«

Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-30-mines-road/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!


Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200
but hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50
f/1.8 prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.


I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens.
It cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
damnit.

paul <> wrote in news:j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-:

> Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
> Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200
> but hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50
> f/1.8 prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.

70-200 f/2.8 seems to be a sweet spot for optics. Canon, Sigma and Nikon
all make killer glass on that range.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

Performance seems to be about equal, optics-wise: the real choice is
stabilization or not - i.e., is it worth twice as much.

There is no question whether to buy the basic lens or not: sooner or later,
you will.

> That's bad bokeh

Made a lot worse by *way* too much sharpening, and lots of jpg
artefacts thrown in. A nice photo ruined..

paul wrote:
>...
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-30-mines-road/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
>
> That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!
> ...
>
> I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
> even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens.
> It cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
> damnit.

Here's an oly C3030 f/2.8 bokeh for comparison:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Rafael&PG=1>
I just pointed & shot. I had no clue.

I used it today for some technical needs for wifey in a crawlspace & it
didn't complain about autofocus or anything. I got 1 second exposures
braced against the wall under the building with a flashlight! The D70
with a 3.5 would have simply refused.

In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn->, paul <>
wrote:

> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.

Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".

In article <150320050424302410%>,
says...
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn->, paul <>
> wrote:
>
> > Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> > bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
>

We dont exactly have the word NOW.

We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Start here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml


"Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
news:150320050424302410%...
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn->, paul <>
> wrote:
>
> > Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> > bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn->, paul <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
>>bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
>
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".

Ooh! I got it. How about "graceful degradation of sharpness." Just kinda
rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? I hereby patent "GDOS."(TM) Fear me.

Okay, actual questions:

1) Examples of what's considered good and bad bokeh have been published
in books, on the net, and elsewhere. Does good bokeh mean that a lens
images out-of-focus areas the *same* way the eye does, or in some way
that specifically looks better in a photograph?

2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
my eyes, it might look appealing.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Max Imo" <> wrote in alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf: "I suggest
Corry keep his uninformed opinions to a subject he knows something about
(porno, hacking, terrorism)."

"paul" <> wrote in message
news:j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-...
> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-30-mines-road/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
> That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!
>
>
> Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
> Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200 but
> hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50 f/1.8
> prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.
>
>
> I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
> even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens. It
> cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
> damnit.

Hehehe. I hear ya. The little Fuji S602Z has a constant f/2.8 as well, with
pretty good bokeh. When my 1D is overkill, and my 300D is still too much, I
bring this little Fuji out and I'm still blown away. I think a lot of people
figured out this was a winner because now they are hard to find on eBay: I
see only one right now for GBP 66.00. I've been wanting to get one for a
friend for a while. I think I paid $650 and last I saw one I think it was
under US $200.

I also have an Olympus D-40, which is another classic, top performer that
fits in a pocket. No real bokeh on this little guy. Paid $650 for that, too,
and it's now selling used for under $150.

The best of the oldies still hold their own.

Unclaimed Mysteries
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net> wrote:

>2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
>look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
>my eyes, it might look appealing.


I learned a new term two days ago, "ring blur". I was seriously
thinking of buying a 600mm mirror for my film camera but when I
checked out the sigma website and saw what 'ring blur' looked like, I
passed. I'll keep checking ebay for a non-folded optics deal.

Goofy looking is a kind phrase.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.