Bokeh by any other name would smell as sweet......

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

'Bokeh,' as an English (or any European language's) loan word, refers, in the context of photography, to what in Japanese is 'bo-ke aji'—i. e. the taste, or quality, of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph ... and not the degree thereof.

 

We don't need another word for 'blur.' But we do need a word for 'the quality of the blur in the blurred areas'. And 'bokeh' it is.

[Jeff S]

As Mike Johnston explained.... along with his reason to create the spelling of bokeh, i.e., to avoid mispronunciation.

 

Jeff

[Docderm]

Would love to have more input on alternative lenses to Noctilux to get great bokeh. 

It is a sizable investment to get a Noctilux, so other options much appreciated. 

 

Please include photo's with the recommended lens

Thanks!

[Docderm]

Nokton 1.1 50mm anyone? 

[caissa]

Why restrict yourself to 50mm ?

In 80, 90 or 100mm it is easier to find "bokeh" - even in 135 or 180.

What about Nikon 2/135 DC   (DC = Defocus Control, "bokeh" control)

 

Or the "famous" Trioplan lenses from Meyer optics (vintage or newly announced versions in SL mount).

Maybe already too much blur for many uses. (there is a classic trioplan 100mm, a 50mm and soon a "new" 35mm)

[profus]

Nikkor 50/1.2 AiS on Leica SL wide open - not Noctilux league, but still very good.

It helps too, that it is 15-20 X cheaper than Nocti

 

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nikkor 50/1.2 AiS on Leica SL wide open - not Noctilux league, but still very good.

It helps too, that it is 15-20 X cheaper than Nocti

 

 

 

 The transitions and out of focus area is so very smooth!  

Would you have a portrait, or some other sample photographs, taken wide open? It is difficult for me to determine how the Nikkor renders the in-focus area.

Thanks, Rob

[ramarren]

I couldn't care less what 'everyone' does when what 'everyone' does is foolish. Bokeh is one thing, out-of-focus blur is another thing.

 

Can you offer us examples of out-of-focus  vs bokeh?

.

 

 

That's not a useful direction to query along. 

 

The difference between 'out of focus blur' and 'bokeh' lies in the definition of the terms: 'out of focus blur' refers to how defocused the element of the image is, bokeh refer to the quality of that defocus. All lenses produce 'out of focus blur' depending on what focus setting and aperture is used, and it's easy to measure how much 'out of focus blur' is evident.

 

All lenses also have bokeh associated with the 'out of focus blur' they produce. Bokeh, however, is a qualitative assessment of that blur and has no metric—it can be "harsh" or "pleasing", can imply "hollow donut" highlights or "doubled lines" on geometric patterns. It can be variable dependent upon the scene content, focus distance, lens opening, all combined together. 

 

Using the term bokeh to mean 'out of focus blur' degrades the ability to articulate what characteristic in a photo you're talking about. It's difficult to have a sensible conversation on the subject if you can't distinguish these fine differences in what you are looking at. 

[jaapv]

And a lens will render bokeh differently at different  distances too... Bokeh at infinity will often have another character than at f.i.10 meters...

[Docderm]

Thanks for all the input.

 

Any takers on the question of the Nokton F1.1 50mm lens? 

 

How about Bokeh with the Summilux 50mm M lens vs Noctilux? Anyone have any sample pictures to share which demonstrate the similarity/difference with the same subject at the same distance? 

[ramarren]

So, following on from my prior comment, if you want "great bokeh like the Noctilux", buy a Noctilux. Every lens has a different rendering signature for its out of focus blur, no two are exactly alike, and no single example of a scene with defocused elements will be enough to describe all the possible ways that a lens can render a scene. There is no metric for bokeh so attempting to point to one lens and say "it has better bokeh" is pretty much a waste of time. Better than what? In what way?

 

My Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, Nokton 50mm f/1.4 ASPH, and new Summicron-M 50mm f/2 all have "good" bokeh, when I've figured out the right aperture for a particular subject at a particular distance. There are no hard and fast rules. None of them look like a Noctilux, which has its own unique imaging signature.

[dancook]

50mm 1.4 Summilux

 

I haven't had the 50 M at the same time, as I sold it then bought the SL

 

Leica-M

 

gt_open_mic_0202_kings_head-18 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

L1130942 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

Lakuta by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

Not got a lot with the 50SL yet but.. will actually be shooting some live music with it tonight and tomorrow..

 

harry-potter-8 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

harry-potter-12 by dancook1982, on Flickr

[taosantamonica]

MP240  R80/lux

 

 

M9P .095

 

 

MM1 75/lux

 

MP240  75/lux

 

 

 

SL R80/lux

 

[phovsho]

At the risk of taking the thread in another direction - though it is related to the wider bokeh / blur discussion...

 

I always (naively?) thought that the DoF (the boundary for where blur begins from the viewer's perspective) for any lense was a function of:

 

1. Distance to focus point

2. Focal length

3. Aperture

 

That is any 50mm lens with aperture set to f2.0 and focused at say 2 metres followed the same/very similar rates of decay from focus to blur. The only difference between 50/2s was how they managed/presented that blur (bokeh).

 

I never for example thought that a differentiator between lenses of the same focal length and aperture was the rate at which focus decayed.

 

Yet, when I read the interview with the Leica designer about the new SL summicron primes it seemed to be suggested that these lenses will render like luxes. That's how I interpreted if.

 

So, is rate of decay (my term) from focus to noticeable blur a design parameter? Is it an area getting more and more attention in design as Useable ISO increases? Can we expect to see in the future 50/1.4s with DOF attributes similar to the noctilux at 0.95?

 

As I said, this could be a naive question or I may have misinterpreted the interview.

 

Best

 

M

[Docderm]

Great question, Phovsho  ....anyone have answers? 

Thanks!

[pico]

We cannot understand bokeh unless we use  various lenses. I might post some examples however most are old MF lenses. What you all are missing is disappointing to me.

 

My website hasn't had an addition for too long, but to blend a couple posts this is my friend Drake, a documentary photographer, on the RR tracks doing his thing. He looks forward doing photos, I look behind watching for trains.

 

The bokeh is clear. More extreme examples have yet to be uploaded because I only scan wet prints and I've been lazy. (Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9 vintage 1952)

 

[Docderm]

Conceptual question to you all: 

 

Is the key advantage to Bokeh with the Noctilux 0.95 is that is can achieve a degree of background blurring as a 50mm lens which it would otherwise require an 80mm or longer F1.4 lens to achieve? 

 

Another way of thinking about it....If you want this much blurring of the defocussed area and also the point of view of a 50mm lens then you can't achieve it with  an 80mm lens at F1.4   They both might give a very similar degree of blurring of the defocussed area but they won't give the same rendering of the subject. They are different focal length lenses. 

[pico]

Conceptual question to you all: 

 

Is the key advantage to Bokeh with the Noctilux 0.95 is that is can achieve a degree of background blurring as a 50mm lens [...]

 

Bokeh is the character of a lens at a particular distance and F-Stop. Bokeh was an enticing characteristic in Leia lenses until genius Peter Karbe derailed Mandler's designs. Since Karbe's brilliantly redesigned lenses in his name, 'bokeh' and 'oof' have become cruel and harsh. To me his creations are unappealing. However as I have written before, someone had to design a lens perfect at point of focus, and it is good that Leica/Karbe has made it so to make it a point in history, for better or worse.

 

Now that we have the perfect Karbe lenses we can move beyond optical perfection to aesthetics.

.

[01af]

I always (naively?) thought that the depth-of-field (the boundary for where blur begins from the viewer's perspective) for any lens was a function of:

• Distance to focus point
• Focal length
• Aperture

Well yes, that's the basic truth ... albeit not the entire truth. In fact, there are more factors affecting depth-of-field ... some in a definite way which can be captured in formulas (such as pupil magnification), others in indefinite ways which cannot (such as kind and degree of residual spheric aberrations).

 

 

That is, any 50 mm lens with aperture set to f/2 and focused at, say, 2 metres followed the same or very similar rates of decay from focus to blur. The only difference between 50/2s was how they managed/presented that blur (bokeh).

 

Well no, it's not that easy. The ubiquitous text-book formulas for depth-of-field suggest it was—but in real life, it isn't.

 

 

I never for example thought that a differentiator between lenses of the same focal length and aperture was the rate at which focus decayed.

And yet it's true.

 

 

So, is rate of decay (my term) from focus to noticeable blur a design parameter?

Well yes and no. Yes, the kind and gradient of the transition from in-focus sharpness to out-of-focus blur indeed depends on the lens design. But no, this dependency is not a 'design parameter' but it is complex, multi-dimensional, and not yet fully understood. It's the art of lens design, not just a simple parameter to tweak.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pico]

In the nineteenth century lens designers were mainly concerned with rendering pleasing results and spherical aberration was their friend while centre resolution remained a trademark.  Photographers made great efforts to chose which rendition a lens might produce a marketable image. Center resolution was important but the rest of the image was left to their taste in impressionism and thus their choice of lens,

 

At some point variable soft-focus lenses came to popularity. The lenses exploited spherical aberration, even when some of them were very sharp at smaller apertures. They had the best of both worlds.

 

ASIDE: I have paid attention to the Large Format Information site for many years and know the misunderstandings of 'soft focus' and 'bokeh' are rampant. The only person who seems to know and practice the art is Mr. Jim Galli.