Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:36 PM 3/15/98 +0000, you wrote: > >LUGgers - > >I have a passing familiarity with what "bokeh" is, but am curious if there >is a consensus on what good bokeh is (compared with, say, "bad" bokeh :) ? >I just took some Kodachrome 64 slides with a Nikon 50/1.4 lens (I generally >use Leicas). The slides were very sharp, saturation was good, but the out >of focus areas had a choppy look. By "choppy" I mean that the out of focus >images were not smooth. It was like looking at 2 or 3 outlines of an image, >rather than the 1 that was in front of the lens -- distracting. Am I seeing >bad bokeh here or do I just need glasses (help Dr. Clompus -- just kidding)? > >John McLeod > After reading the Photo Techniques articles "A Primer on Bokeh", I've come to the conclusion that it's a term that describes what we all knew existed, but didn't know how to describe. Like art, it's a very personal thing. Some people like French Country decor. Others like Danish Modern. Think of "Leica Glow" when you think of Bokeh. A third version of the 35/2 M lens has good Bokeh. A 100/2.8 APO R lens has bad Bokeh. From my point of view. I have both lenses. The 35 at f/2 produces a glow. The 100 APO at any aperture will jar your teeth loose! Jim