View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3213 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:44 pm Post subject: Bokeh comparison: fast primes vs. average speed primes |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
In this topic
http://forum.mflenses.com/smc-m-pentax-50-1-4-is-fast-as-1-2-lens-wide-open-t34792.html AhamB included the following link http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/924270/16#9034350 which shows a comparison of bokeh between fast primes and not-so-fast primes. Based on the pictures in the link, I agree that the bokeh of the faster lenses looks better then the bokeh of the not-so-fast lenses (at the same aperture). If it appears that this difference in bokeh applies to fast vs not-so-fast lenses in general, this could be a strong argument in favor of choosing fast lenses. I decided to put a few of my own lenses to the test. Unfortunately, I couldn't include any F/1.2 lens, for I don't have one at the moment.
All pictures were taken at F/2. The lenses included are:
SMC Pentax K 50/1.4
Auto-Revuenon 55/1.4
SMC Takumar 55/1.8
Super-Takumar 55/2.0
Rikenon XR 50/2.0
Here are the results:
One thing that struck me is the colors generated by the Super Tak 55/2.0 which are very cool compared to the other lenses. The Revuenon, which is also single coated, produces much warmer colors (under these lighting conditions).
Looking at the bokeh, I think the two fast lenses produced the most pleasing bokeh indeed. I think the winner of this contest is the Revuenon 55/1.4 while the Rikenon XR 50/2.0's bokeh is the least satisfying.
Feel free to comment! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
I agree. In these shots the Revuenon wins. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: Bokeh comparison: fast primes vs. average speed primes |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
Looking at the bokeh, I think the two fast lenses produced the most pleasing bokeh indeed. I think the winner of this contest is the Revuenon 55/1.4 while the Rikenon XR 50/2.0's bokeh is the least satisfying.
Feel free to comment! |
All Pentax lenses here probably share a very similar optical design so their bokeh is quite similar.
Rikenen demonstrates indeed that bokeh of a slow lens can be worse than bokeh of a faster lens at the same aperture
I agree the Revuenon is the winner here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Seele
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 742 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seele wrote:
I totally agree with your observations. To my eyes, I never find over-corrected spherical aberrations at out-of-focus distances appealing, especially behind the focussed distance. With a gun to my back I would rather have under-correction behind, and over-correction in front; this would cut down the dreaded nisen-bokeh a lot. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kawasakiguy37
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Posts: 132
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
overcorrection does result in a sharper image though (for the part that is in focus). So really you just have to choose what fits the bill best.....sharp and ugly bokeh or a little less sharp and amazing bokeh _________________ Nikkor
75-150 series E
105 2.0 DC
28 2.0 AIS
T-mount bellows + Spiratone 75mm Flat Field macro
300 4.0 CZJ F |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 414
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
I'm not convinced that a slower lens would necessarily have better bokeh.
Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
I agree with jjphoto,
Bokeh opinion is subjective.
For those pictures above, I would like to sompare color instead of bokeh
The pentax looks more green while rikenon and revuenon more yellow. I prefer Pentax.
jjphoto's test... i like zuiko one _________________ nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djmike
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 930 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
djmike wrote:
IAZA wrote: |
I agree with jjphoto,
Bokeh opinion is subjective.
For those pictures above, I would like to sompare color instead of bokeh
The pentax looks more green while rikenon and revuenon more yellow. I prefer Pentax.
jjphoto's test... i like zuiko one |
Agree the comment of bokeh but I perfer Pentax's color in this series. _________________
DSLR: Canon 400D
SLR: Nikon FM2 + Canon A-1 + Canon AE1-P + Praktica MTL-5B + Pentax Spotmatic F + Fujica ST801 + Voigtlander Bassematic + Voigtlander Vito + Rollei 35S + Rolleiflex SL35 ME + Canon QL17 GIII + Olympus Pen EE-3
Lenses
M42: CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 + CZJ Flektogon Zebra 35/2.8 + CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 + CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 + CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 Chrome + Pentacon 135/2.8 + Pentacon 50/1.8 + SMC Takumar 50/1.4 + SMC Takumar 55/2 + SMC Takumar 135/3.5 + Fujinon 55/1.8 + Jupiter-9 85/2 + Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 + Helios 44-6 58/2
Nikor: Nikkor 50/1.4 + Nikkor 28/3.5 + Nikkor 35-105 Zoom + 36-72 Series E Zoom
Canon: Canon FD + 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + Canon 35-105 Macro Zoom
Other: Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3213 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
@jjphoto
I think the difference in Bokeh shows more clearly at F/2 than at F/2.8 (and higher). I did a bokeh test before with several 50/55mm lenses @ F/2.8 and the difference in bokeh-quality was hard to tell:
http://forum.mflenses.com/several-50-55-mm-primes-compared-in-the-field-t34237.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 414
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to shoot trees, plants or anything that might sway in a breeze as this can create softness that has nothing to do with the lens itself.
Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3213 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
jjphoto wrote: |
By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to shoot trees, plants or anything that might sway in a breeze as this can create softness that has nothing to do with the lens itself. It's always best to shoot hard objects that have no chance of moving during possibly long exposures. And even that should be done in the same light as differences in lighting will change contrast and bokeh. I think it's quite hard to do this kind of thing very well.
JJ |
Jup, actually you're right there.
By the way, I think your f/1.4 lenses show the best (creamier) bokeh at f/2. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
jjphoto wrote: |
By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to shoot trees, plants or anything that might sway in a breeze as this can create softness that has nothing to do with the lens itself. It's always best to shoot hard objects that have no chance of moving during possibly long exposures. And even that should be done in the same light as differences in lighting will change contrast and bokeh. I think it's quite hard to do this kind of thing very well.
JJ |
Also I would recommend to shoot more colorfull and mottled background to reveal the bokeh differences. With you smooth backgaround all bokeh looks smooth. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
My opinion is that a test like this only shows how similar the 50mm lenses of modern era are, since they are all built on the same double gauss scheme.
There are only slight differences in colouring which is due on the type of coating that is chosen. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 466 Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
Second test that I have seen that clearly shows that the C/Y 1.4/50 has smoother bokeh than the Summicron 2/50.
I'm remarking this because in 98% of all opinions I have seen on various forums is that the Summicron has smoother bokeh than the Planar. _________________ Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 414
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
I'm not sure that a single set of images is enough to properly describe a lens and the way it behaves at different distances and with different subjects either. |
|
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
|