i like the Batis 85
--
--
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Bokeh: Post your 'WOW' shots
- Thread starter deednets
- Start date
Yes, thank you for those imo highly appealing photos. Would also be on my list, if she wasn't so incredibly large?? No aperture ring also not helping, but that's a different issue and non-bokeh relatedi like the Batis 85
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146973265@N06/
http://www.marcalter.com
http://www.fivedaggers.com
Bijo S
Leading Member
The batis 85 at wide open apertures for head and shoulder portraits is really special, the colors are gourmand and the subject pops. It also handles skin tones better than the GMs imo.
the loxia 35 dont have many friends, but i love it for its special bokeh, it does have something like a watercolour painting what i really love.
--
--
Bijo S
Leading Member
If you really want some wow bokeh, I suggest ditching the GMs and new Sigmas and trying out some adapted lenses.
After some research I recently acquired 3 lenses specifically for their character, rendering qualities and bokeh.
All photos are sooc. I got these recently so havent had much time with them yet.
This is the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 ZF on a Sony A7iv.
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 SLII (Nikon mount) on Sony A7iv
After some research I recently acquired 3 lenses specifically for their character, rendering qualities and bokeh.
- Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 - possibly the best rendering 50mm lens. The colors are rich and saturated and the bokeh is smooth as silk.
- Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 - lots of character and a very artful vintage rendering
- Zeiss 50mm F1.4 planar classic ZF - poor sharpness wide open but lots of character, lovely bokeh and good color saturation. Sharpens up to modern standards when stopped down if thats needed.
All photos are sooc. I got these recently so havent had much time with them yet.
This is the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 ZF on a Sony A7iv.
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 SLII (Nikon mount) on Sony A7iv
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for that!If you really want some wow bokeh, I suggest ditching the GMs and new Sigmas and trying out some adapted lenses.
After some research I recently acquired 3 lenses specifically for their character, rendering qualities and bokeh.
All photos are sooc. I got these recently so havent had much time with them yet.
- Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 - possibly the best rendering 50mm lens. The colors are rich and saturated and the bokeh is smooth as silk.
- Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 - lots of character and a very artful vintage rendering
- Zeiss 50mm F1.4 planar classic ZF - poor sharpness wide open but lots of character, lovely bokeh and good color saturation. Sharpens up to modern standards when stopped down if thats needed.
This is the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 ZF on a Sony A7iv.
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 SLII (Nikon mount) on Sony A7iv
I quote the WOW, no copyright claimed from my end! ;-)
The way I see photography in general is that everything is a compromise to some extent. So ditching my AF lenses any time soon. I am also confident that I won't need all and everything of any background blurred out. In fact I like the gentle roll off with some content that - a big factor for me - not distracting. Nervous. Harsh.
My monkey shots from Jaipur already borderline as there's hardly any context there:
Sigma 90/2.8
Incontrast to that I actually liked the 80/1.8 equivalent Fuji 56/1.2:
Fuji 56/1.2 F4.0 = F6.0 FF equiv
Thanks for your examples I was actually looking at the Voigtländer APO 50/2 as a lens to try, maybe not so far off your examples here?
Deed
Bijo S
Leading Member
Thanks, I have yet to try out the apo 50 but from my own research, its meant to be an optically perfect lens. In terms of character nothing stands out about it except the high clarity (clean window effect) and the pleasant unique voigtlander colors.Thanks for that!If you really want some wow bokeh, I suggest ditching the GMs and new Sigmas and trying out some adapted lenses.
After some research I recently acquired 3 lenses specifically for their character, rendering qualities and bokeh.
All photos are sooc. I got these recently so havent had much time with them yet.
- Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 - possibly the best rendering 50mm lens. The colors are rich and saturated and the bokeh is smooth as silk.
- Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 - lots of character and a very artful vintage rendering
- Zeiss 50mm F1.4 planar classic ZF - poor sharpness wide open but lots of character, lovely bokeh and good color saturation. Sharpens up to modern standards when stopped down if thats needed.
This is the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 ZF on a Sony A7iv.
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 SLII (Nikon mount) on Sony A7iv
I quote the WOW, no copyright claimed from my end! ;-)
The way I see photography in general is that everything is a compromise to some extent. So ditching my AF lenses any time soon. I am also confident that I won't need all and everything of any background blurred out. In fact I like the gentle roll off with some content that - a big factor for me - not distracting. Nervous. Harsh.
My monkey shots from Jaipur already borderline as there's hardly any context there:
Sigma 90/2.8
Incontrast to that I actually liked the 80/1.8 equivalent Fuji 56/1.2:
Fuji 56/1.2 F4.0 = F6.0 FF equiv
Thanks for your examples I was actually looking at the Voigtländer APO 50/2 as a lens to try, maybe not so far off your examples here?
Deed
Btw, I really like the shots you took with the RX1 and the other 2 of the monkeys. If all you are looking for is a smooth background then the sigma 90 and 45 are good recommendations.
Last edited:
SafariBob
Veteran Member
Thanks for those shots but is that bird actually in focus?
I understand that those shots were meant to emphasis the technical aspects of the lens rendering, so yeah, I can see what you are getting at.
Deed
SafariBob
Veteran Member
possibly not. I am not a pixel peeper, but i do appreciate that in focus is usually betterThanks for those shots but is that bird actually in focus?
--
Cold Spring Hot Spring. Lamassu. Safari Bob
Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
NICE !!!i like the Batis 85
I am a big fan of the Batis series too! It has a slightly swirly bokeh ("cat eyes", if you are in the habit of shooting bokeh balls for a living), but it is exactly this quality which I love.
What's best: all the Batis lenses have this very same quality, so you get a consistent look and color rendition if you swap lenses.
the 85 batis is warmer and tad softer than my 25 batis.NICE !!!i like the Batis 85
I am a big fan of the Batis series too! It has a slightly swirly bokeh ("cat eyes", if you are in the habit of shooting bokeh balls for a living), but it is exactly this quality which I love.
What's best: all the Batis lenses have this very same quality, so you get a consistent look and color rendition if you swap lenses.
--
SafariBob
Veteran Member
Quality matters in certain instances, like 100 f4 or thereabouts. Maybe 50mm f2, but in most other situations quantity is a pretty good substitute, enough bokeh will nearly always look “good”Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
Lately I have been noticing more "cork sniffing" when it comes to BOKEH quality. (And doing a bit of it myself!)Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
Comparing sharpness used to be easy, but blur quality seems a lot more nuanced – and subjective.
Do we keep one lens for smoothing over extra-busy backgrounds, and another to retain more edge? Or get something with a spherical aberration control?
--
Quality matters in certain instances, like 100 f4 or thereabouts. Maybe 50mm f2, but in most other situations quantity is a pretty good substitute, enough bokeh will nearly always look “good”Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
If you want more detail in the background, why not just use smaller apertures?Lately I have been noticing more "cork sniffing" when it comes to BOKEH quality. (And doing a bit of it myself!)Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
Comparing sharpness used to be easy, but blur quality seems a lot more nuanced – and subjective.
Do we keep one lens for smoothing over extra-busy backgrounds, and another to retain more edge? Or get something with a spherical aberration control?
SafariBob
Veteran Member
Specular highlights and in front-rear defocus tends to make a difference as well.Regarding "good": there is of course an argument to be made for intent and context. A blurred out background could mean that it's irrelevant if a photo has been taken in Cancun or at the Campuan Bridge. Note: if you know that bridge, you would know ...Quality matters in certain instances, like 100 f4 or thereabouts. Maybe 50mm f2, but in most other situations quantity is a pretty good substitute, enough bokeh will nearly always look “good”Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
But you DO get what I am trying to say here right?? The Campuan Bridge thing??Specular highlights and in front-rear defocus tends to make a difference as well.Regarding "good": there is of course an argument to be made for intent and context. A blurred out background could mean that it's irrelevant if a photo has been taken in Cancun or at the Campuan Bridge. Note: if you know that bridge, you would know ...Quality matters in certain instances, like 100 f4 or thereabouts. Maybe 50mm f2, but in most other situations quantity is a pretty good substitute, enough bokeh will nearly always look “good”Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
Deed
SafariBob
Veteran Member
You mean ridge? I would be more excited about gunung batur or the monkeys from the sanctuary stealing food from naive touristsBut you DO get what I am trying to say here right?? The Campuan Bridge thing??Specular highlights and in front-rear defocus tends to make a difference as well.Regarding "good": there is of course an argument to be made for intent and context. A blurred out background could mean that it's irrelevant if a photo has been taken in Cancun or at the Campuan Bridge. Note: if you know that bridge, you would know ...Quality matters in certain instances, like 100 f4 or thereabouts. Maybe 50mm f2, but in most other situations quantity is a pretty good substitute, enough bokeh will nearly always look “good”Most people mistake quantity (degree of throwing the background out of focus) with quality (how smooth the background looks, independent on how much out of focus it is.
Originally, the term bokeh as invented in Japan had to do with QUALITY only.
How often do I hear people: I want more bokeh! I love the bokeh of this f1.2 lens (i.e. no background whatsoever, just a big smear)....
One of my pet peeves - I had to get it in here. Sorry
Deed
--
Cold Spring Hot Spring. Lamassu. Safari Bob
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum