I fixed the bokeh a bit at post processing. I think right now, it looks pretty good to me. I also purposefully tested the lens in that area precisely I know it will be some of the "worst case scenario" bokeh-wise speaking.
I fixed the bokeh a bit at post processing. I think right now, it looks pretty good to me. I also purposefully tested the lens in that area precisely I know it will be some of the "worst case scenario" bokeh-wise speaking.
What happens if you turn Xenotar other way around? would it shoot like Planar?Wow! So it does look similar with the sections reversed! Thanks
[QUOTE=richardman;1085079]This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).
It would be quite a challenge to find fast high resolution lenses that show smooth bokeh in an image that is so high in contrast.
If you stop the lens down one stop or so, the bokeh will smooth out somewhat. This is true of basically all lenses, not just Xenotars/planars.
On small and medium format, my favourite lenses for bokeh are Sonnars, due to the smoothness. What would the closest be in rendering on large format?
Yes, I was going to add that the Xenotars in my experience (which are for medium format, lest Dan turn his torch in my direction), are neither known for nor do they produce smooth bokeh.Originally Posted by richardman
This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).
I have an 80mm Biometar (also for MF) and it is...okay. And I have a 120mm Biometar (also MF) which is quixotic. (Both are CZJ make, and follow the original--and only--Biometar layout.) In some combinations of aperture and subject distance, the bokeh is quite smooth, but occasionally it looks like your picture. (Of course, whether bokeh is good or bad is subjective--some people prefer this sort of busy bokeh). I've always considered double-gauss bokeh to be rather busy. But at f/2.8, the quantity of blur is likely to overcome the quality of blur. The double-gauss designs have the advantage of being fairly sharp at high apertures (per Kingslake), in return for their more limited coverage, large size, and busy bokeh.
(By the way, Dan, Ian did mention that the medium-format lenses he showed were Rollei TLR lenses, so your complaint was not that it was false, but rather that it was irrelevant to the OP's question. But if we considered that a sin worth deleting posts, we'd have to erase half the forum.)
Rick "who's never been prepared to afford an f/2.8 lens for large format" Denney
Rick "who's never been prepared to afford an f/2.8 lens for large format", you haven't shopped in the right places. My 6"/1.9 Super Six (Dallmeyer lens, covers 4x5) cost $70 delivered from England. My 200/2.0 S.F.O.M. (covers 4x5) cost $200 delivered from France.
On the other hand, you've displayed excellent common sense. There really aren't shutters for these lenses, at least shutters with high enough speeds to allow them to be used near wide open very often. I was never able to shoot either, don't miss them and am glad to have the money they brought. I still have a couple of fast shorter lenses that I can use on a 2x3 Speed Graphic (4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat, 100/2.5 Uran-27, 95/2.8 Saphir) and hardly ever hit situations where I can use either near wide open. Stopped down they're no better than slower, smaller and much lighter 4" or so lenses in shutter. Please don't remind me about ND filters, I bought some ages ago to use on fast lenses on cine cameras. But the cine cameras had variable slit width shutters so I didn't have to use the NDs.
Because of those not fast enough shutters I am sad that we are not left with enough slow speed films these days. Adox seems like the only option and fact that some people rate Foma 100 at 25 or 32 ISO and then it's not a problem to use ƒ2-ƒ3 lenses wide open on normal sunny day.
Cine lenses have a long history of producing smooth Bokeh under extreme contrast and flare conditions at full aperture and stopped down. Most if not all are Gauss designs currently made by Cooke, Schneider, Panavision, Zeiss and others. The prime lenses are usually a color matched set and are sold as in sets.. cost run in mid five to six figures in USD.
Schneider Cine Xenar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bGGbfe6uvQ
Cooke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5e_2mZn9mo
Panavision/Canon:
Zeiss, Canon, Rokinon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rxg-yxTr4
Bernice
[QUOTE=genotypewriter;1085167]
Modern LF lenses missed out due to what I believe is the everything in sharp focus stopped down to no less than f22, high contrast, hard hitting image idealogy (I believe in this early one, after a few years doing LF, I gave up on it and moved to vintage lenses for this reason and others). During the peak of the film and LF era, lens manufactures could have designed and produced large aperture lenses that produced nice smooth Bokeh. Copal and others could have made large opening shutters as required. But since the way most if not all LF work produced during that time was everything sharp with great DOF, this avenue of lens design was not traveled during the peak of LF image making history.
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks