how the bokeh varies with
> sample variation; I think I have 2 or 3 50mm f/1.4 nikkors I can use and
> ditto 105mm f/2.5 etc.
>
> I am in agreement about the 50mm f/2 nikkor; it is also perhaps the best
> for macro work, and may well be the sharpest as well as cheapest of the
> normal lens series to boot ;-) Again, this would be part of my interest.
Interesting that after posting the other message, I was looking at a couple
Zeiss Planar designs. One was the Contax 80 mm f2.0 for their 645, and the
other was the 80 mm for the Rollei 6000. In the link I posted, Nikon called
their design a Double Gauss, but when I looked at the layout again, it is
really more similar appearing to a Planar. In fact, the performance seems to
indicate it being more like a Planar, though perhaps Nikon did not want to
step on any Zeiss toes. :-/
>
>
> I am wondering if Brian Coldwell's optical design software has enough
> library lens designs, and the ability to project bokeh effects, to perhaps
> provide an alternative approach too? Then the issue might be finding a
> real world lens that performs as the designer intended? ;-)
Just sounds more like a sample variation, or quality control test. However,
starting with a good design seems to indicate a possibly good end result.
Some qualities that produce nice defocus areas are not the best choices when
absolute sharpness is desired across the film plane.
>
>
> but in the end, we are going to have to test these lenses for bokeh
> effects if that is what we value, and that is part of the reason to think
> this holiday season about how to setup such a test. I also think there is
> merit in moving away from concern about lens resolution alone to other
> factors like bokeh that can also impact image formation notably ;-)
>
> regards bobm
Except for architectural photography, but how much of that drives lenses
choices? I have some just for that, since I had a few big contracts in the
past that were strictly architectural photography, but my tendency is to
shoot more wide open, and intentionally get results with lots of defocus
areas. I definitely think there is an interest, but the actual defocus
rendition can still be a matter of tastes, and not something easily defined
for agreements.
Lewis Lang
Gordon, I respectfully disagree w/ some of your statements (that is, if I'm
reading you correctly on your suggestions for a 50mm portrait bokeh test(s))...
>Subject: Re: blind 35mm lens tests
>From: Gordon Moat mo...@attglobal.net
>Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2003 4:58 PM
>Message-id: <3FD4E5CE...@attglobal.net>
>
>Bob Monaghan wrote:
>
>> Thanks for some good points and ideas for tests ;-)
>>
>> We may need a suite of tests, perhaps a repeatable test for direct
>> comparisons (fixed night array, as you may be suggesting?) and a
>> subjective typical subject series as Lewis wants?
>
>I think the night idea works better,
I don't. People tend to photograph portraits more in the daylight than at
night.
since it is easier to get the lens
>to
>wide open without introducing an ND filter, or needing a camera body with
>really high shutter speed.
W/ ISO 100 slide film on an overcast day you don't need an ND or a really high
shutter speed.
I photograph at night too, but I don't think we should forsake a daylight bokeh
test in exchange for a night-time one. Do both tests, Bob. I actually think a
daylight test is all you need but am wiling to agree to both a separate day and
night time tests if night time bokeh is so important to Gordon/others. You have
to understand where we're coming from. Gordon does (or has done) a lot of
night-time photography in clubs and I prefer to do daylight portraiture under
overcast/etc. conditions though I have done some night time photography (my
work is in the book "NIGHT SHOTS" in Rotovisions Pro-Lighting Series books) but
not a lot of portraiture at night ;-). To each their own...
Gordon Moat
> Hi Gordon/Bob:
>
> Gordon, I respectfully disagree w/ some of your statements (that is, if I'm
> reading you correctly on your suggestions for a 50mm portrait bokeh test(s))...
> Do both tests, Bob.
Okay, I think both makes an easy enough to do comparison. One thing that got me
thinking towards the night direction was a mention of an indoor test, and I think
that an outdoor test would be more natural, as well as hitting the Xmas lights
idea.
> I actually think a
> daylight test is all you need but am wiling to agree to both a separate day and
> night time tests if night time bokeh is so important to Gordon/others. You have
> to understand where we're coming from. Gordon does (or has done) a lot of
> night-time photography in clubs and I prefer to do daylight portraiture under
> overcast/etc. conditions though I have done some night time photography (my
> work is in the book "NIGHT SHOTS" in Rotovisions Pro-Lighting Series books) but
> not a lot of portraiture at night ;-). To each their own...
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis
Actually, I am glad you pointed out those points . . . if I stated that correctly.
The point is . . . . several approaches would serve better than any one test . . .
and point out the differences. I guess that could be a more . . . . . pointed . .
. . approach. ;-)
T P
Jeremy
--
x-no-archive: yes
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kd8atvcvhs33gir87...@4ax.com...
> "Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
> >
> >Show us your work
>
>
> Why?
>
>
Because, despite your continual claims that you have worked with/owned every
fine camera and lens ever made, and despite your claims that you shoot as
much as 50 rolls per session, the only stuff we ever saw of yours was
laughable.
I do not believe that you own even one fine camera. You're as phony as a
three-dollar-bill, and you don't show us any of your masterworks because
there ARE none to show!
Lewis Lang
>Actually, I am glad you pointed out those points . . . if I stated that
>correctly.
>The point is . . . . several approaches would serve better than any one
>test . . .
>and point out the differences. I guess that could be a more . . . . . pointed
>. .
>. . approach. ;-)
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
Actually, you may have a point there Gordon,... or several ;-).
T P
>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>
>Because, despite your continual claims that you have worked with/owned every
>fine camera and lens ever made, and despite your claims that you shoot as
>much as 50 rolls per session, the only stuff we ever saw of yours was
>laughable.
>
>I do not believe that you own even one fine camera. You're as phony as a
>three-dollar-bill, and you don't show us any of your masterworks because
>there ARE none to show!
Thank you for demonstrating "Why not?", and why I will
never be offering any of my work for your "approval".
;-)
Jeremy
--
x-no-archive: yes
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:f3ictv455bi78o1u1...@4ax.com...
O know that you will never submit any work for anyone's approval. Because
you have nothing of significance to submit.
You are all talk. A pompous ass.
T P
>
>O know that you will never submit any work for anyone's approval. Because
>you have nothing of significance to submit.
>
>You are all talk. A pompous ass.
Where is your work posted, Jeremy?
I have a lot to learn and am always keen to learn from others, and
would relish the opportunity to learn just what makes you tick.
;-)
Jeremy
> "Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >You are all talk. A pompous ass.
>
>
> Where is your work posted, Jeremy?
>
> I have a lot to learn and am always keen to learn from others
You never learn from anyone--you continually berate everyone that comes into
your sights. I have nothing to prove, as I am an amateur and I admit
it--unlike YOU who knows nothing except what he parrots from others, and
ascts as though he were an acknowledged expert.
You are a complete fraud. That is why you will produce no samples of your
work. For someone that has been everywhere, owned every camera and lens
ever made, and is super-critical of virtually everyone and everything, you
can produce no credentials at all--just your BIG MOUTH.
Hey, when is your trip to Iraq scheduled for?
You are just a pompous ass.
T P
>
>You never learn from anyone--you continually berate everyone that comes into
>your sights. I have nothing to prove, as I am an amateur and I admit
>it--unlike YOU who knows nothing except what he parrots from others, and
>ascts as though he were an acknowledged expert.
>
>You are a complete fraud. That is why you will produce no samples of your
>work. For someone that has been everywhere, owned every camera and lens
>ever made, and is super-critical of virtually everyone and everything, you
>can produce no credentials at all--just your BIG MOUTH.
>
>Hey, when is your trip to Iraq scheduled for?
>
>You are just a pompous ass.
You are losing control, Jeremy, and not for the first time.
Let's see some of your work.
Jeremy
--
x-no-archive: yes
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rdbetvk8194bbjp6u...@4ax.com...
MY work is not in question, because I never have held myself out as an
expert in all matters photographic. YOU are the one that always claims to
be the know-it-all.
So, Mr. Know-It-All, put up or SHUT UP.
T P
>MY work is not in question, because I never have held myself out as an
>expert in all matters photographic.
On the contrary, you have made countless statements about lens
performance. Show us some examples of your work that demonstrate the
knowledge behind those statements!
;-)
Jeremy
--
x-no-archive: yes
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7cdhtv8q0f2m5uqds...@4ax.com...
Answering someone's question is not the same as attacking people. I have
never responded to another poster using your favorite phrase, "That is
complete nonsense!"
I have never held myself out as the final authority on anything.
I have never claimed to have owned or used all of the photographic gear that
you alleged to have worked with.
I have never claimed to be a professional photographer, unlike you.
I have never claimed to have had any of my work published, unlike you.
So, stop trying to dodge the real issue: Show us your credentials, oh
Pompous Ass! Show us some of the stuff that has been published. Give us
some reason to believe that you are as competent as you claim you are.
You talk the talk, but you DON'T walk the walk. Because you are a phony!
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
T P
>Answering someone's question is not the same as attacking people. I have
>never responded to another poster using your favorite phrase, "That is
>complete nonsense!"
>
>I have never held myself out as the final authority on anything.
>
>I have never claimed to have owned or used all of the photographic gear that
>you alleged to have worked with.
>
>I have never claimed to be a professional photographer, unlike you.
>
>I have never claimed to have had any of my work published, unlike you.
>
>So, stop trying to dodge the real issue: Show us your credentials, oh
>Pompous Ass! Show us some of the stuff that has been published. Give us
>some reason to believe that you are as competent as you claim you are.
>
>You talk the talk, but you DON'T walk the walk. Because you are a phony!
>
>Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Perhaps your postings would make more sense if you took your hand off
your penis while composing them?
Alan Browne
T P wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps your postings would make more sense if you took your hand off
> your penis while composing them?
Perhaps yours would if you posted some evidence of your photographic
prowess?
Jeremy
--
x-no-archive: yes
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5unhtv8stjrk8r24p...@4ax.com...
The Artful Dodger once again attempts to shift the focus away from his
inability to offer a single shred of evidence to back up his alleged expert
status.
A big talker (an even bigger insult artist), but, just as I predicted, he
can't produce any images. He would like us to think that he chooses not to
produce anything, but the real fact is that he is just a boaster, that has
never worked with or owned any of the equipment that he claims to have
possessed.
He has claimed to be published, but no one has ever seen his work. He has
claimed to shoot as many as 50 rools per session, yet he has not a single
excellent image that can be attributed to himself.
Come on, Poulson! We want to see the proof. No more of your incessant
boasting (and don't go underground for another week, hoping that the
pressure will subside, because it won't!). I say you're a phony. I say
that you have boasted so much that the sheer volume of you bullshit gives
you away--no one could be that knowledgeable and remain an UNKNOWN. How
come the only place you can be found is on newsgroups? Where have you been
published? Let us see for ourselves, you pathetic boaster!
Admit what you REALLY do for a living, or I just may break the news myself!
PLEASE--give us some proof of your alleged accomplishments--IF YOU CAN, that
is. . .
Forget about the snide comments. They won't get you off the hook this time.
I say again, you are a complete fraud. Prove me wrong, if you dare.
Bo-Ming Tong
> How does the 24mm f/2 AL compare in micro-contrast and bokeh to the superb 31mm
> Ltd? Is it the others equal like the 77/1.8Ltd./85/1.4 combo?
Dear Lewis,
I looked at your web site and it was very impressive ! I am starting
out as an assistant so I believe my view may or may not be useful
enough for a professional such as you are, but I have had quite a few
Pentax lenses. Now my primary lens is the 45/2 Planar for Contax G. In
my view very few Pentax lenses could achieve the same kind of delicate
balance that T P mentioned when compared to Zeiss. I have had the 24/2
AL, 50/1.7 (F & M versions), A* 135/1.8, and F* 300/4.5 ED IF. Only
the 135/1.8 matches Zeiss quality.
If you cherry pick enough you could put together an outstanding Pentax
outfit. The 31/1.8 Limited you tried would be in it, but I am not sure
if the 24/2.0 IF AL would make it into the dream outfit which matches
Zeiss. I guess it doesn't as it marginally failed. I wish to put that
Planar lens on a digital body but right now the Contax N line up is
pretty dismal with fewer than 10 lenses. I am inclined to go back to
Pentax since they make compact lenses and bodies but I would miss the
lens quality. A dilemma...
The 24/2 is an excellent lens in its own right. It is just not very
sharp wide open (forgiveable given its f/2.0 aperture), and while
sharp stopped down it doesn't give that kind of medium-format like
tonality as the Planar (may not be a fair comparison since a large
aperture 24mm is much more difficult to design than a small aperture
Planar). I have both the 21/2.8 Biogon and 28/2.8 Biogon for Contax G
and both are far better lenses then the 24/2.0 AL, in terms of
tonality, color rendition, distortion and sharpness. Again may not be
a fair comparison for a retrofocus wide-aperture wide to compete
against a rangefinder design. The only characteristic that the Pentax
lenses would win over Zeiss consistently was flare. It is not that
Pentax is no good. It is just that Zeiss is a formidable foe.
Bo-Ming Tong
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: bt...@crystaldecisions.com (Bo-Ming Tong)
>Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2003 4:50 PM
>Message-id: <c48430de.0312...@posting.google.com>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message
news:<20031124164113...@mb-m27.aol.com>...
>> How does the 24mm f/2 AL compare in micro-contrast and bokeh to the superb
>31mm
>> Ltd? Is it the others equal like the 77/1.8Ltd./85/1.4 combo?
>
>Dear Lewis,
>
>I looked at your web site and it was very impressive !
Thanks for the complement, Bo. :-)
I am starting
>out as an assistant so I believe my view may or may not be useful
>enough for a professional such as you are,
Its your sensitivity to lens qualities that matters, not your professional
status.
but I have had quite a few
>Pentax lenses. Now my primary lens is the 45/2 Planar for Contax G. In
>my view very few Pentax lenses could achieve the same kind of delicate
>balance that T P mentioned when compared to Zeiss.
My friend tested this out for a while, beautiful bokeh.
I have had the 24/2
>AL, 50/1.7 (F & M versions), A* 135/1.8, and F* 300/4.5 ED IF. Only
>the 135/1.8 matches Zeiss quality.
>
I saw the 135/1.8 results about a decade ago?, everyone raves about this lens
but it just appeared to me to be an everyday good lens, but my other friend's
lens sample may have been off, who knows...
>If you cherry pick enough you could put together an outstanding Pentax
>outfit.
I'm thinking about doing so (have been thinking about it quite a long time,
don't know if I'll have the finances to pull it off as my tastes run towards
the more expensive Ltd/ series and other higher profile Pentax glass and camera
bodies (the ever excelent but too high priced _for me_ even used MZ-S) - I want
superb sharpness (from wide open to stopped down) and superb bokeh :-).
The 31/1.8 Limited you tried would be in it,
Of course, best lens on the planet (probably), pity they don't make a
23/24/25mm Ltd. whatever the max aperture...
but I am not sure
>if the 24/2.0 IF AL would make it into the dream outfit which matches
>Zeiss. I guess it doesn't as it marginally failed.
By marginally, you mean...
I wish to put that
>Planar lens on a digital body but right now the Contax N line up is
>pretty dismal with fewer than 10 lenses.
Do you mean you wish Contax had an N mount 45/2 planar or even a 24/25 fixed
focal length wide angle in N mount? I'm not exactly following you here...
I am inclined to go back to
>Pentax since they make compact lenses and bodies but I would miss the
>lens quality. A dilemma...
>
Very similar to what I am going through in my mind. My key focal length is
24mm, and though the 31mm Ltd. would be wonderful to have an d to use, there
are times when there are just no substitutes for the extra coverage a 24mm or
so wide angle would give...
Come to think of it I'd love to see a 17 or 18-35mm (or even 50mm) f/2.8 or
f/2.5 or f/3.5 Ltd zoom. SOmething compact and focuses to w/i 1 foot and super
sharp from wide open to stopped down w/ great bokeh. I hear the 20-35/4 FA is
very good (to excellent) but I would doubt its in the same league as any of the
Ltd. lenses. I wish Pentax would expand the Ltd. line of lenses. Time will
tell, though...
>The 24/2 is an excellent lens in its own right. It is just not very
>sharp wide open
I did a bad test of this w/ a friend more than a decade ago (more of a try out
than a test on a rickety? tripod of a wirescreen door and was _not_ impressed
w/ its sharpness wide open, I believe).
(forgiveable given its f/2.0 aperture),
Yep, but I would love to have my cake and eat it too (have similar superb
sharpness from wide open to stopped down, if possible).
and while
>sharp stopped down it doesn't give that kind of medium-format like
>tonality as the Planar (may not be a fair comparison since a large
>aperture 24mm is much more difficult to design than a small aperture
>Planar).
A shame. Yes, I understand.
I have both the 21/2.8 Biogon and 28/2.8 Biogon for Contax G
>and both are far better lenses then the 24/2.0 AL, in terms of
>tonality, color rendition, distortion and sharpness. Again may not be
>a fair comparison for a retrofocus wide-aperture wide to compete
>against a rangefinder design. The only characteristic that the Pentax
>lenses would win over Zeiss consistently was flare. It is not that
>Pentax is no good. It is just that Zeiss is a formidable foe.
>
>Bo-Ming Tong
True, but I don't remember Zeiss's 25/2.8 being anything special wide open
either, though their 24-85 N zoom is reported to be of high quality. For me,
though, hugeness of size and weight are a real turn off in both the N bodied AF
Contax SLRs and the Canon EOS system (which really needs a Rebel sized body w/
at least the feature set and/or control interface of an Elan 7 or EOS 3 to get
me interested) so I prefer the Contax MF lenses and bodies and Nikon MF
lensesand bodies for manual focus shooting, and Minolta (or Pentax) for the AF
stuff. Also I prefer Pentax's color rendition and saturation (and bokeh),
though Minolta seems to mix some nice bokeh and at least Nikon-like color
saturation if not color rendition w/ Nikon-like sharpness (or better..).
Minolta, though seems a bit larger on most of their AF bodies than Pentax
though the Maxxum 7 and 600si are quite compact for what they offer. Should be
interesting to see if Minolta releases any new G level (luxury) quality lenses
in the 24mm or so range I'm interested in. Its not that I'm dis-satisfied w/
Minolta as much as I'm more satisfied w/ the Pentax - in particular the MZ-S
and the 31mm Ltd. both of which have me hooked on Pentax film quality as well
as the *ist Digital which has me hooked on their digital quality too.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts/opinions/suggestions with me/us.
Regards and I wish you Happy Holidays,