Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
I am not sure how to explain this, it's like explaining a sound. But you notice how in some pictures the little leaves sort of gelled together tidily?
That one I really like and I will never able to do that with my lens. It's just a little thing I know but it's a lot of difference for me. The bokeh is painting like.
Milk:
Of course I know bokeh is background/object/distance dependent - and focal length dependent too - too many variables, but some lenses just produce different characteristics altogether due to difference in lens design/quality.
Let's use these for example:
The first 2 pictures are the ones I took (actually my partner took it) using my Nikon, I know it can produce beautiful result, but the bokeh is just different altogether compared to Kinoptik one (the 3rd picture *owner of 3rd picture is Loveada in case he is reading this )
The first 2 are pictures of family members that's why I edited out the faces.
Picture 1 (Nikon)
Picture 2 (Nikon)
Picture 3 (Kinoptik)
PS: I don't know how much is the street price for Noct now, but I think the last time I saw it, it went for 3 grand?
The effect is growing on me. I have to say the effect doesn't quite work in its favour (IMO) in every situation.
This one's from the Chinese photography forum:
It's a fantastic shot, but the flowers are just a tad too punctuated. I don't like it when the background draws too much attention from the subject itself.
I think I can do as the second picture you mentioned, well at least close to it, but I don't think I can produce image even close to those grass pictures I mentioned.
I actually liked the background better on the 1st picture, I guess it's really subjective and depends on each person's taste huh? haha...
Headphoneus Supremus: Loyal member of Team Useful Post.
If bokeh is really important to you, you should give up on this Nikon digital business and either go to Zeiss and Leica lenses or go to medium format. For whatever reason, they just seem to do it better than most of the Canon and Nikon versions. Leica also has a 75/2 apo and a 75/1.4 that have a similar look to that kinoptic, though they look to be sharper and not quite as swirly in the bokeh. Their particularly swirly lens is the 50mm f/1
Headphoneus Supremus: Loyal member of Team Useful Post.
That said, a lot of older lenses tend to have that Kinoptic look. Spherical aberration is one of the causes (spherical aberration makes bokeh look better...usually). Another option would be to get either the 105/2 DC or 135/2 DC. Both these lenses have superb bokeh, and you can even control it with the DC function.
I am not sure how to explain this, it's like explaining a sound. But you notice how in some pictures the little leaves sort of gelled together tidily?
That one I really like and I will never able to do that with my lens. It's just a little thing I know but it's a lot of difference for me. The bokeh is painting like.
Milk:
Of course I know bokeh is background/object/distance dependent - and focal length dependent too - too many variables, but some lenses just produce different characteristics altogether due to difference in lens design/quality.
Let's use these for example:
The first 2 pictures are the ones I took (actually my partner took it) using my Nikon, I know it can produce beautiful result, but the bokeh is just different altogether compared to Kinoptik one (the 3rd picture *owner of 3rd picture is Loveada in case he is reading this )
The first 2 are pictures of family members that's why I edited out the faces.
PS: I don't know how much is the street price for Noct now, but I think the last time I saw it, it went for 3 grand?
I see what you're going for in the last comparison, but to be fair, I don't think the "normal" Nikon lens on the right has the best bokeh to begin with. As has been said, however, bokeh is dependent on many different factors, and in some cases the Kinoptic effect seems to work quite well.
__________________ Main Rig: Kenwood DP-1100II CDP -> Heath AP-2510 Preamplifier -> MAD EAR+ HD -> Grado RS-1's Photo-Fi: Nikon D200 - 35mm f/2D - 85mm f/1.8D - 80mm-200mm f/2.8D
If bokeh is really important to you, you should give up on this Nikon digital business and either go to Zeiss and Leica lenses or go to medium format. For whatever reason, they just seem to do it better than most of the Canon and Nikon versions. Leica also has a 75/2 apo and a 75/1.4 that have a similar look to that kinoptic, though they look to be sharper and not quite as swirly in the bokeh. Their particularly swirly lens is the 50mm f/1
Hehe... I know, but my wallet doesn't agree to my taste of lenses. Yeah I also love those Leica Noctilux lenses (Particularly the one I would love to have is the 50mm f/1 Noctilux for Leica rangefinder), I don't know why Nikon can't make those kind of lenses... But anyway, if they did, it would be out of my price range anyway.
)
. I have to say the effect doesn't quite work in its favour (IMO) in every situation.
