compact 210mm bokeh

[raizans]

yes, another thread spawned by chris perez's six lens matchup!

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

i'm interested in the bokeh of compact 210mm(-ish) lenses: the 210/6.1 xenar, 210/6.8 geronar, and 200/8 nikkor-m. another lens that he did not test is the 210/9 g-claron. then there are many vintage lenses.

the test only consisted of one photograph, which doesn't tell you much because bokeh varies from one picture to another. if you have extensive experience with any of these lenses, especially for taking portraits, how would you describe the behavior and quality of the bokeh?

[Ken Lee]

I made some of my own blur tests - but not with the lenses you mention. From what I can tell, Christopher's conclusions are right. For modern lenses of normal design*, focal length and aperture shape are the key determinants of blur rendition. Longer lenses, at wider apertures, give more blur. Circular diaphragms give circular blurry highlights.

Click here to see a test made with 3 different 150mm lenses at f/11. The lenses are Heliar, APO Nikor, and APO-Sironar-S. I made a similar test with longer lenses, 210 through 360. Let me know and I'll post that one too.

Note: The image is large, so your web browser might shrink it to fit the screen. You may have to click or right-click on the image to enlarge it.

This was not a resolution test to determine which of the lenses is sharpest. It wasn't a coverage test either. I just wanted to compare blur. These photos were made on 4x5, and the images were scanned at medium resolution. Levels Adjustments were applied in Photoshop to mitigate any differences in tonal scale, and the images were sharpened together.

* Portrait lenses are different. They are actually designed to give blur. As any fan of Jim Galli will tell you - and who here isn't ? - each design has its own signature. Heliars for example, give uncorrected aberrations when opened wide, but as the lens is stopped-down, the aberrations decline. By the time you get to f/11, the blur looks just like what you get from a Sironar, a Tessar, or any other non-portrait lens.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Ken I still she a tiny dif at the background, the Heliar is the softest in the out of fokus part! Very small but it is there!

[Ken Lee]

Ken I still she a tiny dif at the background, the Heliar is the softest in the out of fokus part! Very small but it is there!

You're right Armin. I see it, now that you have pointed it out. As you say, the difference is very slight. And I tried to choose my words carefully, calling focal length and aperture shape the "key" determinants of blur rendition.

Click here for the same test, with some 210mm and 240mm lenses: 210mm Heliar and Tessar, 240mm Fujinon A and APO Nikkor, all at f/11

My focus was slightly off with the Heliar. After reviewing these tests, I purchased a focusing loupe !

[rfesk]

The article published in Photo Techniques years ago about bokeh showed a photo taken with Leica 35/2 Sumicron 4th version (the so-called king of bokeh.) What stood out about that photo was the out of focus bright areas behind the object in focus still held their shape. It seems this is because the lens does not produce bright ring out-of-focus highlights like so many lenses do.

Doesn't seem that this has been explored in LF lenses as much as it should. I just purchased an older Symmar 150 with a 10 or so bladed shutter to see how the bokeh compares to other lenses.

[raizans]

the 35mm summicron pre-asph is a good example of the variability of bokeh. its reputation as "the king of bokeh" rests solely on its performance at medium apertures and medium focus distances. closeup and wide open, the bokeh is some of the harshest you'll ever see. mike johnston mentions this caveat in a footnote of his bokeh ratings pdf.

maybe my original question is too esoteric. i imagine that most people buy compact 210mm lenses for landscapes instead of portraits.

[David Karp]

I have a 210mm f/6.1 Caltar Pro, which is a nice, sharp, small and light version of the Schneider Xenar. I also have a 210 Caltar II-N, which is a Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N. The Bokeh is much nicer on the Caltar II-N, which of course is not compact.

Neither of them has a round aperture. The Caltar Pro is in a silver ring Copal with the blocky serrations. The Caltar II-N is in an all black Copal. It seems that the difference is based on the design of the lens.

[Ken Lee]

The Bokeh is much nicer on the Caltar II-N, which of course is not compact.

Can you support that wildly exaggerated claim with some sample images ?

[David Karp]

Hi Ken,

I can support my claim that the Caltar II-N is not compact! The Caltar Pro is on the left. The Caltar II-N is in the middle. (The one on the right is a Caltar II-E.)

[David Karp]

I can't directly support my claim regarding the Bokeh because I don't have any apples to apples comparisons. I think I might have an apples to oranges comparison for you. Just give me some time to dig it up.