Looking for "Art lens" - Your thoughts on the new Meyer-Optik Trioplan lenses

[Jack Dahlgren]

Tom,

The leaf at the lower left looks like a double exposure - is that a characteristic of the foreground boke for this lens?

[Tom Hook]

Tom,

The leaf at the lower left looks like a double exposure - is that a characteristic of the foreground boke for this lens?

Jack, I don't think so. The lens is the Nikon 300 2.8 VR 1, which normally exhibits very smooth bokeh. This picture was shot at 1/90th of a second, probably on a tripod, shooting west in the late afternoon with the woods as a background. It was taken last fall so most of the particulars of the shot have faded from memory. Maybe the leaf was moving in the wind as sometimes happens with leaves where one is still and another nearby is not. I never noticed the apparent double exposure until you pointed it out. I wish I knew how to reproduce it at will but I don't have that talent! 

Tom
 

[Roland Vink]

The "double exposure" leaf has at least two sources of light behind it, each in a different position. The leaf is also out of focus, and each back-light shines through the out of focus edges slightly differently, giving an apparent double image. Not sure I'm explaining it very well, hopefully you understand what I mean...

[Tom Hook]

The "double exposure" leaf has at least two sources of light behind it, each in a different position. The leaf is also out of focus, and each back-light shines through the out of focus edges slightly differently, giving an apparent double image. Not sure I'm explaining it very well, hopefully you understand what I mean...

Roland,

Very interesting explanation that I have to give some thought to. When the late afternoon sun shines through the woods does it somehow reflect, bend or splinter the light to give multiple sources coming from slightly different angles as it hits the out of focus leaf? My explanation of what you said may be utterly stupid but I'm trying to understand.

[Roland Vink]

Because the leaf is out of focus, each point on the leaf is rendered as a blur (circle of confusion). If the backlit illumination comes from two point sources on either side, the light forming that circle will be dominated by those two circles, and they will remain relatively well defined within the circle. Each point will therefore create a relatively focused image slightly displaced from the other, creating the impression of a double image. The attached diagram attempts to show how it works.

[David H. Hartman]

It may be worth adding that the blur circle will appear proportionally bigger when a smaller format is used, in the same way a given lens appears proportionally "longer" (narrower angle of view) on smaller formats.

If only this made up for the less blurred backgrounds of a 70/2.8 lens on a DX camera as compared to a 105/2.8 lens on an FX camera I would have been much happier with DX as a general use format.

I wanted an FX camera before Nikon made one. When I first put my AF 35-70/2.8D on my new D300s I was disappointed even thought what I saw was what I expected. When I first put my 105/2.5 AIS on my new D800 I knew I was home.

There are however some advantages to the smaller DX format such that I would love to own a D500. What I need most of all is time.

Dave

http://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/

http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-70mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

Here is a link I'll read tomorrow if I have time. I cheated and went to the summary after a little reading...

Summary (in which I tell you what you knew already)

Generalities are nice. Once the volume of information increases beyond a certain point, we need generalities to stop our heads from exploding. Things like "increasing your focal length gives you more background blur" simplifies a much more complicated situation such that we can make intelligent decisions within a limited scope.

So what did we learn today, children?

  A larger aperture gives you more background blur: You knew this already, but the important thing is that at any given focal length, subject, and background distance, the size of the defocus blur circle will increase in a linear way inversely proportional to f/number (or, alternatively, it'll grow linearly with the size of the aperture).
   
  A longer focal length doesn't always equal more background blur if you're a nit-picking fuckwit like me: In fact, the exact opposite happens if you have the same absolute aperture and keep the framing the same by stepping back as you increase the focal length.

    With the same relative aperture (f/number), it does hold true, with a background at infinity. As the background gets closer to the subject, once the focal length increases beyond a certain point, this becomes increasingly less true -- you get diminishing returns.

  Smaller formats mean less background blur: Given any relative aperture and any given framing of a subject, a larger film format will result in more background blur. This is because given any subject distance, background distance and relative aperture, increasing the focal length results in a disproportionate growth of the defocus blur circle.

--http://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/

I hope this page isn't a gag. Given one man's straight faced You Tube videos on how to double or triple your internet download speeds... 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Put the 105/1.4 E on the D500 and you have all the blurs you would wish for - and more

[David H. Hartman]

Put the 105/1.4 E on the D500 and you have all the blurs you would wish for - and more

If only...

---

In a portrait situation a 105mm lens on DX is longer than I like and gives a flatter or more aloof perspective.

[Tom Hook]

Because the leaf is out of focus, each point on the leaf is rendered as a blur (circle of confusion). If the backlit illumination comes from two point sources on either side, the light forming that circle will be dominated by those two circles, and they will remain relatively well defined within the circle. Each point will therefore create a relatively focused image slightly displaced from the other, creating the impression of a double image. The attached diagram attempts to show how it works.

Roland, Thank you for the further explanation and the nice diagram. I understand everything up to the point where you posit two point sources of light. The picture I took was facing woods and extended wetlands where no other light source (such as houses, streetlights etc.) save the sun was facing me and the camera. That leads me to ask again if was a reflection or the sun shining through the trees (or some other physical action) causing the sunlight to break into different streams of light. Light can do a variety things - one of the great appeals of photography - and this seems to be one of them.

Again I appreciate your thoughtful answer.

[Roland Vink]

Hi Tom, you are on the right track. If you look at the picture, you can see multiple circles of light in the background, each one coming from the bright sky filtering through leaves in the far background. This is where the multiple sources of light is coming from.