Re: [Leica] What is bad bokeh?

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

Hi John,

My 35mm system consists of a Leica M4, current 50/2.8 Elmar and a Canadian
35mm Summicron.

I never experimented much with the boke of a lens at the sorts of distances
you mention! Seem to recall the Photo Techniques article mentioning that
sometimes, these qualities change at different focus distances. I was using
the 80/2.8 Zeiss Planar at 1:1 much of the time!

I expect that it won't be considered sterling in this regard either
(probably rates as having "cross-eyed boke") but I did like the 35-70/2.8
AF-Nikkor very much, and had lots of fun photographing objects near and far,
at home and abroad. Only complaint was that it was large, heavy and
none-too-subtle. I used to own a 50/1.8 AI Nikkor and liked it lots too,
more so than the 1.4 my dad had in the '70s.

How do you like your Leica Rs? I briefly had an R4s with winder and grip. I
never bothered to get lenses, because I soon discovered that while I liked
the size and feel of the basic R4 package, it was very strange to have an
electronic camera with no master power switch, TTL metering, but no means to
manually meter without taking one's eye from the finder, and a winder which
did not rewind film, and which, when the attractive grip was added, could
essentially only be used in continuous mode! I like the way Leica is
experimenting with camera design with the R8, but I wonder why a manual
focus, manual-wind camera had to be so large

Jeff
- -----Original Message-----
From: John McLeod <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>
To: Leica-users <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] What is bad bokeh?


>Jeff --
>
>Thanks for the reply.  I agree with everything you said.  This Nikon 50/1.4
>is very sharp, but certain out-of-focus (OUF) areas look horrible --
>overally contrasty, harsh, and "digitized" as my wife said, very
>distracting.  Interesting in that it is only in some shots.  If it's a
>closeup and the background is totally blown out, the OUF looks fine.  But
if
>it's a full body shot at say 2.8 or 4.0, the OUF is very distracting.  Sure
>it is going to be a little busier than you'll get at 1.4 on a head shot,
but
>some of these images are verging on the ridiculous.  Even my
>non-photographer wife and mother both commented that something was "wrong"
>and "unnatural" with the these shots.
>
>After seeing this problem, I would say the best OUF areas should be
natural,
>unobtrusive, somewhat soft and vague looking.  The Nikon 50 makes the OUF
>areas stand out.  Some of it may be related to the inherent contrast of the
>lens.  Nikon lenses, in general, I think are noted for contrast.  Sometimes
>this can work against an image.
>
>I'm a little crazy with this whole issue at the moment because I just
>plunked down almost $3,000 for an F5 and 50/1.4.  Now I'm wondering if I
>shouldn't have just gone for the R8 (I already have 2 R6's and three R
>lenses), even though I find the R8 somewhat uncomfortable to hold (too fat
>and chunky front to back).  Never thought I'd sell a Nikon body or lens
>because of the OUF areas though.
>
>I can't remember what system you use Jeff?
>
>John
>----------
>From: "Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: [Leica] What is bad bokeh?
>Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:09:01 -0700
>
>John,
>A number of months ago, Photo Techniques had a handful of very good
articles
>describing "boke" (pronounced "bo keh"). Believe it was the June '97 issue,
>and if back issues are still available, well worth seeking--they have
photos
>to illustrate! What I found especially interesting were the statements that
>Canon, Nikon and others know how to design it into a lens, and in fact,
>sometimes do.
>
>What I mostly notice in a lens which is good at it is that optically, it's
a
>good balance, maybe flaring a bit easily, but in a way resulting in
>localized loss of contrast, not a ugly light blotch surrounded by entirely
>flare-free bits, and perhaps not seeming to be razor-sharp or ultra high
>contrast, but producing a nice, smooth (not soft!) consistency which
>encourages experimentation with large apertures and shallow depth of field.
>
>Among others, I've really enjoyed using a late '60s 80/2.8 Zeiss Planar on
a
>Rolleiflex SL66-wonderful setup for macro use, where shallow depth of field
>is unavoidable.
>
>Other optics, such as the 75 and 150mm Mamiya Six lenses, and various MF
>Fujinons, have been very different beasts, capable of dazzling,
razor-sharp,
>contrasty results, but for the most part, I preferred to have no
significant
>out-of-focus elements in my shots, or if it were unavoidable, chose
>relatively featureless elements.
>
>For most shooting, I've found that good boke, accompanied by a slight loss
>of apparent sharpness and contrast, is easier to live with than dazzling
>apparent sharpness and contrast (crispy critters!), and so-so boke, but
>certain accomodations can be made--I got a number of good cityscapes and
>some brilliant 'chromes from the Fujis and Mamiyas--I just toss out the
ones
>that show out-of-focus gremlins :-)
>
>Jeff
>
>PS: The visual gremlins that I toss out quickest are: backlit dark foliage
>with hexagonal highlights, annoyingly hard-edged (despite being out of
>focus!) background elements or clumped-up dark masses
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John McLeod <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>
>>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 :)
?
>
>
>
>