FF OOF Highlights -- Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:2/35

[visualopsins]

Canon 5D + Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:2/35 ( f/2 iso 400 1/125 sec)

[LucisPictor]

Thanks a lot for sharing.

I now know that this lens will never be in my bag.

I know that many really like this kind of bokeh, but it's definitely not for me.

[visualopsins]

Please check other peoples examples first! I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a great lens because I misuse it here!

I think any lens bokeh would be as crazy here.

Let me explain, please.

Shown is only one vine strand of red berries. There is many more vines & berries nearby in oof areas -- these add so much visual confusion to oof areas to produce such 'busy' 'crazy' bokeh. The brain knows that stuff is there even though it cannot be seen clearly -- that disturbs the mind!

[hoanpham]

[Gardener]

Looks about right for a 35 Tak wide open. I would nor read much into it - it's not like 35's are a paragon of excellent bokeh. I could not do anything beyond a snapshot - it's cold, rainy, it's getting dark, and I had a dinner on the stove, but I took a couple of comparison shots - one is Super Tak, another is Canon 35/2 IS, both wide open, set at .4 meter, which is MFD for the tak. I am not sure which one looks better.



In some ways Takumar's rendering is more pleasing. OTOH, if you focus Canon to it's MFD, 25 cm, the picture becomes great, so if anything it's the lack of close focusing ability that should be blamed for this bokeh.

[visualopsins]

There is OOF Highlights and there is OOF regions -- I think OOF regions with objects is Bokeh, while OOF Highlights is only OOF Highlights not Bokeh. I don't think definition of Bokeh includes OOF Highlights. I'm probably wrong. No matter. I only wish to draw attention to the two types of OOF areas -- one is from point sources of bright lights, while the other is an OOF area without bright lights shining from it, or an OOF object, etc..

In my image (top post), there is ample examples of both types of OOF -- there is great number of OOF point-source highlights and a great number of OOF objects, i.e., the OOF vines & berries -- this makes for a very busy image, no matter what lens is used.

[calvin83]

Here is a photo taken withSuper-Takumar 35mm F2 (v1 with 67mm filter threads) I have posted in another thread. People here use dynamic (instead of busy) when describing this kind of bokeh.

[visualopsins]

Thank you calvin83 for correct term "dynamic bokeh". Also to drjs for link where I learn for "oof highlights" correct term is "specular highlights." Even that article on bokeh seems to split into two types.

Another reason to separate specular highlights: you know how led torch shined into lens front causes a pattern of reflections according to how many lens elements? That pattern is the same pattern seen in specular highlights. I.e., the circles are individual lens elements, appearing in the same pattern! I know because Nikos had a lens with spot on one element -- specular highlights in images were in pattern with only one circle in each pattern showing spot(!)

[calvin83]

I should make my statement more clear: 'People here ' means the people in the Greater China Region. In my own opinion, 'dynamic' is a more neutral word than 'busy'.

Correction: It seems only my friends and I call it 'dynamic'

[LucisPictor]

Genlemen, do not misunderstand me. I am not criticizing the lens. As I said, for some, this lens might be perfect.
It just my personal opinion that I do not like highlight bubbles, i.e. "crazy" or "busy" or "dynamic" (or whatever you might call it) bokeh highlights. For me it has to be smooth, velvety. There are some 35mm lenses who can achieve that.

[calvin83]

I understand, Carsten. I would like to ask if this is the kind of smooth or creamy bokeh you like.

(Taken with a 35mm F2.8 on NEX 5N)

[Gardener]

[ZoneV]