Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I think there is a basic misunderstanding of bokeh. Every lens will have > regions of its image which is out of focus. This out of focus area is not > synonymous with 'bokeh', from my point of view. Rather, bokeh is an > indication of how this out of focus area looks, Exactly correct, Dan. Well put. > I often tell people that I like the bokeh of images made with my 75/1.4. > But to be honest, I don't have any other 75mm lenses to compare it with. I have compared the bokeh of my 85/1.4 Contax/Zeiss with the 75/1.4 Leica lense, and the 85 is a tad harsher. > Someone posted an image earlier of a young child with a very blurry > background, to illustrate bokeh. That was me. > To me what it illustrated was shallow > depth of field. It would have been interesting (though difficult to > accomplish in all likelihood) to see the same photograph taken with a > different lens. That would have been a good illustration of bokeh. Of course it an example of DOF too. I think the OOF regions are rendered very pleasantly (hence why I used it as an example of "good", as in pleasant, bokeh)...as well as good use of bokeh, in that particular image. If the background were harsh and blotchy (which some lenses do render), still same DOF, the bokeh would have not been as good, IMO. Granted, there really isn't another 110/2 out there to compare it against...so it would be tough to get the same DOF with any other lense in MF. Happy New Year, Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html