Re: Bokeh:a mythical construct

[aglang@sprynet.com]

I agree, there ARE differences in the out of focus areas of a photograph. Since 
I started using Leicas I have used and loved images from the (final v 4) 35 
Summicron. I wondered why I had never much liked the images from my old Canon 
35/2 FD SSC. Took some test shots at F2.8 and F4 with both oof foreground and 
background. Big difference the Summicron oof areas were much smoother.......

Adam

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Joe Berenbaum <joe-b@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>At 13:57 18/11/97 +0100, you wrote:
><snipped>
>>'Bokeh' to state it quite clearly does not exist. The concept is supposed
>>to elucidate the out-of-focus characteristics of certain lenses, some of
>>them made by Leitz and Leica.
>>In fact is a marvelous piece of self-suggestion, of the kind David
>>Copperfield should be proud of. It is a well known fact that vision can be
>>influenced by what you think or like to percieve. 'Bokeh' falls in this
>>catagory: it has no sound scientific, not even factual basis.
>
>I noticed a characteristic with Nikon 50mm lenses with apertures greater
>than f2.0; the out of focus parts of the picture, usually noticable in the
>background of portraits, had an unpleasant quality where edges of out of
>focus background objects was doubled or fragmented in some way and was very
>distracting. I noticed when I started using Leica lenses a few years ago
>that this appeared to be absent with the 50mm lenses. This was before I'd
>ever headr of "Bokeh". I've used five Leica 50mm M lenses and two 50mm R
>lenses of maximum aperture f2.0 or greater and these have all been like
>this. Looking back to a number of pictures taken about ten years ago with an
>old Minolta 58mm/1.4 Rokkor, it compares well with the Leica lenses in this
>respect; the same smoother out-of-focus background is visible in the
>portraits. More recent portraits with a Nikon 50/1.4 AF Nikkor are spoiled
>by the effect this lens has at full aperture on one of the subjects who is
>not in focus; frankly it looks awful. Similar shots with a 50mm Summicron M
>and Summilux look very different- the out of focus subject is simply out of
>focus and is not otherwise altered. My current Nikon 50mm/1.8 af lens sits
>unused in a drawer- I have no inclination to use it whatsoever, and should
>probably sell it. I have the images I'm talking about here- I'm not just
>imagining this. The difference between the out of focus parts of the picture
>with these standard Nikon and Leica lenses, when compared, is very visible.
>If it is visible, I'm not overly worried about whether it has a scientific
>basis. I expect it will be said to have a scientific basis eventually- maybe
>when it is better understood. I'm no expert. I'll just keep using the lenses
>that don't mess up the out of focus backgrounds of my pictures.
>
>Joe Berenbaum
>