View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57849 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:35 am Post subject: How many blades ? |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I got a request from a buyer to count blades on my Biotar lens ,he has already one , but he would like to have one with more blades due more blades more smooth bokeh. I did reply to him this is an 'urban legend' smoothest bokeh come at wide open where is no blades in light path at all , he did reply next.
Quote: |
The amount of blur changes when wide open but if you think about simple geometry, imagine trying to make a circle with 4 lines. You can't because you can only make a square, but as you add "lines" (add more aperture blades) you eventually make a pentagon, a hexagon a septagon an octagon etc etc... Until it starts looking more and more circular that's why increasing the number of aperture blades makes your bokeh more smooth and round! And yes please I will wait until you can let me know how many blades because I am very interested! |
Am I wrong ? What is your opinion ? _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mos6502
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 961 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mos6502 wrote:
It makes OOF highlights rounder, but that's not quite the same thing as blur. I guess it does lend to an overall "softness" in effect though. Test a preset Tessar at f4 against an automatic Tessar at f4. See what happens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
You are obviously right in saying that wide open does not matter if 3 blades or 30
But about bokeh being smoothest wide open, it is debatable.
For sure wide open you have less depth of field, which helps.
But wide open, the highlight elements are biggest, and if the lenses are over corrected for sharpness,
(which is the case of nearly all the double gauss lenses from post war onwards) also the disturbing
elements are biggest.
A classic example is the Jupiter-9 reflex version, if you have no highlights in the bokeh, you appreciate
the smoothness, but if you have highlights, bokeh becomes almost unbearable to see.
So with modern lenses, it is common opinion that bokeh is better when the lens is stopped down by 1 or 2 stops,
because the highlights circles decrease exponentially in size.
In that case, obviously the number of blades counts, but only if there are highlights in the bokeh.
Otherwise, the number of blades is insignificant.
I have two lenses with 3-blades aperture (1.4/85 Planar and 1.4/35 Distagon Rollei), and I have the same lenses
with 8-blades aperture (in Contax mount), and when there are no highlights in the bokeh, you really have to
pixel peep at 100% to glimpse traces of difference between the two bokehs.
EDIT: lenses with significant aspherical elements, such as the most recent Leica Noctilux lens, do show very
pleasant highlight circles. In that case, indeed it can be said that wide open bokeh is preferable. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
+1 to what Orio said, nothing to add really. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7785 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Excellent explanation Orio, easy to understand. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
Excellent Orio.
Attila, why don't you just count the blades and reply to the potensial buyer? _________________ La migliore cura di LBA � imparare una nuova lingua. Le meilleur rem�de de LBA est d'apprendre une nouvelle langue. La mejor cura del LBA es aprender una nueva lengua. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4572 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
The obvious reason why some prefer many blades is that oof highlights will appear round instead of cornered even if stopped down, right?
Therefore i suspect that the interested is referring to that. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
Edged-shapes high light bokeh can be distracting, esp for those lenses that have a bit harsh bokeh like sharp lighter edges.
Stepping down might make the edges even sharper. _________________ La migliore cura di LBA � imparare una nuova lingua. Le meilleur rem�de de LBA est d'apprendre une nouvelle langue. La mejor cura del LBA es aprender una nueva lengua. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 Posts: 1826 Location: North East England
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
I think some people confuse highlight flare with bokeh. The shape of the aperture (which is down to the number of blades) will dictate the shapes of highlight flaring. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012 Posts: 178
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
Orio - very well explained!
I think that asking for the number of blades is quite legitimate, because even if we suppose that the "best" bokeh (something that different people define differently, buy let's suppose we do get to agree on what that is ) is produced wide open, having a more circular aperture (=more blades a/o rounded blades) gives you the option of having "better" bokeh when stopped down a bit; it doesn't have to be in full stops, either.
Anyway, if you get more options, why not go for it? as a buyer, this is a typical question... _________________ Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Misha_M wrote: |
Orio - very well explained! |
Thank you (and everyone else)
Misha_M wrote: |
I think that asking for the number of blades is quite legitimate, because even if we suppose that the "best" bokeh (something that different people define differently, buy let's suppose we do get to agree on what that is ) is produced wide open, having a more circular aperture (=more blades a/o rounded blades) gives you the option of having "better" bokeh when stopped down a bit; it doesn't have to be in full stops, either.
Anyway, if you get more options, why not go for it? as a buyer, this is a typical question... |
Agreed, however it is my opinion that the whole bokeh-wide open-blades number issue is largely overestimated.
A fast browsing of Flickr shows whole galleries of hundreds of photos by photographers who only make "bokeh pictures" of anything
that they can cast over a blurred background, without any other concern than this superficial mania.
I think photographers should try to remember more often that the main interest in the photographs should always be the subject. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10527 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
+1 Orio
kuuan wrote: |
The obvious reason why some prefer many blades is that oof highlights will appear round instead of cornered even if stopped down, right?
Therefore i suspect that the interested is referring to that. |
+1
skida wrote: |
I think some people confuse highlight flare with bokeh. The shape of the aperture (which is down to the number of blades) will dictate the shapes of highlight flaring. |
+1
I think there is little effect on bokeh, if bokeh is the smoothness and other qualities of the out of focus regions, especially where in-focus region transitions into out-of-focus. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1782 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
If your buyer is asking about bokeh, you should refuse to sell it to him |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
skida wrote: |
I think some people confuse highlight flare with bokeh. The shape of the aperture (which is down to the number of blades) will dictate the shapes of highlight flaring. |
+1. Atilla's buyer is certainly tangled up in the circle of confusion! _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|