Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 15:11:37 -0800 Charles Dunlap
><cdunlap@emerald.ucsc.edu> writes:
>
>>Bokeh is like smell. Something that smells strongly can smell good or
>bad. Something with "Lots of Bokeh" is not neccessarily pleasing. I had
>a Nikon lens with lots of Bokeh, and I stopped shooting with it.<<
>
>It is not necessary
>for the author of a lens test/evaluation article to draw a conclusion
>about the quality of the Bokeh, but at least show it as PT has done and
>let the reader draw their own.
I agree, Don. I should have specified that my "lots of Bokeh" Nikkor was
wide open. One could describe the Bokeh at f/16, however, if something is
closer than the minimum focussing distance. Usually, this isn't what
concerns folks, though.
I was also glad to see Ctein's bokeh photos in the PT review. Bokeh was
also discussed in the shoddy review of Contax vs. Leica standard lenses in
that issue. Apparently they liked the Summicron bokeh over the Planar.
A final note: the bokeh on my Nikkor 60mm macro is very nice (soft and
blurry, which is how I like it). It's hit and miss with Nikon. It's much
more consistently good with Leica M lenses, although I hear that the 35
f/1.4 ASPH isn't as nice in the out of focus areas as the f/2. I wish
someone with an abundance of equipment would post a few comparison shots,
but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
- -Charlie
- --------------------------------------------
Charles E. Dunlap
Earth Sciences Department
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Tel.: (408) 459-5228 Fax.: (408) 459-3074
mailto:cdunlap@es.ucsc.edu
- --------------------------------------------