I agree re creamy bokeh - if people are going to notice the bokeh you
don't want them noticing the details of stuff in the bokeh...
Sounds like the 105mm f2.4 is doing well on you your 645Z. Sharp with
minimal chromatic aberrations? An upgrade path to digital MF using my
6x7 lenses is an option I've been trying to keep open, though I wonder
how well they will perform. And in most cases I have the
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7 lens, vs the later SMC 67 versions. On
film I don't think the difference is huge, but on digital I'm not sure...
Mark
On 9/28/2020 8:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
I like cream with my bokeh.
I've been using that 67 105mm f:2.4 with my 645Z and the results are
wonderful. It makes a terrific portrait short tele on the 645 format.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:25 PM Mark C <pdml-m...@charter.net> wrote:
Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been
shooting film almost exclusively this year, a lot with a Pentax 6x7 and
105mm f2.4. That lens seems to have been designed to produce the most
beautiful creamy bokeh possible. I also use a Ricoh Diacord TLR, a 6x6
TLR with a f3.5 Tessar design lens. The results are incredibly sharp
but you really can't get a smooth bokeh. Forms clump together and
highlights in particular render as circles with almost crisp
circumferences. Each lens has its own purpose. The Pentax lens lets you
easily isolate a subject against a soft background, giving the nice 3d
look. But the Diacord is almost magical in creating the appearance of
infinite depth of field, even when only stopped down to f8 or even f5.6.
I think one issue is that there is no real agreement about what makes
for a "good" bokeh. The lens in the Diacord seems to have pretty typical
Tessar type characteristics, including the "clumpy" bokeh. But a lot of
folks seem to like that - especially in the rendering of specular
highlights. Others look for a creamy bokeh with everything running
together.
Mark
On 9/27/2020 1:54 PM, Toine wrote:
Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.
https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist, <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more
control over DOF.
Paul
On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola <danmaty...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That certainly does "pop"!
Dan Matyola
*https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
<https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery>*
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine <to...@repiuk.nl> wrote:
I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#&gid=1&pid=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because
it
pops.
Do I need new glasses?
Toine
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
