Which lens has the best bokeh in the A lineup?

[dpyy]

Which lens has the best bokeh in the A lineup? I hear that the 2470 and 1635, even the new 50 does not do well in this department. Assuming that I want to keep with Sony lens and not Sigma/Tamron, which lens has the best bokeh?

 

[John Tait]

dpyy, are you still with us? I'm sorry if your thread has gone astray. You can see the can of worms you open when you use the word "best".

 

[moimoi]

moimoi wrote:

Two opposite styles with two different goals.

Sure if one seeks for buttery background, get the 135 mm lens. If one seeks for more nervousness and circle of light, then avoid that lens. You are part of the former group, and I prefer the latter.

It is a matter of taste.
--

Hi Moimoi,

I completely support your position as stated here and think anyone who says this implies a lack of skill is both wrong and out of line. Lighten up, you guys! I do think it was a mistake on your part to say in one post that the STF doesn't have good bokeh, and it's triggered strong reactions. I think most photographers, and all of the reviewers I've read, consider smooth and creamy a highly desirable type of bokeh and few lenses can consistently produce it. I don't say it is the only type of desirable bokeh.

Personally, I love my STF and the bokeh it produces, but I also love circles of light if used skillfully. I think you must mean something different than I do by "nervous". It makes me think of my Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM when the background is high contrast dappled light through leaves. The bokeh is very "nervous" and it pulls attention away from my subject. Maybe you can point to some specific examples of nervous bokeh that looks good to you so we'll know what you mean.

I also want to add that anyone questioning your skill should look at the many excellent photographs you've posted.

John

John,

I hear you. At the moment, I am on a smartphone, so not easy for me to dig up some samples from the web. I will look at it whenever I come back from my trip.

Nervousness might not be the right word indeed.

From what I have remembered, some samples from the Leica 50 mm 0.95 were stunning.

I need to dog this up.

Cheers,

Moimoi

 

[WaltKnapp]

moimoi wrote:

If one reads me, I will suggest to checks some samples taken with the Leica 50 mm f/0.95. It is superb if you are aiming at circles of light.

Just a note, the thread is about best bokeh in the A lineup. Did not know Leica lenses came in A mount?

 

[WaltKnapp]

brian14478 wrote:

Beside the stf, which isnt really practical or versatile but does what it does very well, my vote goes for the sigma 75-200 2.8/3.5

I always got the feeling that folks tend to use the STF more for a single separation between focused and unfocused, where one can also use it on layers of different DOF, which adds more uses. Try shooting with the STF where you have not tried it before. Even where bokeh is not the primary focus of it's use.

There are lots of lenses that are useful for only limited purposes, don't think that rules them out at all. Or makes them impractical. Each lens you have gives you new views of the world, you just have to find those views.

 

[theswede #100093]

I always got the feeling that folks tend to use the STF more for a single separation between focused and unfocused, where one can also use it on layers of different DOF, which adds more uses. Try shooting with the STF where you have not tried it before. Even where bokeh is not the primary focus of it's use.

This is precisely my point. It's a tool like any other, and it's amazing at what it's designed to do. Smooth bokeh can be used for a lot more than just smearing out a background, as your beautiful photo (which has nothing boring at all in its bokeh) shows.

There are lots of lenses that are useful for only limited purposes, don't think that rules them out at all. Or makes them impractical. Each lens you have gives you new views of the world, you just have to find those views.

Exactly this. Anyone categorically stating that what a particular lense provides is not useful (even to their taste) is doing nothing but limiting themselves. They're most certainly not making any kind of useful observation, except about their own limitation.

Jesper

 

[RussAdams]

Minolta Rokkor - modified to A mount - can be fantastic. Swapping mounts can be easily done for *some* lenses. The 58mm lenses are easy to modify. And the old Minolta Rokkor 58 f1.2 is supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made, with a great bokeh to boot.

I have the 58 f1.4, and it is a fantastic, although manual, lens. I got lucky and picked it up on eBay already modified.

Check out this night shot, and look at the bokeh in the near frame in addition to the far frame:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2317122459/photos/1433838/ha-penny-bridge-dublin-resized-_dsc0086

And this one, taken indoors:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2317122459/photos/1440666/dublin-marty-says-hello-_dsc0115

I focused on the far eye, unfortunately. But it illustrates the capabilities of the old Rokkor lenses once they have been adapted for Sony A mount.

These were downsized because DPReview didn't allow 24mb pix at the time I uploaded them.

Love that lens! Would love to buy the 58 1.2, but it's a pricey toy and the 1.4 does an admirable job and only cost me a tad over $100 iirc.

Russ

 

[Rashkae]

Those are not native to A mount.

 

[RussAdams]

Rashkae wrote:

Those are not native to A mount.

Welllll... at least it's a Minolta. LOL.

It certainly IS cheating. And boy am I happy with the results - all the way to the bank.

 

[moimoi]

WaltKnapp wrote:

moimoi wrote:

If one reads me, I will suggest to checks some samples taken with the Leica 50 mm f/0.95. It is superb if you are aiming at circles of light.

Just a note, the thread is about best bokeh in the A lineup. Did not know Leica lenses came in A mount?

If you read carefully, I had already mentioned three lenses in the A mount. Read my posts carefully next time.

This is what I wrote in my first post:

"I think the Sony Zeiss 135 mm f/1.8 and 85 mm f/1.4 excel in that department. I have heard the Minolta 100 mm f/2 was excellent as well.

The 135 STF f/2.8 produces very buttery bokeh, but the bokeh has poor dynamic, i.e. not nervous enough, good for macro but boring for portraits. A niche lens.

Cheers,

Moimoi"

The Leica was just an example to look at superb bokeh. The 50mm f/0.95 is superb.
If one looks, they should find some pretty interesting samples of what I called good bokeh!

 

[moimoi]

Now that I am back on a computer, I can type freely about what I wrote a week of so ago.

I had selected 3 lenses (Sony 85 f/1.4, Sony 135 f/1.8 and Minolta 100 f/2) for which I found the bokeh quite nice. Please use flicker so that you can have a look for yourself, there are some interesting samples out there.

More importantly, I mentioned the fact I was not of fan of the 135 MM STF f/2.8, and I still stand on the same ground about this lens ;-)). Personally, when I think of bokeh, I don't think of "buttery" or "creamy" oof areas of the photographs. The lack of dynamic in those backgrounds are striking, and they bored me when I look at that type of photographs. Some people may thing differently, and that's fine, and I believe the difference of opinions is relatively healthy. I think it is very wise to keep in mind that there is NO "best bokeh in the world", it all depends on your tastes and what your guts feel, this is all what photography is about. I do like bokeh, I do like it a lot when it is done well, and I seek for some dynamic in the shots, I want circle of lights, I seek for something I can't see from my naked eyes, I want the whole atmospheric background to be part of the photograph, and I do not seek for an utterly flat background which just fills the frame without providing any mood in the photo.

Cheers,

moimoi

Minolta 100 f/2



PS: I did not take that photo



--
All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.
Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

 

[theswede #100093]

More importantly, I mentioned the fact I was not of fan of the 135 MM STF f/2.8, and I still stand on the same ground about this lens ;-)). Personally, when I think of bokeh, I don't think of "buttery" or "creamy" oof areas of the photographs. The lack of dynamic in those backgrounds are striking, and they bored me when I look at that type of photographs.

All that shows is you haven't seen many photos with that lense.

Loading…

tinypic.com

Loading…

timberwolf.zenfolio.com

Loading…

www.tomiandmichael.com

What you call "lack of dynamic" I call "lousy technique".

I want the whole atmospheric background to be part of the photograph, and I do not seek for an utterly flat background which just fills the frame without providing any mood in the photo.

Nothing stops you from using the STF in that manner except you yourself. There is nothing in the STF stopping you from getting what you want *when the conditions call for it*. Like any other lense it's not for every shot you want to take.

PS: I did not take that photo

An excellent example of good use of bad bokeh!

Jesper

 

[WaltKnapp]

theswede wrote:

I want the whole atmospheric background to be part of the photograph, and I do not seek for an utterly flat background which just fills the frame without providing any mood in the photo.

Nothing stops you from using the STF in that manner except you yourself. There is nothing in the STF stopping you from getting what you want *when the conditions call for it*. Like any other lense it's not for every shot you want to take.

If you have a STF it helps a whole lot to study the technical info on the lens and fully understand how it achieves it's effects and how you shoot for or against them. There is not such thing as adding a bokeh lens element to a lens design, you add a specific optical design. Same with the STF, it's certainly true it does not do Bokeh, it does STF, it's own thing. Work with what it's actually doing and there are a range of uses. Including improving the character of what some call bokeh.

STF will make a utterly flat background only if you gave it one for it to use. It does not make "buttery", "creamy" either. It makes STF.

 

[WaltKnapp]

theswede wrote:

This is precisely my point. It's a tool like any other, and it's amazing at what it's designed to do. Smooth bokeh can be used for a lot more than just smearing out a background, as your beautiful photo (which has nothing boring at all in its bokeh) shows.

Hate to mix things, but that photo also includes the use of a chosen amount of DRO+ and macro ringflash mixed in for fill. It's the result of choosing a combination of techniques that I was experimenting with with the STF shortly after I finally got that lens.

 

[MediaArchivist]

It's nice to have tools in the toolbox. I have been experimenting with a CPL on the STF... just 'cuz.

 

[Ron Poelman]

or do you have both (lensed or non - lensed ?

 

[RussAdams]

Ron Poelman wrote:

or do you have both (lensed or non - lensed ?

Hi Ron,

This is a non-lensed chipped adapter. It's fixed as f1.7. That allows SSS to work as well as focus confirmation beep/green box. But focus peaking is the best way to use the lens imo.

It's a completely manual lens, but takes great photos.

The gold standard is the Rokkor 58 1.2, but since the advent of the NEX and other small format exchangeable lens cams the prices for these have skyrocketed.

There are a bunch of how-to's out there that describe the process to switch from a Minolta MD/MC mount to the A mount.

Let me know if you can't find one and I'll try to track down one for you. I know there's one on Flickr... but I've a new PC and don't have my old bookmarks moved over!

Russ

 

[Ron Poelman]

I'm in no blinding hurry, I've already chucked one cheap lensed one into the bin,
so I need to learn a lot more about them before trying again.
Rokkor isn't rare in this part of the world and it's always tempting
to pick up another interesting one.
I'm thinking probably stick with unlensed for now.
The only trouble with that, is how cheap some of the long Rokkors are;
so infinity focus would be nice.


(p.s. PM me if your bookmarks put up a fight,
you should be able to export them easily.)

 

[Cacophonic Visions]

moimoi wrote:

That s a scary photo. Really like that one.

Yes that Minolta lens is fantastic, too bad it is too expensive in the used market.

Well done
--
All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.

Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. Although I'm a bit confused by the "scary" part.

 

[RussAdams]

Thanks,

Russ

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Ron Poelman wrote:

I'm in no blinding hurry, I've already chucked one cheap lensed one into the bin,
so I need to learn a lot more about them before trying again.
Rokkor isn't rare in this part of the world and it's always tempting
to pick up another interesting one.
I'm thinking probably stick with unlensed for now.
The only trouble with that, is how cheap some of the long Rokkors are;
so infinity focus would be nice.

(p.s. PM me if your bookmarks put up a fight,
you should be able to export them easily.)

Minolta made some Rokkor to Alpha mount lensed converters, some plain, some teleconverters, 1.4X & 2X, the teleconverters coming in two versions depending on focal length of the lens. Excellent optical quality. They turn up rarely 2nd hand, because those who have them want to keep them, & when they do they're pricey. Because they're good