Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From: telyt560@cswebmail.com [mailto:telyt560@cswebmail.com] > >It's one of the reasons I don't >use mirror lenses. The effect was obvious to those who live >by the long lens long before the word describing it was >introduced to the english language. That's an interesting twist on the issue. When the short-lens hoi-polloi talk about bokeh, we are usually referring to lenses in the 35 to 90mm range. But the canonical (sorry) example of "bad bokeh" is mirror-lens donuts. Are bokeh differences more visible in long teles even of normal construction? The usual technique for using wide-aperture long teles is to just crank them open and let the background mush out, so that the subject will "pop". It seems to me that when used in this way, bokeh differences would not be terribly visible. In the case of a bird sitting on a branch in a tree, shot at f/8-11 or so, I can see that bokeh might be a significant issue. Tree branches are notorious for demonstrating double-line bokeh. How much of a difference can you see between similar lens lines, Doug? Paul