Canon 85mm 1.9

merciful · 07-27-2004

Anyone using one of these old units? After the stunning results with my 50/1.2, I'm interested in a longer lens from the same era for the M3. My V'laender 90/3.5 lacks the speed I crave, and frankly, the results are a little too modern for me. I have to shoot a wedding next month and a softer portrait lens won't do me any harm at all.

bmattock · 07-27-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by merciful
Anyone using one of these old units? After the stunning results with my 50/1.2, I'm interested in a longer lens from the same era for the M3. My V'laender 90/3.5 lacks the speed I crave, and frankly, the results are a little too modern for me. I have to shoot a wedding next month and a softer portrait lens won't do me any harm at all.

There are several types - a black and a silver. I have the silver and I like it very much. Soft it is, when you open it up. Nice bokeh. I'm sorry I don't have a good example right now.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - I presume you're referring to the LSM. And it weighs a ton, just so you know. I use it on my Bessa R.

merciful · 07-27-2004

Thanks, Bill. There's a silver one I've got my eye on, and I think I'll grab it.

I love a weighty lens: seems to balance the M3 well.

back alley · 07-27-2004

how does it look too modern?
seriously i'm curious.
do you mean sharp, harsh, cold?

i ask cause i'm thinking about getting one - pretty quick actually.

joe

merciful · 07-27-2004

I think I'm not terribly impressed by the bokeh, Joe. It might be that it just doesn't have the wide apertures that I'm so hooked on, though.

Example below.

back alley · 07-27-2004

slow lens = fast film=works for me.
but i can understand how you might want a faster lens.

afa this whole bokeh thing...i am undecided but leaning towards the idea that it's a bunch of cr*p, thought up by people with not much else to do or someone trying to sell one lens over the other.
this sounds so like a 'photographer' thing.

i have never heard a regular person who is looking at at photo say anything about the out of focus areas in the background.

i don't know, maybe it's just me...

btw - not trying to start a war here.]

joe

bmattock · 07-27-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by backalley photo
afa this whole bokeh thing...i am undecided but leaning towards the idea that it's a bunch of cr*p, thought up by people with not much else to do or someone trying to sell one lens over the other.
this sounds so like a 'photographer' thing.

i have never heard a regular person who is looking at at photo say anything about the out of focus areas in the background.

i don't know, maybe it's just me...

btw - not trying to start a war here.]

joe

Hey, you can start a war if you want, right? Your house!

But seriously, I find that bokeh is a reasonable word, and that there is a difference in the type of rendering of out-of-focus areas. True, non-photogs might not notice it. But then, we're trained to look at the details in photographs, aren't we? And I believe it *makes* a difference, even if the effect is not CONSCIOUSLY noticed by the viewer - the effect is still there.

Some people like some kinds of bokeh better than others, and that is in itself kind of 'war' material. I don't fight about it, but I know what I like - the smooth creamy kind of bokeh I get with old Canon FD prime lenses (sorry, SLR) or that which I get with my Vivitar Series 1 primes, and that which I get with my A. Schacht LTM lenses. I also like some Pentax M42 mount primes for that reason.

But I can't afford to play with the big boys, and that's ok. I'm happy with what I got going on.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

back alley · 07-27-2004

hey bill,
don't get me wrong - i do admit there are differences in the out of focus areas in a pic, no doubt.
and maybe this is a bad confession to admit to-but i never look for them, did not notice them till they were pointed out to me.

a great photo has impact. that's usually a combination of shooter and subject. i just don't see how the out of focus areas fit into the equation.
like i said before, maybe it's just me...

joe

bmattock · 07-27-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by backalley photo
hey bill,
don't get me wrong - i do admit there are differences in the out of focus areas in a pic, no doubt.
and maybe this is a bad confession to admit to-but i never look for them, did not notice them till they were pointed out to me.

a great photo has impact. that's usually a combination of shooter and subject. i just don't see how the out of focus areas fit into the equation.
like i said before, maybe it's just me...

joe

Do you notice the pauses in a great speaker's speeches?

Do you notice the choice of words that a favorite author uses to keep you on the edge of your seat?

Do you notice the effective use of white space on a concert poster?

Do you notice the dissonant chord struck sotto voce by a great guitarist to emphasize certain phrasing?

It is the effect that is induced, not the noticing of it, that I think we discuss here. I cannot claim to have much more than a basic understanding of the concept - I am in no way one who can speak in the language of photography.

Bokeh is a small thing, a tiny detail. In such ways is greatness divided from the ordinary, the pedestrian, the ho-hum. It's not my hat, it's the way I tilt it, and all that jazz.

There are so many ways we can express ourselves, and to me, the effect of the out-of-focus areas are one means to that end - if one can make it say what one wants, that is...

Just my 2 cents.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Todd.Hanz · 07-27-2004

Bill,
nicely put.
Bokeh, to me at least, should be creamy smooth with no harsh transitions between light an dark areas, blurry if you will. It is a major part of the image, at least my images because I love to shoot wide open. I don't think it should compete with the subject, only enhance it. Bad bokeh (and there is a difference) competes with your subject, is distracting and can draw the viewers eye away from what you want them to see. It's the reason we spend so much money on certain lenses that give us that "look".
Here are some things to look at if you want: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...04-04-04.shtml

Merciful. I have looked at the same lens many times but have you seen this one:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...830262285&rd=1

Todd

back alley · 07-27-2004

bill, not to sound too high on myself but yes, i do notice most of those things you listed.
however i do get your point.

todd, i understand the concept of bokeh as i have read some of the articles and studied some sample pics in order to discern the difference. i agree that a smooth transition without harshness is easier on the eye.

i will have to look at more of my own photos and see what is there that i like about a particular pic. maybe there will be a pattern (no pun intended) that will show me what i like.

time to think some more...thanks guys, you've forced me out of my little closed mind for some fresh air.

joe

Doug · 07-27-2004

Bill, very poetic similes! :-)

I think bokeh is more a factor for some folks than others, and that's fine. And certainly some find a particular bokeh pleasant while others don't. Indeed, it's not unusual for the same lens to have different bokeh under different conditions. I think one example is the 50/1.5 CV Nokton whose bokeh some praise and others condemn.

It's hard to keep track, but I think the way a lens renders oof detail is one factor in choosing to buy.

But it's a tradeoff with other attributes, too. As Leica brings out new aspheric lenses that are sharper and more contrasty wide open, with better correctons to various aberrations, it seems to me the bokeh is going from pleasant to neutral at best. Well, it's nice to have some choices!

merciful · 07-28-2004

Hey, I'm glad I started this thread!

Todd, I hadn't noticed that one: but I think I'll leave it in favour of a 1.9/2 for now. A bit pricey at this point.

merciful · 07-28-2004

I've thought about the early 90 'cron, but I don't feel like paying for it right now. Size, weight, and price...

taffer · 07-28-2004

Even though I think the bokeh concept is sometimes overrated, it's pretty clear that there are pleasant and not so pleasant variations. May have something to do with the way our brain 'reads' a scene, being those 'bright rings' more distracting than other shapes of bokeh, thus stealing your attention from the main subject.

But of course that's me, afaik, there's no 100% objective 'bokeh test bench' developed yet (and hope they'll never make one, we already have enough tests in this world).

merciful · 07-28-2004

Quote:

there's no 100% objective 'bokeh test bench' developed yet

Erwin Puts probably has one. No, we'd have heard from him...

JohnL · 07-28-2004

A long time ago I had a 500mm mirror lens which I used occasionally on Olympus OM bodies. The OOF areas produced by this lens really called attention to themselves, being little round blurry doughnuts whenever there was a bright point of light. Being a long lens, the depth of field was pretty small, so there tended to be a lot of doughnuts. This is the only time I have really noticed strange bokeh without really looking for it. I won't say it was 'bad' bokeh, that would depend on the subject matter, but the little doughnuts eventually got to be rather tiring.
Best wishes, John

taffer · 07-29-2004

John, some years ago I was a member of a local naturalist group and we used to watch the annual prey birds (eagles, hawks and so on, sorry don't know the english word...) migration. They used mostly 500mm mirror lenses and the bokeh I remember is exactly the type you mention, bright doughnuts.

I also remember they were a bit annoying, being there slide after slide. Of course that was only when the background was not the plain sky, like birds flying in front of mountains or things like that.

Mercicul, I'm sure we'd have heard

And your 'lens wide open' philosophy is slowly finding its way to my mind also !

bmattock · 07-29-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by taffer
Mercicul, I'm sure we'd have heard And your 'lens wide open' philosophy is slowly finding its way to my mind also !

I am finding my way into this camp as well. When I'm recording a shot at a distance, I tend to stop down - I'm not going to get the OOF effects I'm after anyway, as the DOF increases as the distance from the lens increases. But, when shooting close up, I tend to go for slower film and wider apertures now. I enjoy the OOF areas that open lenses produce when DOF is small - it lets me tell more of the story where I want to tell it. For example, sharp focus on the subject's hands instead of the eyes (assuming that's appropriate, you get the idea).

However, shooting wide-open *does* highlight differences in lense quality pretty quickly. I'm beginning to agree that nearly any lens is good (or at least acceptable) when stopped down to f8 or so, assuming the resulting enlargement is not going to be huge. But wide open and close up, higher-quality lenses quickly sort themselves out.

If you're after a 'soft' effect, then it probably doesn't matter. But if you actually wanted razor sharpness on the area in focus, then a high quality lens becomes mandatory for best effect.

Not that I can afford such a lens...so I continue to search for old vintage high-quality lenses that have escaped cult status...sigh.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Brian Sweeney · 07-29-2004

I do not have the Canon 85 F1.9, but here are some shots with other vintage Telephoto lenses. In particular, the Jupiter-9 that I have is quite good. The Nikkor 8.5cm F2 is also a great fast lens. I took it on vacation and used it for a lot of shots. The Canon 85 F1.9 goes for less money, and I would grab one if the price was right. The J9 ran me $50, $62 with shipping and insurance.

Brian's Telephoto Gallery

Doug · 07-29-2004

JohnL, I agree -- I think the mirror-lens OOF look is the proverbial "in your face" bokeh that draws attention to itself and cannot be ignored. And lines in the background tend to "double", nearly as annoying. A few years ago I got a 500mm Tokina and have used it a little on an OM-G. I find myself looking for innocuous backgrounds!

One even sees a related effect on some Sonnar-type lenses that have a bright rim to the circles representing OOF background highlights. Little rings and line-doubling, not too pleasant IMHO.

Oscar, they're often called "birds of prey", close to what you said, and a more technical term is "raptor".

merciful · 07-29-2004

Quote:

Not that I can afford such a lens...so I continue to search for old vintage high-quality lenses that have escaped cult status...sigh

Sure you can: Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f2.

Brian Sweeney · 07-30-2004

In the early '70s National Geographic did a spread using Mirror Lenses with backgrounds to accentuate the doughnut affect. I have an old Modern (or Pop?) Photo article on it, with reprints of the shots. I will look for them. Of course this is SLR territory...

merciful · 07-30-2004

That's a plenty sharp lens, Brian! My friend just ordered one from Cameraquest, so it'll be around for me to use as I need. He's got my Hexanon now.

taffer · 07-30-2004

Well it's pretty clear this forum is no good for your wallet, now I found myself looking at a J9 which I didn't buy but some other did. And now I find myself lusting for a Nokton !?

Tsk tsk, no no, must resist. I still hope Rafcamera will be back someday with that $200 Contax to LTM adapter, must save for it

But Kris, that lens looks sharp indeed !

Doug, yes it's birds of prey, thanks ! There's even a combat flight simulator with that name.