View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DrGeaux
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:48 am Post subject: Question about bokeh for S-M-C Tak 50mm 1.4 |
|
|
DrGeaux wrote:
Hi everyone,
I recently acquired a S-M-C Tak 50mm 1.4 and have a question about the bokeh. I've uploaded a sample image, showing what string lights look like out of focus. There appears to be a ring inside of the bokeh spheres and I was wondering if this is normal for this lens?
Thanks.[/img] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RSalles
Joined: 12 Aug 2012 Posts: 1372 Location: Brazil - RS / South
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
RSalles wrote:
Hello,
The image is not visible here,
Renato |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:05 am Post subject: Re: Question about bokeh for S-M-C Tak 50mm 1.4 |
|
|
fermy wrote:
DrGeaux wrote: |
Hi everyone,
I recently acquired a S-M-C Tak 50mm 1.4 and have a question about the bokeh. I've uploaded a sample image, showing what string lights look like out of focus. There appears to be a ring inside of the bokeh spheres and I was wondering if this is normal for this lens?
Thanks.[/img] |
Now it's visible (anti-spam measure).
I don't have Takumar, but I don't think it's normal for any lens. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
I don't recall seeing anything like that with any of my Tak 50's
I have seen something like it when rain drops land on the front element, shine a flashlight through the lens and look at the elements for something. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
Can you replicate it? If not, it may have been the type of lights in the background. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1655 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
The rings inside the light?.. that would be part of the light surely? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DrGeaux
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrGeaux wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Lightshow: I've used a flashlight to look through the lens and don't see anything that looks obviously wrong. Just a few specs of dust inside, which I think is normal.
David: Yes, I am able to replicate it. Below is another example (although these are the same lights in a tree). I see the same problem with small point sources of light when I've done test shots at home though. I also used a small LED flashlight (with about 5 LEDs inside) and don't notice the problem much. The LED flashlight is much brighter though and I think it was slightly overexposed, which may have hid the problem. I'll try again to see if I can replicate it with a lower exposure.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11054 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Not normal...
Those are reflections of the inside of the lens, lit by stray light bouncing around in there. The stray light could be leaking in from the edge of lens element(s) -- check edges of elements are blackened -- wait a minute! -- after looking again, I'm changing my mind here. I think those are what leds look like! Especially when properly exposed. That dark central ring... So, yes, normal photos of (lit) leds... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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-A 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 (151B), 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 |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Try a different light source. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 488 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
LEDs have a central silicon chip, with a reflector around it, so that is probably consistent with that..... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
Try a different light source. |
+1
dnas wrote: |
LEDs have a central silicon chip, with a reflector around it, so that is probably consistent with that..... |
sounds like the explanation already _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DrGeaux
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrGeaux wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone. I think I may have confused people by mentioning LED lights. The images I previously posted were from non-LED christmas tree lights. I've posted a pic below that shows 3 images: the first shows the string lights in focus so you can see what type of lights these are (they are the old style string lights), the second shows the same shot out of focus and stopped down a bit, and the final one is wide open, showing the rings within the bokeh.
The final image shows the out of focus area of another shot with different types of lights. The yellowish spheres on the right are reflections from an overhead CFL in the room and the green sphere in the center is a small LED light. It's not as noticeable as it is in some of the other shots, but I can still see rings here as well.
Thanks again for the help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11054 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
(Resembles an) Airy Disk (effect?):
Airy Disk (wikipedia)
In first photo of latest reply I see a dark ring around the top of the uppermost lamp where glass is tapered & pinched, but that doesn't explain the dark ring from fluorescent lamp in third photo...
Could be light leakage inside lens body from unblackened edge of element(s). _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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-A 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 (151B), 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 |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
dnas wrote: |
LEDs have a central silicon chip, with a reflector around it, so that is probably consistent with that..... |
I wouldn't expect it see detail from the lights being so out of focus and all.
Am I correct that it changes as you stop down?
What about focus distance? _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DrGeaux
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrGeaux wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
Am I correct that it changes as you stop down?
What about focus distance? |
I'm not sure if it really changes as I stop down. From the test shots I took, it's certainly less noticeable when shot at f2 or higher than when shot wide open at f1.4, but it might just be that the out of focus areas are less diffuse and are brighter, which may hide the ring artifact I'm seeing. I will try to test tonight to see if this makes a difference and also test the effects of focus distance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MacTak
Joined: 15 Jun 2011 Posts: 108
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MacTak wrote:
This is a bit of a puzzler. I've seen this before, perhaps to the same or more likely to a slightly lesser degree, in some lenses that have an aspherical element. My personal suspicion is that your Tak has an (unintentional) aspherical element--that one or more of the elements was ground improperly (it could be an interaction) so that it is not spherical. Another option (I would suppose, maybe I'm wrong) is an issue in the homogeneity of the glass (vertically) of one or more of the elements, such that a portion of it has a slightly different index of refraction. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1655 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
Seriously tho... how are those 200% crops going to affect the actual subjects you focus on. I.e The thing worth taking a photo off? Unless of course you like round glowing balls in that case might i direct you to MS Paint. It has this wonderful circle tool where one can literally draw as many as one chooses. And better yet. They scale wonderfully at any zoom level!
Just take the Photos man. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DrGeaux
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrGeaux wrote:
tromboads wrote: |
Seriously tho... how are those 200% crops going to affect the actual subjects you focus on. I.e The thing worth taking a photo off? Unless of course you like round glowing balls in that case might i direct you to MS Paint. It has this wonderful circle tool where one can literally draw as many as one chooses. And better yet. They scale wonderfully at any zoom level!
Just take the Photos man. |
While you're right that the majority of my photos are not of out of focus lights, I have to disagree. I wasn't pixel peeping at zoomed in shots when I noticed the artifacts; they were noticeable enough to distract my eye as I was reviewing regular portraits taken during a family gathering. One of the (many) reasons I specifically got a 50/1.4 Tak is its reputation for great bokeh, and to me, the artifacts are enough to distract from the actual subjects of my shots in some of the photos I took. From the test shots I saw prior to buying it (and from the comments here), it does seem to be abnormal. For shots with a more complex background, it's not really noticeable and makes great images. I will certainly continue to shoot with it but I think I'll keep my eyes open for another one to do a comparison. |
|
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
|