01-19-2011, 03:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2011, 03:34 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1295440110' post='5640']
I personally use "pleasant" for the bokeh quality. And by pleasant I consider the "nature" of the blur more than the "amount" of it. I believe the amount of the blur highly depends on the size of the entrance pupil. So, depending on the subject and background distance, you have more playground with the fast lenses (I'm not sure when it comes to the front bokeh). But the nature of blur depends on the (corrected) spherical aberrations. The image of CoC is almost homogenious in terms of brightness (no harsh outlinings or no harsh brightness transitions for example). In the bokeh test shots of this lens, the blurred highlight disks in background seem to be exceptional in that manner. And I think if the the word "creamy" could be used for the combination of both amount & nature of the bokeh, the bokeh of this lens is "creamy".
However, it still confuses me, howcome the statement "true APO lenses, which have less (or no) spherical aberration, don't show LoCAs and they're usually slower primes in tele field" could be true. I can't explain this to myself with regard to this lens. You guys have any idea?
Serkan
[/quote]
CoC? Are you confusing two things? You can not see a CoC, the CoC is an imaginary entity to try and express how for instance print size and view distance influence perceived depth of field and sharpness.
Also, the shape and homogenous quality of out of focus highlights have no one on one relation to the smoothness of bokeh. In fact, there are lenses that show very homogenous and round highlights, and yet have awful bokeh.
Bokeh should be called "creamy" when the transitions are very smooth, when the blur is silky and effortless. Not a quality of this particular lens, in all fairness. That the background gets blurred a lot, yes, that is evident. And one would expect nothing less with f2 at 200mm. But, besides the blur, it is just not a lens which bokeh can be described as "creamy".
Examples to illustrate that:
![[Image: 4045067676_d240ce7b36_z.jpg]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3643/4045067676_d240ce7b36_z.jpg)
![[Image: 4045069254_20e0e7a1b5_z.jpg]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2600/4045069254_20e0e7a1b5_z.jpg)
(from http://www.flickr.com/photos/grobarek/40...otostream/)
![[Image: 424882088_KQur8-O.jpg]](http://lumens.smugmug.com/photos/424882088_KQur8-O.jpg)
![[Image: 424882152_XjbAU-O.jpg]](http://lumens.smugmug.com/photos/424882152_XjbAU-O.jpg)
Compare that to the bokeh of the 2 images posted by genotypewriter. They have no perfectly creamy bpkeh either, but it looks at least more smooth.
Yes, the Nikon 200mm f2 VR is an impressive lens. No, its bokeh is not creamy at all.
I personally use "pleasant" for the bokeh quality. And by pleasant I consider the "nature" of the blur more than the "amount" of it. I believe the amount of the blur highly depends on the size of the entrance pupil. So, depending on the subject and background distance, you have more playground with the fast lenses (I'm not sure when it comes to the front bokeh). But the nature of blur depends on the (corrected) spherical aberrations. The image of CoC is almost homogenious in terms of brightness (no harsh outlinings or no harsh brightness transitions for example). In the bokeh test shots of this lens, the blurred highlight disks in background seem to be exceptional in that manner. And I think if the the word "creamy" could be used for the combination of both amount & nature of the bokeh, the bokeh of this lens is "creamy".
However, it still confuses me, howcome the statement "true APO lenses, which have less (or no) spherical aberration, don't show LoCAs and they're usually slower primes in tele field" could be true. I can't explain this to myself with regard to this lens. You guys have any idea?
Serkan
[/quote]
CoC? Are you confusing two things? You can not see a CoC, the CoC is an imaginary entity to try and express how for instance print size and view distance influence perceived depth of field and sharpness.
Also, the shape and homogenous quality of out of focus highlights have no one on one relation to the smoothness of bokeh. In fact, there are lenses that show very homogenous and round highlights, and yet have awful bokeh.
Bokeh should be called "creamy" when the transitions are very smooth, when the blur is silky and effortless. Not a quality of this particular lens, in all fairness. That the background gets blurred a lot, yes, that is evident. And one would expect nothing less with f2 at 200mm. But, besides the blur, it is just not a lens which bokeh can be described as "creamy".
Examples to illustrate that:
(from http://www.flickr.com/photos/grobarek/40...otostream/)
Compare that to the bokeh of the 2 images posted by genotypewriter. They have no perfectly creamy bpkeh either, but it looks at least more smooth.
Yes, the Nikon 200mm f2 VR is an impressive lens. No, its bokeh is not creamy at all.