Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi Fred, What about bokeh if one step down a bit aperture? Does it improve? Alek Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the >> subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged >> to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image >> exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my >> opinion of what I understand. > >I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of >background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making >such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even >mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) >"look pretty good" (for bokeh) - . > >Fred > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
That is why I could see bad bokeh since many probably third factors affected the final result which was not bad. Maybe in other circumstances I would see it. I just must try again. Alek Użytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Dan Scott wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Fred wrote: >> >> >> What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the >> >> subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged >> >> to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image >> >> exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my >> >> opinion of what I understand. >> > >> > I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of >> > background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making >> > such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even >> > mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) >> > "look pretty good" (for bokeh) - . >> > >> > Fred >> > >> >> Fred's right. Bokeh won't be a problem if you don't have any objects of >> the right sort in the right spot, foreground or background. The optical >> characteristics of the lens are in the lens, but you need the right >> combination of elements in the scene being photographed for "bad" bokeh >> to end up on the film. Plus, the third factor affecting valuation of >> bokeh is the viewer. If you like the bokeh in evidence on the print or >> transparency, it's "good" bokeh if you don't, it's "bad". > >Quite clearly, that's abundantly true! > >Thanks for the clarification! > >keith > >> Dan Scott > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi Alek, Bokeh is how the areas of the picture that are not in focus are rendered. Whether a lens has good bokeh or not is generally a personal preference. Most people prefer a less distracting background than the pictures that are shown in Fred's link below. I have this same lens and have taken some very nice portraits with it also, but I have also taken some that look just like Fred's examples also. In my experience, with this lens, is that I have to be very careful to choose a non-competing background (no out of focus specular highlights, for sure) for this lens to be usuable. Much more so than any other lens I own. It does make a good landscape/hiking lens when I am more likely using it focused close to infinity. Hope this helps, William in Utah. 12/10/2002 3:27:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem?How to >describe bokeh in other words? >Alek > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >>> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >>> N*k*n users. >> >>Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >>bokeh: >> >>http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >> >>[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >>at f/2.8" link - .] >> >>In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >>too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >>100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >>my K 105/2.8 on to another home... >> >>Fred >> >--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > >
Re: Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Do you know if Nikkor 105/2.5 is better/worse than Pentax 105? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: >Thanks! >But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only >shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. >Do you have this lens? >Alek >Użytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? >>> How to describe bokeh in other words? >>> Alek >> >>First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. >>A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: >> >>http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf >> >>Keith Whaley >> >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: >>> >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >>> >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >>> >> N*k*n users. >>> > >>> >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >>> >bokeh: >>> > >>> >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >>> > >>> >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >>> >at f/2.8" link - .] >>> > >>> >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >>> >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >>> >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >>> >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... >>> > >>> >Fred >> >--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Thanks! But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Do you have this lens? Alek Użytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? >> How to describe bokeh in other words? >> Alek > >First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. >A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: > >http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf > >Keith Whaley > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: >> >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >> >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >> >> N*k*n users. >> > >> >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >> >bokeh: >> > >> >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >> > >> >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >> >at f/2.8" link - .] >> > >> >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >> >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >> >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >> >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... >> > >> >Fred > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem?How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >> N*k*n users. > >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >bokeh: > >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ > >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >at f/2.8" link - .] > >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... > >Fred > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi, What does exactly harsh bokeh mean? I see my K105/2.8 is very sharp (Velvia) and wonder what you mean saying about harsh bokeh..How does it perform if compared with Nikkor 105/2.5? Alek Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 08:41 PM, Fred wrote: > >>> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >>> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >>> N*k*n users. >> >> Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >> bokeh: >> >> http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >> >> [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >> at f/2.8" link - .] >> > >woah...flashback city. > >Nasty. > >Dan Scott > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi, Interesting. According too many users K105 is much better.Maybe you had bad lens, difficult to say. Even on Stan Halpin's site most people prefer old K lens. Alek żytkownik Heiko Hamann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Hi Alek, > >on 09 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: > >>Instead od M100/2.8 try to find K105/2.8, it is allegedly much better lens ( >>I own it-very nice) Alek > >Not necessarily. I've owned both M100 and K105 and found the M100 better >(sharper, more contrast, lighter). So I've sold the K105 and kept the >M100 which I am *very* satisfied with. Either I had a poor K105 or my >M100 is an outstanding good performer... > >Regards, Heiko > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Instead od M100/2.8 try to find K105/2.8, it is allegedly much better lens ( I own it-very nice) Alek Użytkownik Ken Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >I just bought a M 100/2.8 on your advice. I don't need a macro, but I >did need a 100/105 lens for field portraits of handlers with their >dogs. This is probably one of the easiest lens to focus for a guy who >went mostly to AF because of bad eyes. I love this lens. Thanks for >your great contributions to the PDML. > >Ken > >On Saturday 15 June 2002 02:16 am, Mark Cassino wrote: >> On macro vs non macro lenses: I have an M 100 f2.8 and a Kiron 105mm >> f2.8 macro (identical to the Vivitar Series 1 100mm f2.5). With the M >> lens it takes about a 100 degree turn of the lens to move form >> infinity to 2 meters focus distance. With the Kiron it takes about a >> 30 degree twist. Yes - you can keep turning the Kiron forever till >> it gets to 1:1, but for fine adjustment of focus at longer working >> distances, non macros are better. (And thanks to Valentin Donisia who >> taught me this - though I argued the point with him at the time!) >-- >Ken Archer Canine Photography >San Antonio, Texas >"Business Is Going To The Dogs" > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
