I think it was your subject that caused the horendous bokeh in those first two shots. The tall grass (saplings?) seem to have odd highlights that are emphasized by their length and possible movement. The other subjects didn't seem so bad to me. Maybe a bit harsh would describe it. Certainly not perfect.
Christian On Monday 22 April 2002 11:06, Fred wrote: > > Well, I owned a "legendary" K 105/2,8 for a short time (having > bought it and then sold it recently). My number one complaint was > the harsh bokeh. When I got back my first roll of film that had a > few K 105/2.8 shots on it, I was ~shocked~ to see these: > > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/105brs28.jpg (@f/2.8) > > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/105brs80.jpg (@f/8) > > (Caution - Do NOT look at these immediately after eating !!!) > > I immediately took a few more shots with the lens, at different > apertures, to obtain some other examples of bokeh. While other > results were not as bad as those first photos, they weren't very > good, either. I put a few bokeh (including those first two) on my > web site at: > > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ > > Well, I also had to see what other bokeh shots using the K 105/2.8 > looked like, so I checked out the Lens Gallery Mirror at: > > http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/k105_28/ > > There, William has a few photos. One, of two dogs, emphasizes > bokeh. While the background dog doesn't look too bad, the > vegetation in the background seems to be a bit harsh, at least for > my tastes. > > I also checked out a couple of K 105/2.8 portraits at: > > http://www.pentax-fan.jp/photo/lens.asp > > I did not care for the bokeh in those very much, either (although, > admittedly, my first photos using the K 105/2.8 are the worst of all > of the photos referenced in this post). > > "Legendary" ??? > > Fred - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
