[hjoseph7]

A question out of curiosity. I'm just wondering if we have a Pentax lens that cannot be faulted by pixelpeepers and at the same time render bokeh majestically?

I mean, I have been reading how "flawed" the FA limiteds are , but in my simple mind, how can a lens be technically and acceptably sharp for measure-bators, and still render nice OOF, especially when wide open? Or, take the case of my current lust favorite: the DA 55, I have yet to read an observation faulting its sharpness, but I have seen a lot of pictures where the diminutive FA43 will blow its OOF rendering out of the water at large apertures.

Do we have a lens in the pentax lineup where the two traits, sharpness and smooth bokeh consistently coexist at all apertures?

I thought the 31mm f1.8 fit that bill according to reviews, but I don't own the lens so I can just speculate.

[Naruto]

False! Here I give you the magical Sony/Minolta STF 135mm F2,8: Sony 135mm f/2.8[T4.5] STF Lens Review - photo.net
And Fuji is soon to be releasing a similar lens: Fujifilm introduces XF 56mm F1.2 R APD with apodization filter: Digital Photography Review

I was writing about standard lenses. I prefer a bad bokeh to this garbage where part of the light is not passing in tne glass. But this is just my opinion.

---------- Post added 11-27-14 at 10:42 AM ----------

I thought the 31mm f1.8 fit that bill according to reviews, but I don't own the lens so I can just speculate.

I own it, as well as the two othe FA ltds, the DA 35 Ltd and non ltd...and many others.These lenses are wonder but they do not break the laws of optics which force you to make some compromise.

[Pablom]

Except the 'mind controlling' DA15 which has unbelievably bad bokeh.

That is one example I have not seen replicate in any of mine. Almost any lens can be shown to be bad at very specific situations.

[bdery]

Except the 'mind controlling' DA15 which has unbelievably bad bokeh.

Busy, to say the least. Even more pronounced that with the DA21. Still, it can contribute to a picture, if used wisely.

[normhead]

One of the reasons the 31 is so amazing... is that it's sharp fast and has great bokeh. The normal rule of thumb is, if you want better bokeh, use a longer lens. The 31 allows you to break that rule. And this is the exact reason why I have another rule, never shoot a portrait with a lens 35mm or less, which the 31 also allows you to break. The strength of wide lenses is wide DoF, which when you think about makes bokeh less important. They are usually used to keep the whole field of view in focus.

It all makes sense, if you think about it. Only exceptional lenses like the 31 get great edge to edge sharpness @ ƒ8 and great bokeh @ ƒ 1.8. That's why they are prized by pros, and why that lens is considered by some one of the top 3 lenses ever made.

[eddie1960]

One of the reasons the 31 is so amazing... is that it's sharp fast and has great bokeh. The normal rule of thumb is, if you want better bokeh, use a longer lens. The 31 allows you to break that rule. And this is the exact reason why I have another rule, never shoot a portrait with a lens 35mm or less, which the 31 also allows you to break. The strength of wide lenses is wide DoF, which when you think about makes bokeh less important. They are usually used to keep the whole field of view in focus.

It all makes sense, if you think about it. Only exceptional lenses like the 31 get great edge to edge sharpness @ ƒ8 and great bokeh @ ƒ 1.8. That's why they are prized by pros, and why that lens is considered by some one of the top 3 lenses ever made.

There are exceptions to all those rules the 31 is definitely one (particularly on film - since on digital it's really a widish normal)
the 23.1.4 on the fuji is a good example of breaking rules. along with the 56 i'd say a good enough reason to buy a fuji . I'd say these 2 lenses explain the seemingly large number of pros using the system (sometimes backing up their canikon monsters and in some cases replacing them almost completely)
I still want the 31/43/77 trio at some point preferably with a ff body but even adapted to the fuji or shot on a k 50 even


23 wide open (I could find a prettier subject but the bokeh is very nice



and maybe a little prettier stopped down to 1.6 lol


and the 56 1.2 @ 2.2


and @ 1.2

[normhead]

23 ƒ1.4 just sounds really good without even looking at any pictures.

[eddie1960]

23 ƒ1.4 just sounds really good without even looking at any pictures.

I haven't spent enough time with the 7 lenses I bought yet but I'd say the 23 1.4 , 35 1.4 and 56 1.2 really are hitting a lot of the right notes for me (probably they will become my default xt1 kit so picture fast quiet AF Pentax LX with the FA trio , because that is very much what it feels like. The EVF is as quick as they come (still not as nice as the oversize LX finder) but it is the largest VF I've used next to my Bronica 645, I could watch tv shows on it

The 18 and 27 pancakes are pretty amazing but they lack a little compared to the others (they are pancakes so 1-2 stops less light but so small. the 27 @ 5.6 is sharp edge to edge and on the XE2 is very tiny (I can slip it in a large coat pocket with the half case and a strap on it)

the 60 2.4 macro is ridiculously sharp but slow focus with the long macro throw

the bower i bought is fun but nothing special (8 mm fisheyes for $280 are never going to be, the big Nikon Fisheye that sells for tens of thousands is another story


If I was out in nature like you norm I would have gone the other route and bought a kit much like yours (8 grand buys a lot of kit)

[Rondec]

The FA 77 exhibits longitudinal CA in the out of focus, you can see this by the green fringing in the OFF zone behind the subject and the violet fringing In the OFF in front of the subject

Now, put this into B&W and it will look better.

What you need to remember is that bokeh is all about starting with some separation between foreground and background. Sharp objects, such as the end of the railing in the 77 photo are too close to the focus and too distinct to render nicely regardless of lens.

The top photo was a DA *55 photo -- I assume that is the one you are talking about? I guess I don't know bokeh. To me, I just like when the lens smooths busy backgrounds and doesn't create lots of octagons/hexagons. But I'm pretty easy to please.

This was a FA 77 shot where the background was pretty cluttered and I was pleased with how it got smoothed. But if the bokeh isn't great, then I guess that will be OK with me too.

[hoopsontoast]

K85, my favourite lens:

[kh1234567890]

Busy, to say the least. Even more pronounced that with the DA21. Still, it can contribute to a picture, if used wisely.

The DA21 bokeh is quite passable. The DA15 one isn't.

[Na Horuk]

As a reply to the title question I would mention the DFA 100mm macro. It is super sharp, and it is easy to achieve bokeh, especially wide open or at near focusing (not to mention in the actual macro range, where bokeh is like quicksand that you have to struggle to get out of!). I still wouldn't say this lens is particularly bokehlicious, because its bokeh doesn't have much character. But it is still high quality bokeh, no onion rings, no odd shapes. But to me, a Helios 44-2 is much more of a bokeh monster, because it can make the kind of bokeh that you notice. Just the bokeh on its own. I still love my DFA 100mm, though. And I do use it for bokeh type shots sometimes.

[drypenn]

... because its bokeh doesn't have much character.

This best describes the DFA100's bokeh.

I don't know if it's that superb contrast that I'm seeing, but my copy of K28/3.5 is very sharp, and its OOF rendering is so subtle yet so smooth. I am actually surprised! If this lens has been made faster, this K28/3.5 is definitely SOMETHING.

[eddie1960]

This best describes the DFA100's bokeh.

I don't know if it's that superb contrast that I'm seeing, but my copy of K28/3.5 is very sharp, and its OOF rendering is so subtle yet so smooth. I am actually surprised! If this lens has been made faster, this K28/3.5 is definitely SOMETHING.

the m42/k/m 3.5 lenses (28&35) are all very impressive and sharp. They were designed for wide angle and sharpness. 35 is now largely a normal since it's on a crop sensor. 28 a wide normal. now the speed makes more sense. back in the day it was size and sharpness at 5.6-8 for the 28's and 35's (a 35 was a classic photojournalism tool f8 and be there so to speak. and lightweight so great for hiking of to landscape scenes

@ 3.5 you can still get some bokeh even on the m28 though

cheers

[drypenn]

@eddie yup! bokeh at 3.5