Various lenses and their bokeh qualities

[Fons Baerken]

Came across this site looking for information on the nikkor O 55mm f/1.2,

http://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/

by photographer Toby Marshall

[John Geerts]

Interesting examples. Thanks for the link.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Yep know him!

Could we please write "bokeh" as it is spoken and commenly written? THX!

[Airy]

I heard a British photographer saying bokey

[Akira]

Interesting.  So far as I'm aware, the bokeh of my CRT is not that busy...

The pronunciation of "bokey" can be quite different from that of the original Japanese word.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Interesting.  So far as I'm aware, the bokeh of my CRT is not that busy...

The pronunciation of "bokey" can be quite different from that of the original Japanese word.

Akira, it massively depends on the background, as a busy BG often leads to "crazy" bokeh, and just a little shift and it gets very smooth.
Have this very often with my lenses, admittedly when I shoot out in nature...

Here for example:





Shot using a Carl Zeiss Jena VISIONAR 1.9/168mm projection lens

[Seapy]

It would appear that a slight change of position or view with the same background produces a rather different effect.

It appears the tulip on the right moved during exposure.  The point remains good, what troubles me with many of theses  very narrow focus lenses is the frequent harsh rendering of the background.  It appears that the contrast in the background image seems to influence that rendering, particularly highlights which seem to be rendered as rings or circular doughnuts which to me negates the whole idea of trying to create a smooth, non distracting background.

I wonder if flat lighting (cloudy) rather than direct sunlight might make a big difference, by avoiding the strong contrast and highlights.

[Peter Forsell]

Thanks Fons, interesting site. I am not quite sure why, but the examples of the boke of the CRT Nikkor brought a smile to my face.... something airy and whimsical about it and not something I've often seen. Fabulous, kind of a "feel good" rendering. 

[Les Olson]

I wonder if flat lighting (cloudy) rather than direct sunlight might make a big difference, by avoiding the strong contrast and highlights.

Yes, because rendering of low-contrast, or colour-only out of focus transitions is a different thing from rendering of highlights.  "Bokeh" usually refers to the rendering of out of focus highlights, but sometimes that is mixed up with rendering of low-contrast transitions. 

Highlights are imaged at the size and shape of the aperture, and in the absence of spherical aberration the rendering is smooth-edged and uniform - not blurry at all.  It is only spherical aberration that makes out-of-focus highlights blurry. Under-corrected spherical aberration gives highlights behind the focal plane brighter centres and fuzzy edges - the look everyone likes - while highlights in front of the focal plane have darker centres and sharp, bright rims; over-corrected spherical aberration gives the reverse.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

It would appear that a slight change of position or view with the same background produces a rather different effect.

It appears the tulip on the right moved during exposure.  The point remains good, what troubles me with many of theses  very narrow focus lenses is the frequent harsh rendering of the background.  It appears that the contrast in the background image seems to influence that rendering, particularly highlights which seem to be rendered as rings or circular doughnuts which to me negates the whole idea of trying to create a smooth, non distracting background.

I wonder if flat lighting (cloudy) rather than direct sunlight might make a big difference, by avoiding the strong contrast and highlights.

There was no movement, it is the extremely shallow DOF of that 1.9/168mm lens and its special rendering. It is a Double Gauss design (6e/6g)

[Akira]

Akira, it massively depends on the background, as a busy BG often leads to "crazy" bokeh, and just a little shift and it gets very smooth.
Have this very often with my lenses, admittedly when I shoot out in nature...

Here for example:

Shot using a Carl Zeiss Jena VISIONAR 1.9/168mm projection lens

Klaus, thank you for the note.  Probably I haven't seen the busy bokeh of CRT myself simply because I have used my CRT only at its designed magnification or larger using M2 ring where bokeh tends to be so large that even the otherwise busy bokeh would become creamy...

[Toby]

Hi,
That’s me. Glad to meet you all. I’m pretty much always shooting wide open, at which aperture the CRT Nikkor can give pretty crazy results in terms of bokeh rendering. I’m sometimes down to f1.4 to cut down on highlight “bloom” but past that the unique rendering gets pretty tame. Much as I love Michael’s stunning work (which first got me interested in these lenses) I don’t have the patience for tripods and stages and stacking. Of course at very close focusing distances, unique bokeh effects get lessened (just as at longer focusing distances.) For us bokeholics, it is a game of finding the optimal focusing distance and depth relationship of objects for a given focal length and aperture.

To weigh in on the bokeh pronunciation debate: Having spent more than three decades in Japan, for me it can only be bo-KEH. Hearing BO-ka, as many Americans insist on pronouncing it, kind of makes my skin crawl, and I am set to thinking about places in Florida and veggie burgers. But not as bad as hearing karaoke pronounced “carry okie”, so I count my blessings.

[jgould2]

Hi all.

I only looked at the results for about 10 of the lenses but that is the ugliest bokeh I ever saw. They mostly remind me of the horrible bokeh from mirror lenses.

I did like the background photo on his web site.

JIM

[Michael Erlewine]

IMO, the kind of "bokeh" at the site linked, after about the first one (which is pleasant), just does not interest me. It is too much for me and I find it harsh and no fun looking at. Just shows how we each are different and see (and like) things differently.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

IMO, the kind of "bokeh" at the site linked, after about the first one (which is pleasant), just does not interest me. It is too much for me and I find it harsh and no fun looking at. Just shows how we each are different and see (and like) things differently.

It all came basically from some Asian photographers who developed some interest in that kind of "crazy" bokeh - and the price of thoese lenses, especially Dallmeyer went through the roof. This then triggered some interest in Indonesia, Europe and the US and people took out their Triolpans and posted many "soap bubble" images (still do) and the price of that lens went crazy too. BUt this was rather moderate bokeh.

There is another direction, showing very creamy and smooth BG rendering, so just the opposite of the above, especially for shooting portraits with needed BG separation, hence where very long and very fast lenses came in fashion, namely the Zeiss Visionar and other high speed, double gauss projection lenses (like Bausch & Lomb, ISCO, Schneider,...). I personally tend to this latter type more, but sometimes it itches me to do the "asian crazy bokeh style" just for the fun of it...

PS: please be reminded that Toby uses software for micro contrast and structural enhancements to bring out this "special" bokeh, most such lenses behave much more "normal" if used "out of cam" ... so don't blame such lenses please, if you do not like such, they can perform much more pleasing.... :-)

So there is obviously room for both and plenty of suitable lenses to support both "tastes". ;-)