A Big Bokeh Test

[rdenney]

I promised that I would play with the lenses that I have in the 120-135 focal range and put something up on the bokeh differences. And I was curious how the Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 Sonnar would stack up against L glass and Canon's 135/2.8 soft-focus portrait lens. In the end, I threw in everything but the kitchen sink.

Here are few teaser images:

Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5, at f/4:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2822.jpg

An old Bausch and Lomb Tessar (pre-war, uncoated):

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2823.jpg

75-150 Series E Nikkor:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2825.jpg

Canon 70-200/4L:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2827.jpg

Canson 135/2.8 Soft Focus:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2828.jpg

Yup, I think the Sonnar is best, too. But I was very impressed with the 70-200/4L, and it performed well in a variety of circumstances.

The test was also a demonstration of how easy it is to adapt lenses to the Canon. I made pictures with Canon lenses, medium-format lenses in Pentacon Six mount, barrel lenses mounted on a bellows, M42 screw-mount lenses, and even a Nikkor.

Read the whole article, here:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Let me know if you guys see the same things I'm seeing.

Rick "seeking comments" Denney

[jfrancho]

I'd say that your test shows that modern technology has struck a nice balance combining sharp subjects and yet retaining "nice" bokeh. But you are right, the Sonnar gives it the look. Thanks for sharing your work!

[DavidEB]

A highly informative post. thanks.

this may be a first -- comparing bottles of wine and commenting on the bokeh instead of the bouquet.

[roanjohn]

COOL!!! This forum is becoming BOKEH crazy!!! I must've used that word 50 times in the past two days!!! I'm glad though......as I am a bokeh FREAK myself!!!

Thanks for taking the time in doing this test.

Ro1

[jfrancho]

You could drink ALL the wine, and end up with "bokeh-vision."

[roanjohn]

You could drink ALL the wine, and end up with "bokeh-vision."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

LOL!!!

Ro1

[rdenney]

You could drink ALL the wine, and end up with "bokeh-vision."

Well, Tom has his Chivas, and that will give you double-line bokeh a lot quicker than my Australian wine, heh, heh.

Rick "considering with some longing the Glenfiddich, however" Denney

[foxbat]

In that shot the zeiss and the canon f/4L are virtually the same. Nice test, and what's the price difference again? ;)

[jfrancho]

Well, Tom has his Chivas, and that will give you double-line bokeh a lot quicker than my Australian wine, heh, heh.

Rick "considering with some longing the Glenfiddich, however" DenneyI'm partial to the Italian stuff, though I do like the Aussie stuff, too. However, I believe the boxed varieties give the most bokeh for the buck.

[Dante King]

Anything with a twist off "cork" or comes in a metalized pouch is definately great for vision alteration. I must say that back in the day, wild turkey 101 proof did create some fantastic Bokeh!

Very interesting test Rdenney. I must leave now as you appear to be the devil and tempting me to spend all my money on very expensive camera equipment. LOL

[Tom W]

COOL!!! This forum is becoming BOKEH crazy!!!

Ro1

This month's focus is on bokeh. :)

[Tom W]

Of the 5 images you show, the Baush & Lomb is the choppiest. The Canon Soft Focus isn't as smooth as the other three either. The Nikkor, Canon 70-200, and the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 were all smooth in my eyes.

I'll take some time later to study the images on your link. Nice job on the test - you took my attempt a step farther. :)

[rdenney]

Of the 5 images you show, the Baush & Lomb is the choppiest. The Canon Soft Focus isn't as smooth as the other three either. The Nikkor, Canon 70-200, and the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 were all smooth in my eyes.

I'll take some time later to study the images on your link. Nice job on the test - you took my attempt a step farther. :)

Yes, I agree. The Sonnar has the edge, but not by much.

The Canon zoom surprised me, but then it's high-end glass. The cheap Nikkor REALLY surprised me. I'd probably use that lens on that camera if it wasn't falling apart mechanically.

Rick "who doesn't like zooms that zoom themselves" Denney

[Carzee]

Chiming in with the others - a big thank you for that test page.

Looking around at that Sonner big 180/2.8... it looks to have a filter size around 80-90!

It would have to be great value glass for getting shots of slower wildlife.

[DocFrankenstein]

LOL

After all my ravings about bokeh they all seem identical. Maybe it's because the nifty-fifty wasn't included?

[condyk]

Well to me, unassisted by any form of beveridge, I opt for the Canon as the sharpest edged and, particularly, most dynamically contrasted, image with bokeh just about on a par with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar. The latter I would also be very happy with overall as it's certainly close.

[PhotosGuy]

Great job! Thanks . The cheap Nikkor REALLY surprised me. Too bad you didn't have the 105 f/2.5 for the test. It would have surprised you even more! ;-)

[cmM]

thanks Rick, deffinitely an interesting perspective ;)

[rdenney]

Chiming in with the others - a big thank you for that test page.

Looking around at that Sonner big 180/2.8... it looks to have a filter size around 80-90!

It would have to be great value glass for getting shots of slower wildlife.

The filter size on the 180/2.8 is 86mm. It comes with an 86/95 adaptor, and the factory shade has a 95 ring. That's the good news, because 95 is an easier diameter to find. I found a Bronica-labeled circular polarizer in 95mm for $60 on ebay.

Remember that this lens is made for medium-format coverage, and is sharp edge-to-edge of a 56x56 image frame. Would that we had a sensor that large!

Rick "noting that this lens is unavailable for Hasselblad primarily because H's shutters aren't big enough for a lens this fast" Denney

[rdenney]

LOL

After all my ravings about bokeh they all seem identical. Maybe it's because the nifty-fifty wasn't included?

They aren't identical, but the differences don't glow in the dark.

But I don't think my two scenarios really capture the whole story. There may be a close-focus effect that would not be apparent with larger and more distant subject. The 120mm Vega that did pretty well in this test has made some images with bokeh worse than your nifty-fifty, and the Sonnar 180's bokeh is so good that in portraits my non-technical wife can tell the difference by casual review of the lab proofs. And the more experienced members of the Kiev Report forum were able to tell the difference on their computer monitors between the 180/2.8 Sonnar and the 150/2.8 Hartblei, which also has a reputation for good bokeh. That was a blind test. So my little test here is not telling the whole story, but I need more experience to figure out what I'm missing.

It is a subtle thing at best, though. But I think subtleties are important, especially with people pictures where the customer is nearly always too narcissistic to preclude being disappointed by whatever we provide.

Rick "who was expecting bigger differences" Denney

[dannym]

Always wanted to use the word, so here goes:

BOKEH

kinka like

Bleucher !

you know...........as in Frau Bleucher...Neyyyyyyyyyyyy!

I digress. Great comparisons. Thanks.