Re: The Zeiss Myth... Empiracle data doesn't exist in a vaccuum. There must be a mind to
evaluate, interpret and/or use it to some end, a subjective mind. In
either case, Paul Furman's post and links have probably said everything
I was about to say on this point (pardon the pun). Whether you use a
set of numbers, a diagram/graph (is it sagital vs. tangential MTF
curves that indicate bokeh and/or spherical aberration or both, my
memory fails me on this) or a photo as the means to carry "empiracle
data", bokeh (at least one aspect of it) can be easily seen in the
light distribution pattern within a blur circle or line patterns (ie.
gaussian blur soft edged evenly illuminated discs, de-doubled lines,
etc.). You canhave all the empiracle datain the world but a lens's
bokeh is either to your taste/purpose(s) or it isn't.
Yes, it is. See above and Paul Furman's post too. I don't know why you
are so hooked on numbers (perhaps overly influence by resolution
tests?) but whatever floats your boat :-)
Actually with Leica's current set of lenses its the other way round.
Their reformulated Asph (aspherical) lenses sacrifice smoothness of
bokeh for sharpness wide open. The 35mm f/2 Summicron 4th/last
generation and the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M mount lenses verses their ASPH
counterparts are often cited examples of this new(ish) Leica trend.
Before this (1990's? till present) Leica lens's bokeh was a big factor
in the "Leica look" (still is to some extent) - how do you know they
didn't or don't design for good bokeh which is balanced against but not
at the expense of other lens attributes? Do you really know their
optical trade offs?
I can argue neither for nor against this point as I don't see how
cementing elements, other than some kind of general haze-like
non-spherical aberration soft focus effect would create any kind of
aberration, slight or otherwise. It would be like putting a slightly
dirty window inside the lens wouldn't it? - I don't see how it would
bend light rays differently to cause the slight undercorrected
spherical aberration that would engender "good bokeh".
Ironically? some early Nikon rangefinder lenses had really pleasing
bokeh (numbers, graphs and empiracle data aside).
Shall I say "crappy" or less well corrected lenses like the Holgas tend
to introduce their own set of very stylized/"artistic" lens aberrations
to the image to give it a certain soft focus (spherical aberration?)
look. Scan the web, if you want, for Holga, Diana and or Len Baby shots
and you'll catch my drift. The lens defects give a very moody look to
landscape shots.
Reportage includes portraiture as part of its umbrella. Not every shot
is a group shot taken with a 17-45 lens at f/16. Portraiture is not
limited to the K-Mart or upscale portrait studios.
If your needs are satisfied by that particular game plan then more
power to you :-). Just trying to offer you a way to keep your Pentax
lens gear and enter the digital DSLR arena with minimal financial pain.
Neither do I.But as you probably know, not all Pentax's AF lenses past
or present are plastic. Especially the current Limited edition (as well
as some current FA*, A*, A, M, K, and screw mount lenses of course)
with many built to high optical/mexhanical standards.
What (digital) lens out there is going to
See above.
No reason, other than you wanting to make Pentax rich allover again
;-).
Good idea. A paint can tied as a weight to the tripod or some downward
pressure applied to the camera on the tripod can add "image
stabilisation" to the ricketiest of pods.
I've done the same thing with a Leicaflex when I owned it. Good trick.
Only for those shots where a tripod (due to topography (rocky/uneven
terrain, tight spaces, etc.) or some other reason/encumbrance) would be
impractical and flash (of course, with most landscapes) is not an
option.
Film helps too ;-)
Well then you know your needs and your current equipment, it seems, for
the most part, satisfies those needs.
Tony would beg to differ with you, he tends to think that Pentax lenses
have more (barrel?) distortion.
multicoating that is
35mm format lenses (all with excellent SMC coatings) will work on the
Pentax DSLRs too.
(We don't know, because it is difficult or
Pop may test them, but my standards are much higher than their ratings
it would seem...
Leica. Zeiss. Current Pentax lenses such as the 85/1.4 FA*, possibly
the 77mm f/1.8 Limited, 50/1.4 FA (probably, other than me,
"thebokehking" of lenses ;-)) and my 20-35/4 FA when focused close and
used wide open has beautiful bokeh too - there are probably other but I
don't own every current or near current Pentax lens, just wish I did
;-). Some of the new 4/3 Olympus lenses have "Leica worthy" (if not
Pentax worthy bokeh.
Or better build quality? And, if such lenses do exist, what do
A lot :-) ;-)
You seem to know what you want to do and how to achieve it with the
gear you want. But if you ever did want to go the DSLR route, don't
discount Pentax's current DSLR efforts. They are very competitive (more
so in some areas such as price (under $1000 for the pro body and about
$350 for one of the amature bodies) vs. the usefulness (perhaps not to
you but to others) of the features you get for those low prices (IE.
anti-shake with any lens built into two of the bodies and water
proofing built into the pro model). And as mentioned, there are many
Pentax lenses that, though not as highly well built (othe than the
Limiteds and perghaps some FA* lenses) are no small shakes (pardon the
pun) optically bokehwise, anti-flare coatings wise, sharpness-wise,
etc.).
Thebokehking
|
|
