Uh huh.
I don't really know how to calculate DOF, never really understood it (yes, I
know there are cards and things). But I agree, I think we get so we
unconsciously aware. Like on a wide angle, I will figure with f/8 most things
will
probably be in focus. While with a long telephoto, at
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Yes it is. Look at it this way, if you set a 50mm at f/2.0 it has a 25mm
> opening, now if you set a 100mm at f/2.0 it has a 50mm opening, but at
> f/4.0 it has the same 25mm opening that the
one thing also changes others.
-graywolf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/29/2007 7:36:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "graywolf"
> Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>
>
>&g
he time, they don't want to know how to make a watch.
> Take my word for it.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> In a message dated 4/29/2007 7:36:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> -
essage -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In a message dated 4/29/2007 7:36:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "graywolf"
> Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>
>
>> Most folks do confuse f-stop
In a message dated 4/29/2007 7:36:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Most folks do confuse f-stop with aperture, I sure used to. However,
> they are not the same thing. So
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Most folks do confuse f-stop with aperture, I sure used to. However,
> they are not the same thing. So you are mistaken here (I have not looked
> at the Wikipedia article to see if it is correct
keep the DOF
the same.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:55 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
So? He's arguing a moot point and talking in circles.
W
I stated f-stops and WR used same f-stops in his
samples, not same "apertures".
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Francis
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:06 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 boke
On 29/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point remains that the difference in perceived sharpness of the
> background with the 70mm lens is due to the difference in focal
> length. End of story. The trolling should stop.
I don't think it's as simple as you make out.
It's plain
gt;> writer was not making a dogmatic
>>>> absolute statement of scientific fact.
>>>> He was generalizing.
>>>>
>>>>> As the camera: subject/background
>>>> .>ratio wasn't altered, DOF should be
>>>>> SIMILAR f
th if you
>>> do that.
>>>
>>> jco
>>>
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of
>>> Tom C
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:43 AM
>>> To: pd
7;m pretty sure he knows that actual
> > >DOF is not changed by altering the
> > > subjects distance from the focal plane.
> > > That's only moving subjects in to,
> > > out of, or within the range referred to as DOF.
> > > as DOF. I think he means
On 29/04/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know why he wants to argue that something is not similar when it is.
> Nobody said it was exactly the same.
Oh stop being pedantic Tom ;-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:/
quot;they looked utterly alike"; "friends are generally alike in background and
taste"
I don't know why he wants to argue that something is not similar when it is.
Nobody said it was exactly the same.
Tom C.
>From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pent
t; >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of
> > Tom C
> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:43 AM
> > To: pdml@pdml.net
> > Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> >
> >
> > Certain
p the same camara
> postion, it **changes*** with focal length if you
> do that.
>
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of
> Tom C
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:43 AM
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject
ginal Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>
>
>> Of course the 70 gives you more DOF. Thus, a bit crisper.
>
> I left the camera position static and cropped the 70mm and 77mm images to be
> similar to the 85mm images.
> As the
the formulas and calculate DOF using f-stop
and aperture diameter, go out and shot some photos and compare them with
your calculations. Then, like me, you will never make that mistake again.
-graywolf
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom C"
> Subj
I wouldn't through it out.
William Robb wrote:
> I promised Tom C that I would try to do a bokeh comparison between the
> A85/1.4, M85/2, FA77 and DA70 lenses.
> I had a few moments between supper and getting bombed, so here goes:
>
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/m852bokeh/852bokeh.html
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Certainly what you state
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Certainly what you state regarding DOF is true. I believe though the
> writer
> was not making a dogmatic absolute statement of scientific fact. He was
> generalizing.
>
>>As the c
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:43 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
Certainly what you state regarding DOF is true. I believe though the
writer
was not making a dogmatic absolute statement of scientific
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:43 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
Certainly what you state regarding DOF is true. I believe though the
writer
was not making a dogmatic absolute statement of scientific fact. He was
focal length used at close to the same aperture. Not the same, but
similar.
Tom C.
>From: >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:26:25 -0400
>
>No,this assumption is
magnification,
NOT the "subject/background" ratio.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:10 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
- Original Message -
F
lens's bokeh is clearly
ILLUSTRATED/revealed.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:46 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
Indeed it does. All those bokehs look fine to me. :-)
I
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Indeed it does. All those bokehs look fine to me. :-)
>
> I would guess that John's bad bokeh is an anomaly of the particular
> circumstances and conditons when the shot was taken .
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:10:28 -0600
>
>I promised Tom C that I would try to do a bokeh comparison between the
>A85/1.4, M85/2, FA77 and DA70 lenses.
>I had a few moments between supper and getting bomb
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Of course the 70 gives you more DOF. Thus, a bit crisper.
I left the camera position static and cropped the 70mm and 77mm images to be
similar to the 85mm images.
As the camera: subject/bac
- Original Message -
From: "Thibouille"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Thanks, William.
>
> Can you tell us abou the shutter speed? I'm not sure if some bokeh I
> don't like much are caused 'cos the subject moved or because of the
> bokeh the
Of course the 70 gives you more DOF. Thus, a bit crisper.
Paul
On Apr 27, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 28/04/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As I expected, the M85/2 stands up very well compared to the much
>> newer, and
>> much more expensive glass.
>
> T
On 28/04/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I promised Tom C that I would try to do a bokeh comparison between the
> A85/1.4, M85/2, FA77 and DA70 lenses.
> I had a few moments between supper and getting bombed, so here goes:
>
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/m852bokeh/852bokeh.h
Thanks, William.
Can you tell us abou the shutter speed? I'm not sure if some bokeh I
don't like much are caused 'cos the subject moved or because of the
bokeh the lens provides.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pent
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>> As I expected, the M85/2 stands up very well compared to the much
>> newer, and
>> much more expensive glass.
>
> The DA70/2.4 seems to exhibit the least smooth bokeh, I definitely
> wouldn't call the 85/2 bokeh "bad" in that series.
T
l 28, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>I promised Tom C that I would try to do a bokeh comparison between the
> A85/1.4, M85/2, FA77 and DA70 lenses.
> I had a few moments between supper and getting bombed, so here goes:
>
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/m852bokeh/85
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:36 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
On 28/04/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that were true, t
: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:31 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
On 28/04/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The photo I posted in the beginning of the
> thread shows a weird almost double image
> type bokeh that I called bad:
>
> h
On 28/04/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The photo I posted in the beginning of the
> thread shows a weird almost double image
> type bokeh that I called bad:
>
> http://www.jchriso.com/temp/85MM01.jpg
>
> That does not look "good" to me
> by any standards. If this is subjective,
>
On 28/04/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that were true, then why have I never
> noticed any bokeh issues with my hundreds
> of lenses tried but immediately noticed
> this one as odd all the time when
> viewing wide open with it without even expecting
> or looking for bokeh issu
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:31 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
>
> Any lens can deliver "ba
: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
On 28/04/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I say WR's anecdotes are worthless BS
> if he cant explain why I was and am able to
> see and caputure ugly bokeh with
> this specific lens as I posted
> in the beginning of the thread.
&
eady excluded mirror
lenses from the thread, we all know
those are a special unusual case ).
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:25 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0
On 28/04/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I expected, the M85/2 stands up very well compared to the much newer, and
> much more expensive glass.
The DA70/2.4 seems to exhibit the least smooth bokeh, I definitely
wouldn't call the 85/2 bokeh "bad" in that series.
--
Rob Studdert
I promised Tom C that I would try to do a bokeh comparison between the
A85/1.4, M85/2, FA77 and DA70 lenses.
I had a few moments between supper and getting bombed, so here goes:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/m852bokeh/852bokeh.html
I set up using the 85/1.4 with the intention of leaving
On 28/04/07, Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't that be "wrong" circumstances?
>
> Damn! I do that too!
Right = correct?
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO
http://home.swiftdsl.com
Wouldn't that be "wrong" circumstances?
Damn! I do that too!
Regards,
Bob...
- Original Message -
From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Any lens can deliver "bad" bokeh under the right circumstances.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailma
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
>
> Any lens can deliver "bad" bokeh under the right circumstances.
>
Exactly.
Paul
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 28/04/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I say WR's anecdotes are worthless BS
> if he cant explain why I was and am able to
> see and caputure ugly bokeh with
> this specific lens as I posted
> in the beginning of the thread.
> Lenses with good bokeh dont do
> that under any circu
5:02 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: A - BkaaaH Again! [was: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh]
Well, what's pleasing bokeh and what's not is subject to the to the eye
of
the beholder, just like beauty. That said, the rendering of out of focus
(OOF as I call it) areas of an image
Well, what's pleasing bokeh and what's not is subject to the to the eye of
the beholder, just like beauty. That said, the rendering of out of focus
(OOF as I call it) areas of an image are affected by the shape of the
aperture (or iris) and the distribution of light in the OOF cone. When OOF,
e
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> It seems to me that comparing bokeh between lenses could get pretty
> unscientific as there are so many variables to consider. For instance,
> will
> you always make sure that any given l
ssing if that's his
contined contention.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
- Original Message -
From: "Tom
compared other than subjectively, for lenses with different max apertures.
Tom C.
>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Bill,
>
> Because bokeh is determined by both lens characteristics and the focus
> distance/out of focus distance of the items in the frame, what was your
> focus distance from the subject?
H
Bill,
Because bokeh is determined by both lens characteristics and the focus
distance/out of focus distance of the items in the frame, what was your
focus distance from the subject?
Tom C.
>
>A few days ago, Thibouille was asking about the bokeh of the M85 f2 lens.
>My
>recollection was that
I'm even further away.
Distance is no excuse.
:-)
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/27/07, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So that was the K version which was f/1.8.
>
> Anyway, I'd play with one of those :)
>
> Won't be at GFM 'vos AFAIK it is in US and I'm quite far away from US :(
>
> 2007/4/26, P.
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
The A* was an f1.4. Boz's site makes no mention of an A 1.8.
Thibouille wrote:
> Very interesting, William.
> Specially the difference of rendering
;s feeling great.
Tom C.
>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:31:39 -0400
>
>well all it proves is yo
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:39 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
- Original Message -
From: "Thibouille"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:21 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
Hi Bill,
I'm glad you chimed in with those pics.
On thing that a lot of people fail to realize is that the bokeh you see
on a small web image
well all it proves is your shots didnt reveal the ugly
bokeh nearly as well as the shot I took specifically
to show the ugly bokeh do. It only takes one photo
with ugly bokeh to prove it has ugly bokeh, millions
of shots that dont reveal it dont prove anything
if the one shot that does DOES. I dont
So that was the K version which was f/1.8.
Anyway, I'd play with one of those :)
Won't be at GFM 'vos AFAIK it is in US and I'm quite far away from US :(
2007/4/26, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The A* was an f1.4. Boz's site makes no mention of an A 1.8.
>
> Thibouille wrote:
> > Very in
- Original Message -
From: "Thibouille"
Subject: Re: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
> Very interesting, William.
> Specially the difference of rendering of bokeh at f/2 and f/4.
> A pity this lens is not of A-type. I'm sure the A version (f/1.8 if I
> remember well) is w
The A* was an f1.4. Boz's site makes no mention of an A 1.8.
Thibouille wrote:
> Very interesting, William.
> Specially the difference of rendering of bokeh at f/2 and f/4.
> A pity this lens is not of A-type. I'm sure the A version (f/1.8 if I
> remember well) is way more expensive. (I don't eve
Very interesting, William.
Specially the difference of rendering of bokeh at f/2 and f/4.
A pity this lens is not of A-type. I'm sure the A version (f/1.8 if I
remember well) is way more expensive. (I don't even wanna know
aboutthe FA f/1.4).
A pity; I'd really like to play with one of those.
200
>
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/04/26 Thu PM 12:21:05 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: RE: M85mm f2.0 bokeh
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I'm glad you chimed in with those pics.
>
> On thing t
Nice examples Bill.
Reminds me of losing the odd sale when i used to print on site.
Clients complait was the picture was OOF. I would look at the print,
and reply that her daughter and horse were quite in focus. Reply was,
well the trees in the background are blurry, i don't want it.
I try to ex
Hi Bill,
I'm glad you chimed in with those pics.
On thing that a lot of people fail to realize is that the bokeh you see on
a small web image tends to smooth out as the photo gets larger. So, if,
for example, the bokeh looks marginally smooth and acceptable on an 800 x
600 pixel web image, it'
69 matches
Mail list logo
