Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Which lens have bad or highlight bokeh?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:07 pm    Post subject: Which lens have bad or highlight bokeh? Reply with quote
I enjoy lens produces unperfect bokeh (or called bad bokeh by some) with highlights at the edge of the bokeh shape. I was wondering if anyone knows what type of optics produces this type of shape. The example here is by Cosinon 50mm 1.7 (not the MC version)





Last edited by drjs on Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:19 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The bright contours are usually caused by over-correction of spherical aberration, but they may also appear in the bokeh produced by under-corrected fast lenses. This article explains it in detail:

http://www.smt.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is OOF Highlights and there is OOF regions -- I think OFF regions are Bokeh, while OOF Highlights are 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.

Last edited by visualopsins on Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To my knowledge it's all the same, the highlights are caused by bright point sources which cause the blur disk to be bright, where as normally the blur disks are all blended together when nearby disks have a similar brightness value.
Highlights from a lens with swirly bokeh will show you why the bokeh has that swirliness feel to it.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
There is OOF Highlights and there is OOF regions -- I think OFF regions are Bokeh, while OOF Highlights are 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.


That's an interesting interpretation. I would normally think bokeh would be all inclusive, but I still struggle with the correct application of the word. I've read where the word bokeh was coined to describe the quality of the blur, so I presume the word was to identify something not covered by the word blur and not to just become synonymous with the word blur. If bokeh speaks of quality, then wouldn't saying good or bad before it be redundant? If that were true there would not be bad bokeh, just bokeh or not. I doubt this explanation is valid because it confuses me too. I wonder if the meaning is just something that did not translate well from Japanese to other languages.

Now to get at the poster question, there seem to be many lenses that have swirls and discs. The most famous is the 2.8/100 Trioplan. I have posted pictures recently from the 2.9/50 Trioplan with can produce similar results, but not quite as nice, mainly because of the focal length difference. Other Meyer lenses also give the effect to varying degrees. I've even seen it from my Rokkor 1.4/50.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all the comments. This is the article I was referring to where I read Bokeh with bad circle of confusion is less desirable. I do agree that appearance of out of focus area is purely subjective and I quiet enjoy these "bad" Bokeh.

http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fujinon 2.2/55:
FUJINON f=55mm 1:2.2 by DHIPAYAZANYA MESPOEDOK, on Flickr

CZJ Tessar 2.8/50:
Bokeh by gienekwichura, on Flickr

Meyer Oreston 1.8/50:
Sony Nex 5n + Meyer-Optik Görlitz Oreston 50mm f/1.8 by Fabrizio Ara, on Flickr

Petri Orikkor 2/50:
DSC00043.jpg by Ladenla, on Flickr

The problem with all of these lenses (except the Orikkor) is that as soon as you stop down you'll lose the circular highlights because of the aperture blades. It is possible to find pre-set examples of the CZJ Tessar though, but you'll run across the later automatic versions more often.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some of the lenses do have enough blades to create round irises, but when you begin stopping down, the circles will get smaller and more defined. Most all of the lenses creating the effects are used wide open. Trioplan has many bladed diaphragm as does Primoplan. Regretfully, my 80mm Primotar does not.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for these wonderful examples. Question: Is it just me or do most of these lenses belong to the single coated variety? Embarassed Embarassed


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Early lenses like the triplets and Tessars are the best examples of over-corrected lens. You should see lots of samples in my Flickr.

Update: I would suggest use 'unpleasant bokeh' over 'bad bokeh '.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I forgot to mention the CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 - that one has fun bokeh.

Not all triplets have sparkly bokeh, some are actually pretty under-corrected. The Meritar and the Auto-Cassaron are two that give very smooth OOF effects. The other issue is these smaller aperture lenses don't give the big circular highlights faster lenses do, unless you're taking pictures very close.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think that the Bokeh is nice or ugly by itself. There is smoother Bokeh or more nervous Bokeh and each lens has a specific character in between. Some lenses, like Trioplan, have a Bokeh with such a strong character that it makes the out of focus area to be a show by itself and it can become the main subject of the photo.

Both smooth and nervous Bokeh can be creative.
The smooth Bokeh can make the eye better focus, undisturbed, on the main subject and helps a lot in creating a harmonious, peaceful, expression.
The nervous Bokeh, if correctly used in conjunction with a more dynamic composition, can toughen the dramatic expression of the picture.
Any gradation between nervous and smooth Bokeh can be creative in conjunction with the right subject.

However, a lens with a bokeh half-way between smooth and nervous has a week character and is, IMO, less desirable. Anyway, it can be very sharp and therefor very useful for the sharp-all-over type pictures.
Yet there are types of Bokeh I dislike: the polygonal highlights one, the "onion slices" and the "mirror lens" types. But that's my personal taste.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The OOF/Bokeh highlights on the CZJ Tessar are awesome. It would be a little hard working into image elements that don't compete with the rest of scene, but shots designed to make them part of the action would be awesome (In the example given, I think they compete too much with what I assume is the subject of the shot in the foreground)


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Had no idea the Cosinon was so swirly. Very nice.

Is it sharper than the Helios wide open ?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
I don't think that the Bokeh is nice or ugly by itself. There is smoother Bokeh or more nervous Bokeh and each lens has a specific character in between. Some lenses, like Trioplan, have a Bokeh with such a strong character that it makes the out of focus area to be a show by itself and it can become the main subject of the photo.

Both smooth and nervous Bokeh can be creative.
The smooth Bokeh can make the eye better focus, undisturbed, on the main subject and helps a lot in creating a harmonious, peaceful, expression.
The nervous Bokeh, if correctly used in conjunction with a more dynamic composition, can toughen the dramatic expression of the picture.
Any gradation between nervous and smooth Bokeh can be creative in conjunction with the right subject.

However, a lens with a bokeh half-way between smooth and nervous has a week character and is, IMO, less desirable. Anyway, it can be very sharp and therefor very useful for the sharp-all-over type pictures.
Yet there are types of Bokeh I dislike: the polygonal highlights one, the "onion slices" and the "mirror lens" types. But that's my personal taste.


Very well described Dan.

I have made quite a few "tests" within the last weeks, trying to shoot the same objects with different lenses and smooth and busy/dynamic bokeh and all in between - but also using the very same lens. Bokeh can be "designed" by the photographer, choosing the right angle and background.

The latter was the proof for me I wanted. It is not the lens, but the photographer that counts.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
littleearth wrote:
Had no idea the Cosinon was so swirly. Very nice.

Is it sharper than the Helios wide open ?


I say it is on-par with my Helios 44-2. The resolution and contrast is fairly low out of the camera. Things don't really clear up until F/5.6 and higher. By F/8 it is as sharp as any normal lenses out there. It also flares quiet a bit at max aperture. With these said, the color and bokeh are very nice.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
I have made quite a few "tests" within the last weeks, trying to shoot the same objects with different lenses and smooth and busy/dynamic bokeh and all in between - but also using the very same lens. Bokeh can be "designed" by the photographer, choosing the right angle and background.

The latter was the proof for me I wanted. It is not the lens, but the photographer that counts.


Klaus, I totally agree, but I'd like to add "It is not the lens, but the photographer and his post-processing that counts." There are a lot of threads in this very forum discussing how nice or funky the bokeh is from certain lenses (Minolta 58 1.2 and S-M-C Takumar 35/2 come to mind off the top of my head) and when I look at those shots all I see is either poor or at the very least very sloppy post-processing.

People push the Vibrance and Clarity sliders almost all the way to the right in Photoshop/lightroom and they think they're just sharpening the edges on the subject. Those sliders boost the frequencies of everything in that range in the image, including the bokeh. Sure, some lenses really have nervous bokeh, but I find crappy PP destroying the reputations of some lenses more than results from the lenses themselves.

In my opinion, of course...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting comment, but sure, sloppy PP can do worse.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the decision factor of getting good bokeh lies on the ability of photographer. On the other hand, the lens acts as a multiplication factor.

Here is an extract from Depth of Field and Bokeh by H. H. Nasse of Zeiss. I would like to mention the bokeh on the photo will be affected by the sensor as well as post-processing as mentioned by member CBokeh.
Quote:
All the parameters listed here influence the phenomena outside the focal plane:
  • Picture format
  • Focal length
  • f-number
  • The camera-to-subject distance
  • Distance to the background or the foreground
  • Shapes and patterns of the subject
  • Aperture iris shape
  • Aberrations of the lens
  • Speed of the lens
  • Foreground/background brightness
  • Colour

It is therefore not surprising that one often hears different and sometimes contradictory judgements about the bokeh of many lenses. Undue generalisations are all too often drawn from single observations. ...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to add that lenses with high aperture blades number don't always have better bokeh.
I've got two 28mm and 35mm lens (Soligor and Focal), both have 12 blades iris, looks cool, but bokeh is mediocre and sometimes even worse.
Other lenses which have only 6 blades produce much more pleasant bokeh.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Early lenses like the triplets and Tessars are the best examples of over-corrected lens. You should see lots of samples in my Flickr.

Update: I would suggest use 'unpleasant bokeh' over 'bad bokeh '.


Calvin: I checked out your flicker - very nice. How can I find the Tessar bokeh shots?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
Early lenses like the triplets and Tessars are the best examples of over-corrected lens. You should see lots of samples in my Flickr.

Update: I would suggest use 'unpleasant bokeh' over 'bad bokeh '.


Calvin: I checked out your flicker - very nice. How can I find the Tessar bokeh shots?

Good question. Tessars are better corrected than Triplets. That is why I sold most(or all) of my over-corrected Tessars after I bought the triplets in the same focal length.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
woodrim wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
Early lenses like the triplets and Tessars are the best examples of over-corrected lens. You should see lots of samples in my Flickr.

Update: I would suggest use 'unpleasant bokeh' over 'bad bokeh '.


Calvin: I checked out your flicker - very nice. How can I find the Tessar bokeh shots?

Good question. Tessars are better corrected than Triplets. That is why I sold most(or all) of my over-corrected Tessars after I bought the triplets in the same focal length.


That may explain some of my confusion. I see mostly smooth bokeh from Tessar. Which Tessar lenses provided the bokeh rings like Trioplan and the example picture in this thread?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
woodrim wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
Early lenses like the triplets and Tessars are the best examples of over-corrected lens. You should see lots of samples in my Flickr.

Update: I would suggest use 'unpleasant bokeh' over 'bad bokeh '.


Calvin: I checked out your flicker - very nice. How can I find the Tessar bokeh shots?

Good question. Tessars are better corrected than Triplets. That is why I sold most(or all) of my over-corrected Tessars after I bought the triplets in the same focal length.


That may explain some of my confusion. I see mostly smooth bokeh from Tessar. Which Tessar lenses provided the bokeh rings like Trioplan and the example picture in this thread?

Apart from the CZJ Tessar 2.8/50 mentioned here, the Tessar 2.8/80 is also an over-corrected lens. They just not as good as the Trioplan/Diaplan 2.8/100 when it comes to producing bright edge on the OOF highlights.

FYI: My Rodenstock Heligon 50mm F1.9 does have bright edge on the OOF highlights.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quick desktop comparison of a Petri 2/50 and Petri 1.8/55 (m42).


The effect is a little bit more pronounced on the 2/50 (and contrast is better), but the 1.8/55 still shows a bit of sparkle.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1