Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?
From: benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:19:16 +0930
References: <v2gdaaeb97e1004172312md9e6dc0fk6878be709094d38b@mail.gmail.com> <F49DA823-3821-4D24-98BD-218ED5F08B2A@mac.com> <y2wdaaeb97e1004181220s5d7b9bd3oa65499b6db82cbcc@mail.gmail.com> <B9056380-1806-4679-AECB-576A074B5572@mac.com> <h2odaaeb97e1004181647pf1daa320l9f631412b94a4fa9@mail.gmail.com> <q2pee8fa51c1004181801p3cca3ef9y749e0bd7961ccf4b@mail.gmail.com> <h2g19b6d42d1004182046zf7cb98e0ve7785bd058e9ebed@mail.gmail.com> <j2oee8fa51c1004182104y2328b21z424700e740ac70d7@mail.gmail.com> <u2ydaaeb97e1004182148o97324068m222c94ae3984f7e@mail.gmail.com>

Stopping down almost always improves things.  As does composing so
there are few specular highlights in the background, or bringing the
background closer to the area that is in focus.  Long lenses tend to
have more bokeh, of course, because the depth of field is generally
relatively narrow.

A very nice thing about the 200/4 micro Nikkor is that it does work
very well close up, as the 'micro' indicates - some close focusing
long lenses just have a longer helicoidd, rather than being optimised
for up-close use.

Marty


On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:18 PM, James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Vince, Marty,
>
> One thing I agree about is the 200/4 Nikkor IS sharp. And I always
> liked the color characteristics of Nikon lenses, sometimes even more
> than Leica glass. I think the bokeh issue is common with longer
> lenses, and I gather it's worse wide open. I will of course learn
> through experience if stopping down affects the bokeh. I hope so.
> On my GH1 the 200 has an effective focal length of 400mm which I
> really enjoy. I also have the venerable 55mm Micro-Nikkor which is a
> classic, very handy and sharp. Together with the 200 f4 and my 400mm
> 6.8 Telyt I have a fairly light trecking set of lenses. I use all
> three on the 400 Telyt shoulder stock with my GH1 and a Bogen monopod.
> I love the ability of the set to get me rock-steady shots of birds and
> critters. I'll not give up on my Nikkors.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong - I have a 200/4 micro Nikkor and regard it as a
>> great lens. ?I have very few lenses that can be used with impunity and
>> where I can be sure that I will like the results. ?My much favoured
>> 50/1 Noctilux occasionally produces incredible swirly backgrounds that
>> leave me feeling vertiginous. ?Nothing's perfect.
>>
>> Marty
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Vince Passaro <passaro.vince at 
>> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jim --
>>>
>>> Do not despair at all of the Nikkor 200/4. It is a great lens and what 
>>> it is
>>> great at you can see in the picture: sharpness and color and detail. I do
>>> not recall anyone ever praising the bokeh of any lens of this length 
>>> (though
>>> no doubt some deserve it and I suspect we could easily hear from Doug 
>>> about
>>> that two-fitty of his.... ). There is nothing bad about the bokeh here
>>> except the brightness of highlights which does all kinds of mischief with
>>> the picture. Still, go enjoy this lens. (Even better on a Nikon DX crop 
>>> if
>>> you got one.)
>>>
>>> V
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wide open adds another factor to the "worst case scenario" of this
>>>> shot. ?Very difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Marty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM, James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > George,
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, I'm pretty sure it was taken at f4. It was dusk and light was
>>>> > fading. I'll try it again stopped down.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jim
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at 
>>>> > mac.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> was the sample you posted wide open?
>>>> >> have you tried it at other f stops?
>>>> >> just curious.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Regards,
>>>> >> George Lottermoser
>>>> >> george at imagist.com
>>>> >> http://www.imagist.com
>>>> >> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>>>> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Apr 18, 2010, at 2:20 PM, James Laird wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> George,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I see what you mean. I thought it was moderately good bokeh when I
>>>> >>> first took it. But as you say it's all subjective. Oh well, I only
>>>> >>> paid 49 bucks for it. Maybe I can get a Leica R 200 some day for 
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> price (in my dreams;)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Jim Laird
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at 
>>>> >>> mac.com
>>>> >
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> obviously subjective
>>>> >>>> but I find the bokeh
>>>> >>>> quite disturbing
>>>> >>>> reminds me of the glass
>>>> >>>> used in some bathroom windows.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>> >>>> George Lottermoser
>>>> >>>> george at imagist.com
>>>> >>>> http://www.imagist.com
>>>> >>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>>>> >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:12 AM, James Laird wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Trying out my 'new' Nikkor 200 f4 on my GH1 I took this:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> <
>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/digiratidoc/GH1/Nikkor-200f4-Bokeh.jpg.html
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Now I think this is great bokeh. Agree?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Jim Laird
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
>>>> >>>>> information
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
>>>> >>>> information
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> Leica Users Group.
>>>> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Leica Users Group.
>>>> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Good Bokeh?)