Looking for a good bokeh

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

Sorry for opening this thread and asking the same question that has beed discussed already numerous times.

I am looking for a fast lens in ~50mm range with a good bokeh. My definition of a good bokeh is smooth and creamy, without swirling and double edges, with round specular highlights (even stopped down a little, I mean I don't like to see hexagons).
Sharpness wide open is not the first priority but should be sharp enough stopped down a little.
The price is ~200 USD but don't limit your suggestions if there are some lens a bit above this price.
To use on a Canon crop camera.

I have Mamiya 55/f1.4 lens and wouldn't call it's bokeh distracting but I am still looking for something better. I also have Minolta PF 58/f1.4 waiting for a conversion, heard it has very pleasant bokeh (may be I should convert it and try first, before buying a new toy).

I considered a Yashica DS-M 50/f1.4, Yashica ML 50/f1.4, Olympus 50/f1.4, Zeiss 50/f1.7, Canon FL 55/f1.2. I didn't find a lot of images of Yashicas and from what I saw it seems they produce double edges. Zeiss also seems suffer from the same problem. I don't like Takumars for some reasons but if you convince me this is the lens I am looking for I can revise my opinion.

What can you suggest?

no-X · Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject:

Is it for crop or ff?

Biotar 58/2 has smoother stopped-down bokeh than Pancolar 50/1.8.

Yashinon DS-M 50/1.4 isn't bad, but it has more CA (slightl lateral + red fringe) than most 50mm lenses. It has also hexagonal iris, which sometimes shows in bokeh. Many newer lenses have these problem... Color Ultron 50/1.8 too Sad

Volna-9 50/2.8 has great bokeh at f/2.8, but shows haxagons (or stars) stopped down.

I'd say some lenses have good wide-opened bokeh (e.g. Volna), other lenses have great stopped-dow bokeh (Biotar, Trioplan, Primoplan), but none has great bokeh in both situations.

If you don't mind lower contrast and low corner sharpness (and low overal sharpness at f/1.9), try Primoplan - but it's necessary to find a copy with preserved coating and clean optics.

MF-addicted · Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject:

Smooth and creamy bokeh.
Leitz Summicron-R 2.0/50 Version I - creamy, but not too sharp at infinity - around 150-200 Euro
Leitz Summicron-R 2.8/60 - sharp creamy - around 250-300 Euro.

http://www.rglewis.co.uk/PDF/LEICA/R_Lenses/Puts%20Column%20SUMMICRON-R%2050mm%20&%20MACRO-ELMARIT-R%2060mm%20&%20SUMMILUX-R%2050mm%20Lenses_en.pdf

Tom in Delaware · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 42 Location: Delaware, USA

Super Takumar 50mm f1.4. Sharp and creamy bokeh.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

nemesis101 · Expire: 2015-01-22

+1

Doug

nemesis101 · Expire: 2015-01-22

How about a Planar 50mm f1.4 mine gives smooth bokeh?

Doug

egidio · Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 222 Location: slovenia

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

nemesis101 · Expire: 2015-01-22

I get creamy bokeh and sharpness.. what do others think?

I got great bokeh from my Super-tak, less good from the Minolta Rookors and the Olympus f1.4's and better on the Planar 1.4 than the 7.7 but....

Also good on the SP zoom 28-whatever too

Doug

MF-addicted · Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject:

Here a link for a "bokeh test" of lenses.
Hope this helps.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston

By his own admission, the list is limited. I'd love to see our forum members submit tests for evaluation in an effort to rate, or rank, a more comprehensive list of lenses. However, I do recognize it would be difficult gaining consensus, as it is with anything subjective. You might say bokeh is like women. We all might agree that some are ugly, some are beautiful, but those in between will depend on our own particular tastes (and maybe the relationship Very Happy

)

Arkku · Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland

I don't think any quality rating can describe bokeh in a useful manner. The only use I see for that list of ratings is bringing potentially good (and “bad”) lenses to one's attention. A gallery of sample pictures is more useful for evaluation.

Esox lucius · Expire: 2011-11-18

I find it amusing that someone declares what is good bokeh and what not. The very best definition of bokeh that I have found is subjectively pleasing out of focus rendering, which in itself rules out the possibility to define what is good and what not.

Flickr search is a great place to find samples of bokeh with different lenses. Let everyone decide themselves what is pleasing and what is disturbing.

Vilhelm

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Agree with the last two messages.

MF-addicted · Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject:

... I like people who provoke a lot of controversy.
Keeps things alive Very Happy

The world is how we like to see it ... all is subjective

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

egidio · Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 222 Location: slovenia

What is good bokeh is ofcourse subjective.

But I made a few tests and human eye has its own bokeh, and it's definitly not smooth. Its more like planar-type-construction bokeh, bright spots make sharp circles and thin lines gets thicker but more transparent.
My eye works that way, its possible that someone else's works different.

Thats why I think lots of people say that "planar type" construction makes a "3d look" or "3d feel", because out of focus character is similar as everyday human perception, and people general lie what is familiar to them.

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

Agree and disagree. The good and bad bokeh is surely subjective. But it is difficult to find good sample pictures of all the lenses you are looking for and even more difficult to find direct comparisons of these lenses. So if you recognize a lens X for it's bokeh (again, subjective as it could be) and someone else tells you that he also likes this lens' bokeh and finds a lens Y similar/better/worse to the lens X in this department, it can be very helpful. But I again agree that better/worse can be subjective Very Happy

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston

Whether you realize it or not, I think most are in agreement with what I said earlier... as it applies to lenses - maybe not women. And I have stated before that I tend to like many different bokeh. In cases I see bokeh as adding interest to a photo as opposed to being distracting.

In this particular photo from the link provided earlier in this thread, the Canon lens provided well defined circles and rings that people often consider distracting, but for that photo it looks appropriate to me given the type of scene.

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

egidio · Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 222 Location: slovenia

so we all need defocus control on all lenses like this one:)

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm

mflex-on · Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:34 pm Post subject:

My suggestions:

Schacht Ulm S-Travelon-A 1.8/50 << pleasant bokeh even stopped down, rounded aperture blades.

Steinheil München Quinon 1.9/55, chrome version << nearly round iris even stopped down.

Both are contrasty and sharp, would rate them similar (optical and built quality) to early Leica Summicrons (but way cheaper) and a little bit over the early CZJ 2/50 Flexon/Pancolar regarding bokeh.