Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Best Bokeh Lens

flat4
Posted 11/12/2009 - 14:33 Link
@ Nathan: For a second I thought you meant you like "those two" on the first photo

p.s. DA* 50-135 is very good bokeh-wise, not to mention sharpness.
Link to my PPG
Edited by flat4: 11/12/2009 - 14:34
Mike-P
Posted 11/12/2009 - 15:46 Link
Don wrote:

nope... 85 2.2 soft is a unique beast, I don't there is any thing like it anywhere.

I will dig out my Tamron Adaptall 2 70-150mm f2.8 soft and see how it compares.

DA* 55mm f1.4 arrived today as well, I will try that out for Bokeh in a while.
Edited by Mike-P: 11/12/2009 - 15:46
nathanever82
Posted 11/12/2009 - 16:25 Link
LUKA!

STOP STARING AT MY WIFE'S BOOBS!!!!

LOL
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'

www.nathanservi.com & PPG
Anvh
Posted 11/12/2009 - 16:29 Link
Mike-P wrote:
DA* 55mm f1.4 arrived today as well, I will try that out for Bokeh in a while.

Mike I would be very interesting in that, how is the lens like on the K10D btw?
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Mike-P
Posted 11/12/2009 - 16:38 Link
Anvh wrote:

Mike I would be very interesting in that, how is the lens like on the K10D btw?

Not sure Stefan, it literally arrived just 30 mins before I posted so its just got out of the box. I hope its ok because I sold my FA 50mm f1.4 last night on another forum. I think I will keep hold of the FA 1.7 until I have had time to test it properly.

The 55mm does look quite funky with its rather large hood.
womble
Posted 11/12/2009 - 17:13 Link
The hood looked like an upturned tea-cup from what I remember. I'll be interested in what you think of it.

K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website
flat4
Posted 11/12/2009 - 17:42 Link
My short experience with DA* 55/1,4 was more than good. But having the price/performance of sigma 50/1,4 in mind, I just can't justify reaching out for one...
@Nathan, I was just admiring the beautiful bokeh of the DA*. Honestly, I was. LOL

By the way: I really like reading this forum. It's so helpful and the atmosphere is very positive. Tons of great reading material!
Link to my PPG
Edited by flat4: 11/12/2009 - 17:49
Mike-P
Posted 11/12/2009 - 18:09 Link
flat4 wrote:
My short experience with DA* 55/1,4 was more than good. But having the price/performance of sigma 50/1,4 in mind, I just can't justify reaching out for one...

I got the 55mm from Misfuds for £379 brand new, less a £35 Pentax voucher from a previous lens purchase which made the 2 lenses a similar price so went with the DA*. I just went to check on their web site and it is now £650 . That's a mad amount of money for a 55mm 1.4, long gone are the days when people could take up photography with a lesser known brand knowing lenses were reasonably priced.
Edited by Mike-P: 11/12/2009 - 18:09
Posted 11/12/2009 - 18:42 Link
Here is '"dreamy" bokeh Pentax FA 50 f1,4
(and piece of humor)
Comment Image
Edited by VladimirYo: 11/12/2009 - 18:45
Posted 11/12/2009 - 23:56 Link
Anvh wrote:
Offertonhatter wrote:
I disagree a little, but I know what you mean.

The only reason I mention, blades, is that you can (and do sometimes) see the defined blade outline on the bokeh. for example the hexagon. Where as having more curved blades lessen the impact on the harsh straight lines that lesser blades can give.

You got two terms mixed up are giving more meaning to bokeh then it is.

What you mean is the blur disk, blur circle, or blur spot.
The aperture surely defines the shape on those and how the light is distributed in the disk is called bokeh.
At least that was the meaning when it was introduced but now it has the global meaning that everything that is out of focus is bokeh... they are a bit right because bokeh is about the light after all but out of focus blur is a much better word then and better to understand, in my onion but who am I.

Yep, you got it right, I have used the more tradional theme of Bokeh rather than the modern reason for it. And in that I apologise.
I suppose what we are really wanting is how creamy the out of focus blur is, rather than the Bokeh. Some lenses by their construction provide much harder blur than others. Namely to do with optics, blades, Fstop etc etc. But it is all to do with personal taste. Some like hard edges, some don't. Me? it depends on the subject matter. Macro need creamy blur, whereas multi lights (like christmas lights) don't.
Anyway, as long as a lens can provide a blur you like then use it....
Some Cameras
Edited by Offertonhatter: 11/12/2009 - 23:57
Posted 12/12/2009 - 00:05 Link
Here is the definition of Bokeh

In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light." Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting— "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

Nowadays, we normally call bokeh as the out of focus bit, or blur as Anvh says.
Some Cameras
flat4
Posted 12/12/2009 - 07:15 Link
Mike-P wrote:

I got the 55mm from Misfuds for £379 brand new, less a £35 Pentax voucher from a previous lens purchase which made the 2 lenses a similar price so went with the DA*. I just went to check on their web site and it is now £650 . That's a mad amount of money for a 55mm 1.4, long gone are the days when people could take up photography with a lesser known brand knowing lenses were reasonably priced.

Well, in Slovenia the regular price for 55/1,4 is 769€ and I can get sigma 50/1,4 for just over half of that price. Even the famous FA 50/1,4 is around 500€ after this year's price increase...

To stick to the subject, last week I purchased the M 40-80/2,8-4 MACRO. It seems to be a good performer, given the price they go for on the flea bay

Comment Image

@ 80 mm, f/4
Link to my PPG
Anvh
Posted 12/12/2009 - 11:28 Link
Iain no need to apoligize I'm also still learning a

Offertonhatter wrote:
Here is the definition of Bokeh

In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light." Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting— "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

Nowadays, we normally call bokeh as the out of focus bit, or blur as Anvh says.

This is what Bokeh means now, they original definition of the word is this:
The quote is from this site read it if you want to learn more about it.
http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

Characterization of the blur disk
Since any image is represented by a large number of images of points, we may attempt to understand the whole by considering the blurring of a single point. An unsharply imaged point is associated with a circle of confusion, or a blur disk. This blur disk is characterized by
1. A size.
2. A shape.
3. The light distribution across the disk.

The size of the disk determines the "amount of blur". The shape of the blur patch does not need to be circular, in which case the designations "circle of confusion" or "blur disk" are misnomers. Nonetheless, for convenience the word disk will be freely used to mean a patch of arbitrary shape. Although the size and the shape of the disk are unmistakable blur characteristics, they do not touch the essence of bokeh as the Japanese intended the word. The distribution of light across the disk does [1]. However, the distinction is not always clear and what follows is intended as an overview of a variety of factors that influence the rendering of OOF image parts. Explanations of the underlying mechanisms will be brief and the reader is referred to other pages for elaborateness.


@flat4, nice photo again, that lens is very sharp btw
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Edited by Anvh: 12/12/2009 - 11:29
petemasty
Posted 12/12/2009 - 14:23 Link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16634301@N03/4178977846/
https://www.pentaxuser.com/photo/user-8430/harriet-12851

Just bought the SMC Pentax 55mm f1.8 off Blincodave. Arrived today and have been playing with it. To be used almost exclusively for portraits. Bokeh, for me, loks perfectly nice. what do u chaps think?

Have posted the link as not sure how to stick pics up on here.
Pete M
My Flickr
Edited by petemasty: 12/12/2009 - 14:29
Anvh
Posted 12/12/2009 - 18:34 Link
Have done the honours for you Pete, hope you don't mind
Comment Image



Lovely photo and great eyes she have, stunning.
Bokeh is very smooth, have seen other good photos with that lens.
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.