MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

The most distracting bokeh?
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:43 am
Post subject: The most distracting bokeh?
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:43 am
Post subject: The most distracting bokeh?
Reply
Hi,

Just thought of this kind of a thread as I was checking tobbmans thread about SMC 100/2.8 bokeh (http://forum.mflenses.com/funky-bokeh-with-smc-100-2-8-macro-t27663.html).

Which lens has the ugliest and most distracting bokeh you know of?

Mirrorlenses are an obvious pick, but IMHO it can even be a good thing in some kind of shots...

My pick could be my M35/2 wide open.



Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:45 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:45 am
Post subject:
Reply
I suspect this thread will live on for at least 10 pages, because bokeh is very subjective and what one likes the other one finds vomit-inducing.

Personally, I find the "swirly" bokeh made famous by Biotars wide open to be ugly. "Swirly" Biotar bokeh does the opposite of what it should do: it draws attention from the subject of focus. In centered compositions like portraits, swirly bokeh is on the brink to causing nausea similar to an optical illusion. I am not going to quote sample photos here as that might offend the copyright owner, but I think we all know what swirly bokeh is.

Rough-edged Tessar bokeh is another one from the same family of harsh and distractive out of focus rendering.

Vilhelm


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:56 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:56 am
Post subject:
Reply
Esox lucius wrote:

Personally, I find the "swirly" bokeh made famous by Biotars wide open to be ugly. "Swirly" Biotar bokeh does the opposite of what it should do: it draws attention from the subject of focus. In centered compositions like portraits, swirly bokeh is on the brink to causing nausea similar to an optical illusion.


+1


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:01 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:01 am
Post subject:
Reply
sichko wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

Personally, I find the "swirly" bokeh made famous by Biotars wide open to be ugly. "Swirly" Biotar bokeh does the opposite of what it should do: it draws attention from the subject of focus. In centered compositions like portraits, swirly bokeh is on the brink to causing nausea similar to an optical illusion.


+1

+2


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:17 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:17 am
Post subject:
Reply
I'd say bokeh of biotars is variable... it depends on background - it can be really smooth even if the background is in direct sunlight:

(75/1.5 at 1.5)


I think fast tessar have not very nice bokeh. Not only busy, but the bokeh appears "dry" to my eyes. E.g. the 50/2.8. Slow tessars like the 40/4.5 are MUCH better. Not sure about the soviet lanthanum copy Industar 61 LZ 50/2.8... any experience?

I found, that stopped-down triplet lenses (Triotars, Trioplans) and slow double-gauss lenses (Volna series, esp. V-9 50/2.9 or Meogon 60/5.6) have the smoothest bokeh.

I also like, when the bokeh isn't uniformly smooth, but if it has a bit of character, which isn't disturbig. Sonnars, Primoplans and some Ernostars are capable of it. And Biotars unders specific circumstances, too Smile


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:24 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:24 am
Post subject:
Reply
Any lens (except mirror lens perhaps) can produce smooth bokeh if the distance between background and subject of focus is long enough (like in your test pic). So yes, the swirly is easy to avoid.

Esox lucius wrote:
Personally, I find the "swirly" bokeh made famous by Biotars wide open to be ugly.


I avoid using mine wide open. I think that stopped down, there is nothing wrong with Biotar bokeh, au contraire:

Biotar 58/2, 15-bladed version at f/8


Last edited by Esox lucius on Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:54 am; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:39 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:39 am
Post subject:
Reply
Esox lucius wrote:
... bokeh is very subjective and what one likes the other one finds vomit-inducing.

That's the point. I mostly prefer a creamy, velvety bokeh. But sometimes a nice swirl adds a special character to an image. So, what am I supposed to write here?
Ah yes, the topic is about which lens produces the ugliest bokeh. Again I would say, it depends... Wink


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I particularly dislike the bokeh of the 135mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar. I often browse through the thumbnails of photos posted in the M42 group on flickr and click through when I see interesting “character” or when I see something that looks bad enough that I'd want to know what it is so that I can avoid it. A very large percentage of those “bad” shots turn out to be from that very same lens…

(And usually when I say this, someone posts a sample showing smooth bokeh from that lens; I'm not saying that its bokeh is always bad, but rather that it can be the most vomitrocious when it goes bad, which it tends to do with certain backgrounds. In my opinion. =)


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Arkku wrote:
I particularly dislike the bokeh of the 135mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar. I often browse through the thumbnails of photos posted in the M42 group on flickr and click through when I see interesting “character” or when I see something that looks bad enough that I'd want to know what it is so that I can avoid it. A very large percentage of those “bad” shots turn out to be from that very same lens…

(And usually when I say this, someone posts a sample showing smooth bokeh from that lens; I'm not saying that its bokeh is always bad, but rather that it can be the most vomitrocious when it goes bad, which it tends to do with certain backgrounds. In my opinion. =)

Yes, the Takumars do have strong support so you may be in the minority here. Laughing I will say as an owner of this lens, I don't pick it when I go for bokeh shots.


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
LucisPictor wrote:

That's the point. I mostly prefer a creamy, velvety bokeh. But sometimes a nice swirl adds a special character to an image.


I also usually prefer smooth, velvety bokeh, though I don't mind a bit of “painterly character” in it. I really can't make my mind up about swirls, though… Sometimes they work quite nicely to frame a centred subject, sometimes they work as an abstract effect on their own, other times they completely ruin the shot by making the viewer feel seasick.

Of course, it's safer to have a smooth bokeh lens, at least it will never ruin the shot. But I find exploring the non-perfect bokeh of certain lenses quite interesting.


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:59 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:59 pm
Post subject:
Reply
martinsmith99: I had it also, but I sold it. I prefer the 2nd version of S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 M42 or 135mm Sonnars/Jupiters for bokeh.


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
All depend what is there in your mind, which are the pics that you wanto to take.
There are a lot of elements to consider, like the subject, location, hour of the day, sunny, or soft, day, type of cam and format, and insiode these elements there are the lens to use. And to chose the lens, the class of bokeh that you want to in your pic is one of the elements to consider.

Sounds easy, but it's more difficult to me. Wink

Rino.


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply
poilu wrote:
sichko wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

Personally, I find the "swirly" bokeh made famous by Biotars wide open to be ugly. "Swirly" Biotar bokeh does the opposite of what it should do: it draws attention from the subject of focus. In centered compositions like portraits, swirly bokeh is on the brink to causing nausea similar to an optical illusion.


+1

+2


+3


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Heathcliff wrote:
poilu wrote:
sichko wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

Personally, I find the "swirly" bokeh made famous by Biotars wide open to be ugly. "Swirly" Biotar bokeh does the opposite of what it should do: it draws attention from the subject of focus. In centered compositions like portraits, swirly bokeh is on the brink to causing nausea similar to an optical illusion.


+1

+2


+3


-1 = +2


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Soikka's M35/2 pic does have an edgy bokeh, trying to read that Lapin Kulta sign makes my eyes hurt...

But Biotar swirl?
-1 for Biotar bokeh being "bad". I think it can be used for centering the attention.

+2 -1 = +1

--

This is Helios 44-3 @ f/2:


And this is the big brother, Helios 40-2 @ f/1.5:


I think Vivitar Series 1 28/1.9 has a distracting bokeh - like zoom blur:

("Cross-processed" in Aperture 3)

But it, too can be used on purpose, this photo is titled "Noise":


I think there is no ugly bokeh, only interesting bokeh that can be utilized to paint a unique look. You can always close it down to make it boring as any other lens.
-- Or, actually, I do think the modern kit zoom lenses at their "wide open" apertures of 3.5 do render an ugly bokeh, but that is another story.


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
This is a very good example where bokeh I do not like (in neither of the first three shots we see a nice bokeh in my taste) works in an image (No.4).


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:51 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:51 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I would say Helios 40 and its variants, very distracting but in a good sense in my opinion, can be used to change the way of seeing photography. In pseudo macro shots I find it very smooth though


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:06 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:06 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Nice shots Mikko!
That Vivitar 28/1.9 has really interesting look.

I agree that the bokeh can't be argued. And in right circumstances bad bokeh can be a benefit.

My main idea was to discuss about some lenses which give the most headache back home, when viewing photos after a photoshoot.

For me it is that same M35/2. It doesn't always perform as I want it to Smile


M135/3.5 isn't one of my favourites either with bokeh, but it is miles ahead M35/2.


Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:31 pm
Post subject: Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:31 pm
Post subject: Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100
Reply
From my lenses Trioplan has the most crazy bokeh.

all shots with K20D and f2.8







Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
This is the bokeh that I prefer, allows all the attention being focused on the subject.
SONNAR 180/2.8 P6




Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:39 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:39 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I thought this was about the most distracting bokeh, not least… =)

The 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar is indeed great.


Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am
Post subject:
Reply
Arkku wrote:
I thought this was about the most distracting bokeh, not least… =)

The 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar is indeed great.

You are right.
Is that if you say which is the worst bokeh, perhaps someone is offended, who likes that lens. Rolling Eyes
greetings


Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:02 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:02 am
Post subject:
Reply
francotirador wrote:

Is that if you say which is the worst bokeh, perhaps someone is offended, who likes that lens. :roll:


Why would anyone be offended about that; if I say I don't like pizza, will people who like pizza be offended? =)

Some bokeh that others find distracting, I find interesting (at times), so it would be interesting to know which lenses have the kind of “controversial” bokeh… For example, some buy the Helios-40 because of its swirly bokeh, others avoid it for the same reason.


Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:55 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:55 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Arkku wrote:
francotirador wrote:

Is that if you say which is the worst bokeh, perhaps someone is offended, who likes that lens. Rolling Eyes


Why would anyone be offended about that; if I say I don't like pizza, will people who like pizza be offended? =)

Some bokeh that others find distracting, I find interesting (at times), so it would be interesting to know which lenses have the kind of “controversial” bokeh… For example, some buy the Helios-40 because of its swirly bokeh, others avoid it for the same reason.



Sometimes the relationship with our lenses is very personal.

The bokeh for me, distracting if you have a lot of detailed information. In a color photo, that is lethal to me. However, in B & W, can be very good, because there is no color information.
It is not overloaded to have a bit of detail in the background.
That's why I like Biometar for B & W, rather than the Sonnar.
Greetings to all.


Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I like most bokeh even if it is busy or prominent, it can be used to good effect if you're careful. As well as being subjective I think the subject distance and subject to background distance plays a role too, most lenses tend to give better bokeh when the formers is smaller and the latter is larger.

Another thing I have noticed is that some lenses do very well with out of focus areas that are mid tones but don't render out of focus highlights and points of light well, my Pentacon 135mm preset seems a good example, oof foliage/architecture/people seem to be rendered very well but if you point it at some fairy lights for example the discs of bokeh have very defined edges that are yellowish.

The ahem AF Canon 50mm f/1.8 is another example, horrible highlight bokeh but not bad at all with less contrasty backgrounds.

So many variables!
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 3 Next
Page 1 of 3