[taks]

K-1+DA*300/4+HD1.4TC, handheld, native lighting, close crop, LR(CC)+NIK...
Buckeye Butterfly...

Featured in Flickr Explore (#1) 08 October 2017

Great shot Well deserved. Congratulations!!!

[D. Obermann]

...first tests...

K 1:1.8/85 + K-1; flickr scaled out of camera jpgs; linked to original jpgs; @f/1.8













K 1:1.8/85 + K-1; flickr scaled out of camera jpgs; linked to original jpgs; stopped down one click -?- @f/2.1 - @f/2.3












cross posted from K-Club thread

[redox61]

[cyberjunkie]

Macro lenses generally provide excellent bokeh

Mhhh... I'd reword it. SOME macro lenses have very good bokeh.
Of all the macros I have, only the Sigma Apo Macro 5.6/180mm (MF) has a very good bokeh, probably the rather long focal helps.
The Sigma 2.8/50mm EX DG has one of the worst bokeh ever (though it has plenty of sharpness).
I'd use the word "excellent" for the few bokeh monsters... if the term "bokeh monster" had not been so overused of late (often over-enthusiastically)
From personal experience, I would call excellent the bokeh of most 50/55mm f/1.2, the Trioplan 100mm, some Meyer Primoplan, and also the Summicron M 2/90mm. All in different ways.
I am well aware that some macro lenses are valued for their bokeh, comes to mind the famous Tokina/Vivitar "Bokina", and I've seen on this forum pictures taken with a macro lens that show a nice bokeh. The designers of those lenses have done a great job, cause the aberrations that concur to give a nice bokeh are not exactly what you look for in a macro lens (curved field and under-corrected spherical aberration are not welcome!).
Modern computer-aided optical design seems to allow a nice compromise between opposite needs/features. Impressive!

EDIT:

I'm catching up with Bokeh Club, I didn't have much time to browse the forum lately, and this thread sees a lot of activity. Well, even too much sometimes, some pics have little to do with "bokeh"... but far from my mind being judgemental, I'm simply saying that keeping up with such huge (and at times dispersive) thread needs time, often more time than I have.
I was browsing through July's posts, when I found a few references to Pepperberry Farm's Porst lens suggesting Tomioka production/design.
I found the same incorrect statement a number of other times, so I thought it might be the right time to post what I know about this issue.
I happen to have the Porst 1.2/55mm with me in this moment, and I have at home the Revuenon 1.2/55mm and the SMC Pentax 1.2/50mm.
All are in PK mount.
The Revuenon is unmistakably a Tomioka design (but it could have been actually made by Cosina, nobody knows).
The Porst is a different Cosina design. Everybody can easily check the pictures on Google Images, the rear element is obviously different. All the Tomioka's, PK or M42, have the same very convex design, the Porst doesn't.
The error might be due to a very simple reason. The f/1.4 version of the Porst is actually a Tomioka. I don't own one, if I remember correctly it's M42, I'm not sure it exists in PK.

Regarding the qualities of the three super-fast "normal" lenses, I guess it's up to one's individual taste. It's like hifi loudspeakers, beyond a certain price few people fully understand the subtle differences. They all play well enough...
Personally I like the Revuenon more than the Pentax, but both are great. Maybe it's because I've used the former more than the latter.
The Porst is an old acquisition, used only on APS-C and not enough to understand its peculiarities.
I will use it in the coming months on my K-1, and I will see how it compares with the others.
It should not be as sharp wide open, but have better out of focus rendition. Bokeh-wise, it could be even better

Cheers

Paolo

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 10-12-2017 at 01:38 AM.

[WPRESTO]

Well, I find I get very satisfactory bokeh from the following macro lenses in my collection: DA 35mm f2.8; SMCA 50mm f2.8; Tokina 90mm f2.5; SMCA 200mm f4; Olympus 60mm f2.8. I'd have to look at images from the two other macros to remember what their rendering is like. However, the best "bokeh" producer in my collection is the 85mm f2.2 soft, but that's cheating a bit.

[paulh]

I've been neglecting my bokeh shooting lately, so here's an old one - M50/1.7

[Jean Poitiers]

MX + K 50/1.2 with FP4 Plus with home development in Ilfotech and scanned with an Epson V600 ... first image wide open (xpost)

[WPRESTO]

I suspect there are many boys who, when they become adolescents, will have their hearts broken by that lovely girl.

Nothing but bokeh behind this web, but a little transitional foreground bokeh at lower left.

[Hattifnatt]

DFA 24-70.

[D1N0]

FA 50mm 1.7 on K-1 with some flare thrown in:

[ChristianRock]

Sigma 30 1.4 Art

[NS_Sailor]

A true sign of autumn and a still blooming flower with a bee still hard at work after frost the night before

[WPRESTO]

Pretty decent bokeh behind this plant and its seed head.

[tregubovav]

Pumpkins! with FA 31
(reposted from K-1 Pictures thread)

[pepperberry farm]

Mhhh... I'd reword it. SOME macro lenses have very good bokeh.
Of all the macros I have, only the Sigma Apo Macro 5.6/180mm (MF) has a very good bokeh, probably the rather long focal helps.
The Sigma 2.8/50mm EX DG has one of the worst bokeh ever (though it has plenty of sharpness).
I'd use the word "excellent" for the few bokeh monsters... if the term "bokeh monster" had not been so overused of late (often over-enthusiastically)
From personal experience, I would call excellent the bokeh of most 50/55mm f/1.2, the Trioplan 100mm, some Meyer Primoplan, and also the Summicron M 2/90mm. All in different ways.
I am well aware that some macro lenses are valued for their bokeh, comes to mind the famous Tokina/Vivitar "Bokina", and I've seen on this forum pictures taken with a macro lens that show a nice bokeh. The designers of those lenses have done a great job, cause the aberrations that concur to give a nice bokeh are not exactly what you look for in a macro lens (curved field and under-corrected spherical aberration are not welcome!).
Modern computer-aided optical design seems to allow a nice compromise between opposite needs/features. Impressive!

EDIT:

I'm catching up with Bokeh Club, I didn't have much time to browse the forum lately, and this thread sees a lot of activity. Well, even too much sometimes, some pics have little to do with "bokeh"... but far from my mind being judgemental, I'm simply saying that keeping up with such huge (and at times dispersive) thread needs time, often more time than I have.
I was browsing through July's posts, when I found a few references to Pepperberry Farm's Porst lens suggesting Tomioka production/design.
I found the same incorrect statement a number of other times, so I thought it might be the right time to post what I know about this issue.
I happen to have the Porst 1.2/55mm with me in this moment, and I have at home the Revuenon 1.2/55mm and the SMC Pentax 1.2/50mm.
All are in PK mount.
The Revuenon is unmistakably a Tomioka design (but it could have been actually made by Cosina, nobody knows).
The Porst is a different Cosina design. Everybody can easily check the pictures on Google Images, the rear element is obviously different. All the Tomioka's, PK or M42, have the same very convex design, the Porst doesn't.
The error might be due to a very simple reason. The f/1.4 version of the Porst is actually a Tomioka. I don't own one, if I remember correctly it's M42, I'm not sure it exists in PK.

Regarding the qualities of the three super-fast "normal" lenses, I guess it's up to one's individual taste. It's like hifi loudspeakers, beyond a certain price few people fully understand the subtle differences. They all play well enough...
Personally I like the Revuenon more than the Pentax, but both are great. Maybe it's because I've used the former more than the latter.
The Porst is an old acquisition, used only on APS-C and not enough to understand its peculiarities.
I will use it in the coming months on my K-1, and I will see how it compares with the others.
It should not be as sharp wide open, but have better out of focus rendition. Bokeh-wise, it could be even better

Cheers

Paolo

I have no other super-fast lenses to compare the Porst with, but my experience with the lens has been nothing but positive - I fully expected to be let down by the 55/1.2's performance everywhere, especially when you stop the lens down a bit...