Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: goldfinger on October 11, 2015, 03:46:02 pm
-
There is a brand new ranking ...
http://www.bokeh-masters.com/?lang=en
-
I like it that they ask you to compare images without knowing what lens is used; however; I simply cannot compare the bokeh of a 85mm with 50mm lens...
-
LOL
A list of best bokeh lenses without medium format.
-
Why are you laughing so hard. Number 3 on the list is a medium format Schneider 150.
-
Hum... the absence of the Nikon 200mm f2.0 from the top 5 makes me question the credibility of the approach, or at least its current maturity. I believe that the same could be said about its Canon equivalent.
Besides, btwn the Otus 85mm f1.4 and the Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S, my personal vote goes to the Nikon bokehwise after having shot extensively with both.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And where are the Nikkor Bokeh Specialist DC 105mm and 135mm f/2 portrait lenses? Old designs but still available.
Also the splendid new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 is missing.
-
Nikon 50mm 1.8 Series E, but no 50mm AI-S? Nor the 50mm 1.2. Was this test made with whatever they found at a local shop?
-
An objective test of a subjective topic with limited access to lenses.
Next.
-
Methodology matters!
Part two of the process favors commonly used lenses. The public was invited to bring "favorite-bokeh" lenses to photo a set-up scene at a photo fair. Images were presumably processed identically by the contest master, given random-digit names, then uploaded onto the bokeh-ranking site. Visitors to the bokeh-ranking website were served up a random selection of different image pairs to rank.
It is pretty obvious that the process favors more popular lenses with "good" bokeh. A pairing would likely include a common lens with "good" bokeh vs. another common lens with "good" or "ok" bokeh. Outstanding lenses would rise to the top, but "good" lenses would likely be represented in proportion to their prevalence in the photo fair attendee population. I think that most amateur photographers would not have consistency in fine discrimination of bokeh of two similar lenses.
-
The most beautiful bokeh* 2015.
* Of lenses that people brought to that particular photo fair.
-
I find it funny that the Fujifilm 56 mm 1.2 APD is rated worse than the nonAPD version when the only purpose of the APD was to improve the bokeh.
-
Where is Minolta/Sony STF?
Where is Minolta 85s including Limited?
Where is Medium format like Zeiss 2/110?
-
I miss the Nikon 200/2.0 too but also the 58/1.4 which is specifically made for just that its OOF areas....
-
I wonder about the Otus 85mm being #1. I've gathered some saying it is way too sharp and the bokeh is sharply defined as well and not dreamy or airy. So Zeiss recently came along with the 85mm f/1.4 Milvus line which supposedly has smoother bokeh than the sharper Otus version.
Surprised that 300mm f/4 Nikon PF Fresnel thing isn't in the list, but maybe too new like the Milvus. I tried one and first time I ever said "So that is bokeh?" I don't see it that much less than 100mm.
Nothing like a strong telephoto to make bokeh scream.
SG
-
http://www.bokeh-masters.com/?lang=en
IMO stuff like this (not the presentation per se but the ranking) is silly. An unnecessary attempt at tastemaking. You can't really know the OOF characteristics of a lens without using it over time in a variety of situations. And then what you like is up to you…"good bokeh" is subjective.
-Dave-
-
I wonder about the Otus 85mm being #1. I've gathered some saying it is way too sharp and the bokeh is sharply defined as well and not dreamy or airy.
Yep, the bokeh of the Otus 85mm f1.4 sucks...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/710/21653261743_b060837a6c_o.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/634/22086551498_c7ba23e5a6_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5687/21653263043_29b254a8eb_o.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/763/22274288935_71020a3db0_o.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7745/17032049133_eb342f4a15_o.jpg)
This being said, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 may be even worse.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8711/16955188865_de95a1e9c5_o.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7647/17029635065_805f890176_o.jpg)
Life is really tough, we hardly have any usable lens to mount on Nikon bodies... not to mention the colors generated by the D810. It should be considered as a B&W camera at best (and even the greys are questionable). ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, the bokeh of the Otus 85mm f1.4 sucks...
Hi Bernard,
While I agree with your (tongue in cheek) response, I wouldn't call the bokeh (http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html) of the OTUS as setting a standard either.
All your fine examples look nice, but they show a bokeh that I'd describe as a tiny bit busy, rather than creamy, which seems to be the goal for pleasing bokeh. This example clearly hints at what is causing it.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7745/17032049133_eb342f4a15_o.jpg)
Looking at the left-hand side of the image, some verticals look much more in focus than their surroundings. On the right-hand side there is a hint of double contours, but barely noticeable. To get rid of that, one needs to design an optics that is under-corrected for specific aberration, which the Otus obviously isn't. The design goal for the OTUS is almost uncompromised correction, even wide open, not smooth bokeh (although it's not that bad either, it's symmetrical and uniform disk like in shape and intensity).
The difficulty with a smooth bokeh design is that it only exists on one side of the focus plane, and produces unnatural looking donut shaped defocused highlights and double contours at the other side.
Given that, I'm not too unpleased with the OTUS' bokeh, but it is (by design) also not the best there is, if smooth and creamy is the goal.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't really shoot images that are 10% detail and 90% bokeh anymore, but the old ZF.2 mount Zeiss 50 1.4 had a much creamier, smoother bokeh than either of the Otii. Couldn't care less what its MTF chart looked like.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4111/5092749572_b4860be380_z.jpg)
Had one as an extended loan. Gave it back with a heart slightly heavier than a trifecta of Otii.
-
I don't really shoot images that are 10% detail and 90% bokeh anymore, but the old ZF.2 mount Zeiss 50 1.4 had a much creamier, smoother bokeh than either of the Otii. Couldn't care less what its MTF chart looked like.
Well, the appreciation of what bokeh is nice is extremely subjective. I fail to see the point of discussing what is in the end just preference.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
synn,
Had one as an extended loan. Gave it back with a heart slightly heavier than a trifecta of Otii.
A heavy heart indeed. Chin up.
-
Amazing how so many photographers over the past century managed to make great images without access to any of these lenses. Go figure.
-
Amazing how so many photographers over the past century managed to make great images without access to any of these lenses. Go figure.
Is your point that past photographers didn't care about lens look, or that there are other lenses delivering a great look?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Amazing how so many photographers over the past century managed to make great images without access to any of these lenses. .Go figure
Technocratas v. photographers.
For them, the technocrats, the difficult way to do anything is the goal and, when they knock it off, the reward. Nothing is what it seems: there's always something else that it should have been.
That's why their wives wear earplugs in bed, not to mention masks. However, the masks might come in useful for other things sometimes, if only to justify that something should always be more than what it is.
Then you look at their pictures - if they post any - and you wonder what the hell they imagine they are seeing that mere photographers do not.
Fortunately, this is a relatively modern illness, and as with all fads, will eventually pass.
;-)
Rob C
-
Technocratas v. photographers.
For them, the technocrats, the difficult way to do anything is the goal and, when they knock it off, the reward. Nothing is what it seems: there's always something else that it should have been.
That's why their wives wear earplugs in bed, not to mention masks. However, the masks might come in useful for other things sometimes, if only to justify that something should always be more than what it is.
Then you look at their pictures - if they post any - and you wonder what the hell they imagine they are seeing that mere photographers do not.
Fortunately, this is a relatively modern illness, and as with all fads, will eventually pass.
Ok, but not here. ;)
The technicrats buy Sigma Art lenses, what do bokeh lovers buy?
cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok, but not here. ;)
The technicrats buy Sigma Art lenses, what do bokeh lovers buy?
cheers,
Bernard
Sonnars.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5768/21039294675_9987381721_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/y4aTiV)nikki_f2_1934_sonnar (https://flic.kr/p/y4aTiV) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
This 5cm F2 is over 80 years old.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7782/18230073212_7783b53cd3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tLVTD7)Manassas Christmastime (https://flic.kr/p/tLVTD7) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/488/18721376255_138bcfb398_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uwkWVe)sonnar_160 (https://flic.kr/p/uwkWVe) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
And this 5cm F1.5 is also over 80 years old. Some assembly required to use on a Leica.
-
1937 8.5cm F2 CZJ Sonnar, using a custom indexed Contax->Leica adapter.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/753/21172127324_eafd824050_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yfUFQ1)Early Fall (https://flic.kr/p/yfUFQ1) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5820/21768700476_1424a3d47a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zaChf1)Early Fall (https://flic.kr/p/zaChf1) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
-
Ok, but not here. ;)
The technicrats buy Sigma Art lenses, what do bokeh lovers buy?
cheers,
Bernard
i find the bokeh of the 50mm sigma very nice; the autofocus is fast, slight focus breathing, flare resistant, flat field of sharpness, the lens is very sharp. And it is not expensive.
my best lens... with the 85mm 1.4G nikkor.
-
i find the bokeh of the 50mm sigma very nice; the autofocus is fast, slight focus breathing, flare resistant, flat field of sharpness, the lens is very sharp. And it is not expensive.
I think that's right. I also love the bokeh, the flare resistance etc.
Great lens!
What's the lens with the fuzziest bokeh for Nikon? Some times I want this fuzzy bokeh.....
-
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8763/17468557631_1221728eef_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sBCVA8)Spring 2015 (https://flic.kr/p/sBCVA8) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
Look at the Fuzz in this shot...
10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor, Sonnar formula. Also available in F-Mount.
-
Thanks Brian, unfortunately without colours......
The reason why I'm looking for an extreme fuzzy bokeh, is because I'm tired of the standard portrait look (55-180mm, F1.2-4)
with a "super smooth" background/bokeh.
These "standard" shots are so easy to take....My clients want this, normally, but I want to take also an other proposal...
...and when I show them both, they agree with the nervous bokeh...
I really like the 5 Star bokeh of the Hasselblad-Zeiss lenses, it's not smooth.....it's like Rock'n'Roll.
I don't like smooth bokeh and I don't like smooth guitar sound. That's boring! I like the distorted sound of Jimi Hendrix.
I'm really very interested to see some really weird bokeh.... especially for Nikon lenses.......
Thanks,
Ben
-
I'm really very interested to see some really weird bokeh.... especially for Nikon lenses.......
Hopefully not a silly question, but have you looked into trying a Petzval?
http://shop.lomography.com/lenses/art-lenses/petzval-nikon-mount-brass
-
Hopefully not a silly question, but have you looked into trying a Petzval?
http://shop.lomography.com/lenses/art-lenses/petzval-nikon-mount-brass
I own one. If a 85mm lens meets the expectation, this should work. Peak sharpness is pretty limited and difficult to achieve though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Amazing how so many photographers over the past century managed to make great images without access to any of these lenses. Go figure.
They don't look so good when you blow them up three metres wide.
Better gear doesn't change the aesthetics of your photos. But it lets you do a lot more with the ones you do take.
-
Technocratas v. photographers.
Rob, you make it sound as if an artist doesn't need skill, or that someone who masters his/her trade cannot be creative as well. I do not see the schism, the either/ or. The creativity and skill-set can go hand in hand, in fact enforce each other.
In fact, technical skill can even go unnoticed if done well and the subject matter/composition is strong, but it will enhance the experience. But lousy technique will pull down an otherwise nice creation. Selective focus and Bokeh fall in that category.
It's usually more obvious if one were to be offered a choice. One version with lousy technique, and the same image/composition with good technique, you can pick one for free, which would you choose ...
And then there are those who master both to the extreme, quite a different genre almost as a gimmick but perfectly executed, like Spanish photographer Chema Madoz (http://www.chemamadoz.com/). He often uses objects he finds in the streets, and makes a studio composition that confuses people into seeing something different than what is shown. I've also attached an older example of his work.
That's an example of one of many types/styles of photography that wouldn't work as well if technique/skill and vision had been absent.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here are two samples taken with the new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4, both full open. I like it, but not as the only "normal" lens, so I got the 50mm Sigma Art instead. Fortunately I can borrow the 58 when I want.
-
Here are two samples taken with the new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4, both full open. I like it, but not as the only "normal" lens, so I got the 50mm Sigma Art instead. Fortunately I can borrow the 58 when I want.
Love them!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Stupid list and site. Beauty is subjective.
Why must the world try rank everything and put it in a box?
-
Stupid list and site. Beauty is subjective.
Why must the world try rank everything and put it in a box?
It may still be valuable to list lenses with interesting bokeh though.
I am writing interesting, because there are times when we don't just look for something beautiful/smooth, but for something different.
But yes, there is just no way to rank the rendering of these lenses in a way that we can all agree with, which differs from sharpness, CA,... that can all be measured objectively. At best it is going to tell us that a majority of people prefer a certain type of rendering.
cheers,
Brnard
-
Rob, you make it sound as if an artist doesn't need skill, or that someone who masters his/her trade cannot be creative as well. I do not see the schism, the either/ or. The creativity and skill-set can go hand in hand, in fact enforce each other.
In fact, technical skill can even go unnoticed if done well and the subject matter/composition is strong, but it will enhance the experience. But lousy technique will pull down an otherwise nice creation. Selective focus and Bokeh fall in that category.
It's usually more obvious if one were to be offered a choice. One version with lousy technique, and the same image/composition with good technique, you can pick one for free, which would you choose ...
And then there are those who master both to the extreme, quite a different genre almost as a gimmick but perfectly executed, like Spanish photographer Chema Madoz (http://www.chemamadoz.com/). He often uses objects he finds in the streets, and makes a studio composition that confuses people into seeing something different than what is shown. I've also attached an older example of his work.
That's an example of one of many types/styles of photography that wouldn't work as well if technique/skill and vision had been absent.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
1. I don't think I said that was exclusively the case, that it was an entirely exclusive yes or no. What I am indicating is that those, such as here, who obsess over minor details of lenses, cameras etc. are too one-sided in their approach. If anything, they leave me with the distinct impression that their interest is in the technical and not at all in the making/catching of great images. The latter is all about instinct and eye. You can't legislate for it, run it through a meter, hang it on a brick wall and copy it or anything else: it's there or it ain't, in which case there's nothing to be done but to carry on playing at cameras and lenses.
Some of the 'greats' such as HC-B were, IMO, poorly gifted with technique - possibly because ego led them to believe their eye was more accurate than any meter. Worse, some seldom processed and printed their own work, and if you don't do that, you never learn when you are exposing badly. Film allowed no shortcuts, other than speed drying, and you all know what that did to Capa's 'Landings' films... (Some say that's crazy, that film allowed you to push, pull etc. and yes, you could, but that was always at the cost of basic quality. Nothing came for free. What you had to do was discover which set of times and temps suited the way you worked.) BUT, HC-B had an ace up his sleeve: he had a God-given instinct for event and timing.
Combination of both abilities? Avedon, Lategan etc. etc.
2. That's simply not applicable to real life. A photographer who knows what he's doing chooses technique and tools to do what he has to do. Apart from the obligatory contrarian, he won't take an 8"x10" onto the street to do 'street' (yes, I know it's been done) for life isn't like that. So, within the genre of the images between which you want me to make a choice, there's really only one that's appropriate in both style and execution.
.................................................................
But, here's the thing: somebody good can make a picture sing with any tool that he has to hand. Right here on LuLa: look at Seamus Flynn's pictures and you never dream of wondering which brand camera, lens or neckstrap he uses. It's all in the images. That's photography. It was the same in the old days of fashion: you took your model and pissed off somewhere; no assistants doing anything but carrying stuff and maybe loading film, no hairdressers, makeup artists, stylists. You, the girl and the product. And how many times did the page credits read: scarf, watch or shoes - model's own? Much work from those days is now legendary. Today, as far as reading here goes, it's all about being tethered to a laptop and 'consulting' with a client and making change after change according to the monitor. That's building with bricks, not creating anything. No wonder all those identical shampoo ads look like they are made using window dummies and nylon hair! But that's not the photographer's fault, it's the team system, and all the hangers-on attempting to show themselves worthy of their pay packets and essential to the job at hand.
Damn! My coffee's gone cold.
Rob
-
I don't like smooth bokeh and I don't like smooth guitar sound. That's boring! I like the distorted sound of Jimi Hendrix.
There ya go! (Says the guy who plays with a clean guitar sound 90+% of the time. But who's also a fuzz pedal addict.)
A lens I'd recommend is the Pentax 645 format 120/4 macro. Wide open it gives OOF areas a bit of Petzval-style swirl while being sharper in IF areas. Dunno if the appropriate adapter exists, though…
I also second Brian's fondness for Zeiss & early Nikkor Sonnars. The 50/1.5 in particular has a unique and IMO pleasing OOF look, kinda as though the pics have been gently brushed with very fine sandpaper.
-Dave-
-
Hopefully not a silly question, but have you looked into trying a Petzval?
http://shop.lomography.com/lenses/art-lenses/petzval-nikon-mount-brass
There ya go! (Says the guy who plays with a clean guitar sound 90+% of the time. But who's also a fuzz pedal addict.)
A lens I'd recommend is the Pentax 645 format 120/4 macro. Wide open it gives OOF areas a bit of Petzval-style swirl while being sharper in IF areas. Dunno if the appropriate adapter exists, though…
I also second Brian's fondness for Zeiss & early Nikkor Sonnars. The 50/1.5 in particular has a unique and IMO pleasing OOF look, kinda as though the pics have been gently brushed with very fine sandpaper.
-Dave-
Thanks for these recommendations. I will check them out. How sharp is the Petzval?
(Asks the guy with the distorted Les Paul)
-
And where are the Nikkor Bokeh Specialist DC 105mm and 135mm f/2 portrait lenses? Old designs but still available.
Also the splendid new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 is missing.
Just went though the test rather quickly and none of those lenses are even included on it.
-
Thanks for these recommendations. I will check them out. How sharp is the Petzval?
Not very.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not very.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks, it's a pity but this is a clear answer. ;)
-
Thanks Brian, unfortunately without colours......
The reason why I'm looking for an extreme fuzzy bokeh, is because I'm tired of the standard portrait look (55-180mm, F1.2-4)
with a "super smooth" background/bokeh.
These "standard" shots are so easy to take....My clients want this, normally, but I want to take also an other proposal...
...and when I show them both, they agree with the nervous bokeh...
I really like the 5 Star bokeh of the Hasselblad-Zeiss lenses, it's not smooth.....it's like Rock'n'Roll.
I don't like smooth bokeh and I don't like smooth guitar sound. That's boring! I like the distorted sound of Jimi Hendrix.
I'm really very interested to see some really weird bokeh.... especially for Nikon lenses.......
Thanks,
Ben
If you ever plan on shooting for the X-Files, I will lend you this lens.
55/1.2 Frankenlens, made from the front section of a Nikkor-O 55/1.2 with the rear section of a 50/1.5 SUmmarit.
Bad Acid Bokeh.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8495/8300540910_fe9affb9c6_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dDurCj)grass2_f12 (https://flic.kr/p/dDurCj) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
Wide-Open. Extremely over-corrected for spherical aberration and high field-curvature. I've made a couple of novelty lenses for people. Mostly fun projects from parts-bin lenses, some of them RF coupled. Like a Sonnar/Planar hybrid. "The Astigmar"...
For a Nikon lens that you can buy- The 5.8cm F1.4 lens of the early 1960s has swirly Bokeh, and is overcorrected for spherical aberration. It is very similar to the Leica Summarit 5cm F1.5. Very different from any other Nikon lens, and is not very expensive.
-
A number of the lenses mentioned have very interesting bokeh and the choice between them, of course, must depend largely on personal preferences .... I have and enjoy several of them but frequently my own personal choice is an old Zeiss 75 1.5 Biotar - beautifully soft but sharp where I want it - it cured me of my 75 Summilux lust !
-
…frequently my own personal choice is an old Zeiss 75 1.5 Biotar - beautifully soft but sharp where I want it - it cured me of my 75 Summilux lust!
Yeah, that's another lens with an interesting look. I like the 58/2 Biotar as well…this reminds me to give it a spin with the A7r2.
-Dave-
-
Hey man,
this is the lens to photograph nudes not trees.
Best,
Johannes
I can loan the lens out for that too!
Or you can buy it from my Wife after she Shoots me for shooting nudes...She would use a 105 Howitzer.
-
And where are the Nikkor Bokeh Specialist DC 105mm and 135mm f/2 portrait lenses? Old designs but still available.
Also the splendid new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 is missing.
Certainly few of us have owned or examined the bokeh of all the lenses on the list. But I do own the #6 ranked lens, and a couple of copies of the 135 DC and -- given my own tastes and eye -- the 135 DC wins the bokeh crown between the two every time.
Moreover, without closely examining the methodology, there are still many photographers who don't understand bokeh as the nature of OOF areas, rather than simply OOF parts of an image. Thus, if random people were evaluating images when voting I wonder how many gave the nod simply to the images that had areas most out of focus, rather than to those that were most visually appealing due to the nature of the lens?
-
Moreover, without closely examining the methodology, there are still many photographers who don't understand bokeh as the nature of OOF areas, rather than simply OOF parts of an image. Thus, if random people were evaluating images when voting I wonder how many gave the nod simply to the images that had areas most out of focus, rather than to those that were most visually appealing due to the nature of the lens?
Hi,
I agree, bokeh is the 'quality' of the defocus, not the amount. It's usually also different between front and rear defocused areas, and front bokeh is less frequently discussed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Stanley Kubrick used to love the 180 f2.8. I do love it too :)
(http://payload113.cargocollective.com/1/9/313125/4578694/Appl.jpg)
-
Stanley Kubrick used to love the 180 f2.8. I do love it too :)
(http://payload113.cargocollective.com/1/9/313125/4578694/Appl.jpg)
Yes, but which one?
Rob C
-
I had a 200mm Nikkor for many years and it was that bit better for effects than a 180mm - but not much.
Here's an example wide open on HP3:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/4250693_orig.jpg)
Rob C
-
For those who wonder how all this "defocus control" works:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7044/how-do-soft-focus-or-defocus-control-rings-work (the short version)
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/135mm-dc/patent-5841590.pdf?vid=USPAT5841590 (Nikon's actual patent document)
It's pretty ingenious.
I was hoping that there would be a cheap AIS-era version to play with, but no luck. AIS lenses work splendidly via adapter on Canon. I enjoy using my dad's old classic AIS 105mm f/2.5, which has lovely rendering. It's also a nice focal length for general use. Yep, it might be more "practical" to get the Canon AF EF 85mm f/1.8 or EF 100 f/2, similarly sized lenses - but I do like the old manual focus Nikkor a lot, and have fun shooting with it, which is the point for an amateur.
Petzvals have that off-axis "swirly bokeh" that some people like in portraiture, to give that "old-time" LF look.
-
Yes, but which one?
Rob C
Probably the all time classic, the sonnar 180 2.8
Super cheap, produced in the millions in east germany.
-
The Canon 135L gets my vote.
-
Yes, but which one?
Rob C
A modified Nikon Nikkor 180mm f/2.8. My copy is the latest.
-
A modified Nikon Nikkor 180mm f/2.8. My copy is the latest.
What sort of modification? Thanks.
-
As far as I know it is a mount modification to be able to fix it on a camera. I do not know if he did optical modification on this one.
-
As far as I know it is a mount modification to be able to fix it on a camera. I do not know if he did optical modification on this one.
What camera? I have both a D810 and a SD1M. The nikon kills the sigma in so many ways BUT there is just something about the look of the Merrill files that when you nail a shot (and they are hard to nail) it makes you fall in love with the foveon sensor.
-
Probably the all time classic, the sonnar 180 2.8
Super cheap, produced in the millions in east germany.
There's a 200mm variant of this lens too in M42 screwmount, also made by the former post-WWII Carl Zeiss Jena. Fine & dandy image quality. Drawbacks: large, heavy, long minimum focus distance (~2m) and lacks a tripod collar.
-Dave-
-
No :p Kubrick modified a Nikkor 180f2.8 for his Arriflex 2C. That's all. I said Ijust use the latest model. I use it on a Nikon camera and In my opinion this lens have an interesting bokeh.
-
I sold all of our Nikon equipment, except the ZF 2 lenses we use for motion.
The only thing I miss is the 200 F2.
It is a magical lens and I'm not a long lens guy, but once you zone in on the lens, the look, it's just rocks. It's impossible to explain but it's the only long lens that allows me to get into the humanity of a subject. The rest just look too detached, even the Canon 200 f2. (don't know why).
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/smdevilsbowl1.jpg)
IMO
BC
Agreed. I love that lens.
I think Nikon's got a whole series of shortish teles that render people beautifully: the 85 f1.4, the 105 f2.5, the 135 f2.0 and the 200 f2.0. But of those four the 85 and 200 are just magic.
-
Hi,
Another great JR picture. JR always has some great stuff, but his works on sports and athletes are the ones I like the most.
Best regards
Erik
I sold all of our Nikon equipment, except the ZF 2 lenses we use for motion.
The only thing I miss is the 200 F2.
It is a magical lens and I'm not a long lens guy, but once you zone in on the lens, the look, it's just rocks. It's impossible to explain but it's the only long lens that allows me to get into the humanity of a subject. The rest just look too detached, even the Canon 200 f2. (don't know why).
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/smdevilsbowl1.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5493/14513689562_8fd2b24aea_b.jpg)
-
another fan of the 200 2L.
-
Voigtlander 58 1.4 on FujiX with the Metabones Speed Booster adapter - @ 1.4 (no postprocesing outside of the LR defaults)
Samyang 135 2.0 on FujiX with the Metabones Speed Booster adapter - @ 2.0
-
Fujifilm 56 1.2 - bokeh can be busy at times