Best Bokeh Lens
STOP STARING AT MY WIFE'S BOOBS!!!!
LOL
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?
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.
K.
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
@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!
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.
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....
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.
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
@ 80 mm, f/4
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
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.
My Flickr
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
172 posts
15 years
Ljubljana,
Slovenia
p.s. DA* 50-135 is very good bokeh-wise, not to mention sharpness.