Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**AggieDad** · 05-22-2018, 07:25 PM

So now we know why there is both vanilla and chocolate.

ZombieArmy · 05-22-2018, 11:06 PM

I like #4's bokeh most. Also the links are broken.

LensBeginner · 05-23-2018, 02:39 AM

#1 is more bright and saturated, not by much, but I think it's enough to create a bias. Also magnification is not exactly the same in the four images (for obvious reasons).
#1 has by far the ugliest, busiest bokeh IMHO, best being #4.

normhead · 05-23-2018, 04:58 AM

The different focus breathing characteristics of the different lenses makes getting images exactly the same size difficult without including a ruler in the photo. I don't know what happened with he links last night, but they started working agin late in the evening.

normhead · 05-23-2018, 06:12 AM - **2 Likes**

579 views and 37 votes. I usually get around 100 votes for a poll/ I'm definitely slipping. I wonder if all the non-votes are code for "I really don't care."

ChristianRock · 05-23-2018, 07:02 AM

When I first saw this thread on my phone, the poll didn't come up. I replied without voting. When I came back later, I saw the poll and voted what I had already commented on.
Maybe that's why not many people voted, I think there was some forum software issue perhaps hiding the poll?

All of the pictures are beautiful and I would be happy with any of those lenses. But the differences in magnification and exposure could explain why some people are more attracted to some of the pictures. I voted 3 but now I'm thinking if that picture wasn't t a bigger magnification compared to the others, would I still vote for it? I don't know. And everybody seems to love the rendering of 1 but it's exposed differently from the others, I think exposure is right on for that one and maybe a tad underexposed for the others.

Still, a very fun exercise and big thanks to you Norm, for putting this together.

normhead · 05-23-2018, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

When I first saw this thread on my phone, the poll didn't come up. I replied without voting. When I came back later, I saw the poll and voted what I had already commented on.
Maybe that's why not many people voted, I think there was some forum software issue perhaps hiding the poll?

All of the pictures are beautiful and I would be happy with any of those lenses. But the differences in magnification and exposure could explain why some people are more attracted to some of the pictures. I voted 3 but now I'm thinking if that picture wasn't t a bigger magnification compared to the others, would I still vote for it? I don't know. And everybody seems to love the rendering of 1 but it's exposed differently from the others, I think exposure is right on for that one and maybe a tad underexposed for the others.

Still, a very fun exercise and big thanks to you Norm, for putting this together.

It was shot in real world conditions, on a slope, and I had to try and keep the size of the flower constant, which I failed miserably at, but that's the difference between shooting in a studio and shooting in the real world. Inconsistent focus breathing among the lenses made it even more difficult. And basically, I take the 50 macro when I want a standard lens that does macro, I take the 70 macro for images taken close to the house where I won't have to carry it far. The Tamron 90 is my wife's walk around lens. I got the sideways look down the long part of the nose when I picked it up. The 100 is the smallest lightest and WR, so it's my most common carry option. But i don't really worry about IQ with any of them.

Last edited by normhead; 05-23-2018 at 07:36 AM.

ChristianRock · 05-23-2018, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by normhead

But i don't really worry about IQ with any of them.

And I think that's the perfect conclusion here...

Even my old M 50 f4 Macro, I think, can hang in there with these lenses despite being what, 40 years old by now. Probably something like 50 years when we think the design was already available as a Takumar, then a K version, before my M version came out. Macro lenses are so well designed and have been so for a long time now, and I think that if we can learn anything from this shoot is that if we have a macro lens, we shouldn't worry if it's good enough, it very likely is, and we should just go out there and shoot and make the best of it

normhead · 05-23-2018, 07:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ChristianRock

And I think that's the perfect conclusion here...

Even my old M 50 f4 Macro, I think, can hang in there with these lenses despite being what, 40 years old by now. Probably something like 50 years when we think the design was already available as a Takumar, then a K version, before my M version came out. Macro lenses are so well designed and have been so for a long time now, and I think that if we can learn anything from this shoot is that if we have a macro lens, we shouldn't worry if it's good enough, it very likely is, and we should just go out there and shoot and make the best of it

Which goes with my other thought on this, for any but the very cheapest older lenses like my Tamron rebadge FA 28-200 select your lens by maximum aperture, weight and other features like WR and construction. I don't actually think I've seen images where I thought "if only that image had been taken with such and such a lens". When I bought my K-1 I just loved the old FA 35-80 on it. Cheap, light weight, lousy construction, but I loved the images. If it had the range of my 28-105 and bit better build quality, I would still be going out with it. It's a rare image that maxes out even the cheapest. oldest lenses.

**Madaboutpix** · 05-23-2018, 08:22 AM

Voted for #3, but also like #4.

#4 is even "creamier" than #3, but the latter has punchier colours (even in the blurred background), which I happen to like.

Viewers may be influenced by the fact that #4 is slightly out of focus, BTW.

Thanks indeed for putting this together, Norm.

normhead · 05-23-2018, 08:53 AM

The micro-contrast of the Tamron 90, (#3) has always been a step above any other lens I've tested it against.

swanlefitte · 05-23-2018, 12:58 PM - **1 Like**

Its interesting how the divide goes considering how different 1 is from 4. Reminds me of a ted talk about spaghetti sauce. On spaghetti sauce - Malcolm Gladwell | TED-Ed.

I was really interested in how the browns vs greens rendered differently. I like the green in 4 much better than in 3 but the brown in 3 better than in 4. I don't think to much about bokeh most off the time because it is a secondary consideration most of the time. I want that bird I need my long lens. I need this framing I need this focal length. I rarely have redundant focal lengths with me at a single time so that choice of which lens for bokeh can't apply.
This test gives me inspiration to be able to think more of bokeh. I often come home and find that some shots I took have very pleasant or distracting bokeh from the same lens. I have even taken out a lens with character bokeh to produce as many different characters as I could. Think of swirly bokeh with the hellios only works in some conditions. My tests have almost invariably been flowers. This means green leaves brown dirt or blue/white sky. I now think (but yet to test) different lenses are better with different colors. Now I have to go test because if a certain lens works great with certain colors a slight change of angle to get minimize certain colors might give me a much better composition.

Here are some examples of what I mean. I love this first and hate the second, both from the sigma 70mm. I think it has to do with the red channel.

normhead · 05-23-2018, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by swanlefitte

I rarely have redundant focal lengths with me at a single time so that choice of which lens for bokeh can't apply.

Same here, I bring one macro, which one depends on circumstances. And actually all three of my macros I own are the result of my wife stealing the Tamron 90. But she uses it so much it's usually not available for me to borrow. She actually uses it as her walk around lens.

I bought the Sigma, because it was affordable and seemed really good. I got the 50 because I wanted something smaller. I got the 100 because I wanted WR. Before you know it you have 4 macros, even though at any one time, I'm not going to have more than one with me.

**Kerrowdown** · 05-23-2018, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Macro-bokeh-test

Out of these four, I like mine smooth... so it has to be No4.

Normally mind... I like wee circles of white ish light.

normhead · 05-23-2018, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

Out of these four, I like mine smooth... so it has to be No4.

Normally mind... I like wee circles of white ish light.

That the longest of the bunch, and makes me wonder how much we might like the 200 ƒ4 macro. But it's unlikely there will ever be one here for a test.

View Poll Results: Which lens has the best bokeh?
Picture 1	16	22.86%
Picture 2	2	2.86%
Picture 3	27	38.57%
Picture 4	25	35.71%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

05-23-2018, 07:49 AM - 1 Like	#24
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChristianRock And I think that's the perfect conclusion here... Even my old M 50 f4 Macro, I think, can hang in there with these lenses despite being what, 40 years old by now. Probably something like 50 years when we think the design was already available as a Takumar, then a K version, before my M version came out. Macro lenses are so well designed and have been so for a long time now, and I think that if we can learn anything from this shoot is that if we have a macro lens, we shouldn't worry if it's good enough, it very likely is, and we should just go out there and shoot and make the best of it Which goes with my other thought on this, for any but the very cheapest older lenses like my Tamron rebadge FA 28-200 select your lens by maximum aperture, weight and other features like WR and construction. I don't actually think I've seen images where I thought "if only that image had been taken with such and such a lens". When I bought my K-1 I just loved the old FA 35-80 on it. Cheap, light weight, lousy construction, but I loved the images. If it had the range of my 28-105 and bit better build quality, I would still be going out with it. It's a rare image that maxes out even the cheapest. oldest lenses. Last edited by normhead; 05-23-2018 at 07:57 AM.

05-23-2018, 08:22 AM	#25
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,448	Voted for #3, but also like #4. #4 is even "creamier" than #3, but the latter has punchier colours (even in the blurred background), which I happen to like. Viewers may be influenced by the fact that #4 is slightly out of focus, BTW. Thanks indeed for putting this together, Norm. Last edited by Madaboutpix; 05-23-2018 at 08:32 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Bokeh Test	photomax7	Post Your Photos!	15	01-21-2018 11:25 AM
Bokeh. What's 'good' & bad' Bokeh	Mychael	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	11-03-2011 12:55 PM
Misc 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh!	iocchelli	Post Your Photos!	3	03-20-2011 02:22 AM
Bokina versus Bokeh Monster, which bokeh you prefer?	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-21-2010 01:50 AM
bokeh test : DA*55 from f1.4 to f8	safari	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	04-23-2009 02:42 PM

05-22-2018, 07:25 PM	#16
AggieDad Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,460	So now we know why there is both vanilla and chocolate.

05-22-2018, 11:06 PM	#17
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	I like #4's bokeh most. Also the links are broken.

05-23-2018, 02:39 AM	#18
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	#1 is more bright and saturated, not by much, but I think it's enough to create a bias. Also magnification is not exactly the same in the four images (for obvious reasons). #1 has by far the ugliest, busiest bokeh IMHO, best being #4.

05-23-2018, 04:58 AM	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	The different focus breathing characteristics of the different lenses makes getting images exactly the same size difficult without including a ruler in the photo. I don't know what happened with he links last night, but they started working agin late in the evening.

05-23-2018, 06:12 AM - 2 Likes	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	579 views and 37 votes. I usually get around 100 votes for a poll/ I'm definitely slipping. I wonder if all the non-votes are code for "I really don't care."

05-23-2018, 07:02 AM	#21
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,912	When I first saw this thread on my phone, the poll didn't come up. I replied without voting. When I came back later, I saw the poll and voted what I had already commented on. Maybe that's why not many people voted, I think there was some forum software issue perhaps hiding the poll? All of the pictures are beautiful and I would be happy with any of those lenses. But the differences in magnification and exposure could explain why some people are more attracted to some of the pictures. I voted 3 but now I'm thinking if that picture wasn't t a bigger magnification compared to the others, would I still vote for it? I don't know. And everybody seems to love the rendering of 1 but it's exposed differently from the others, I think exposure is right on for that one and maybe a tad underexposed for the others. Still, a very fun exercise and big thanks to you Norm, for putting this together.

05-23-2018, 07:11 AM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChristianRock When I first saw this thread on my phone, the poll didn't come up. I replied without voting. When I came back later, I saw the poll and voted what I had already commented on. Maybe that's why not many people voted, I think there was some forum software issue perhaps hiding the poll? All of the pictures are beautiful and I would be happy with any of those lenses. But the differences in magnification and exposure could explain why some people are more attracted to some of the pictures. I voted 3 but now I'm thinking if that picture wasn't t a bigger magnification compared to the others, would I still vote for it? I don't know. And everybody seems to love the rendering of 1 but it's exposed differently from the others, I think exposure is right on for that one and maybe a tad underexposed for the others. Still, a very fun exercise and big thanks to you Norm, for putting this together. It was shot in real world conditions, on a slope, and I had to try and keep the size of the flower constant, which I failed miserably at, but that's the difference between shooting in a studio and shooting in the real world. Inconsistent focus breathing among the lenses made it even more difficult. And basically, I take the 50 macro when I want a standard lens that does macro, I take the 70 macro for images taken close to the house where I won't have to carry it far. The Tamron 90 is my wife's walk around lens. I got the sideways look down the long part of the nose when I picked it up. The 100 is the smallest lightest and WR, so it's my most common carry option. But i don't really worry about IQ with any of them. Last edited by normhead; 05-23-2018 at 07:36 AM.

05-23-2018, 07:39 AM	#23
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,912	Originally posted by normhead But i don't really worry about IQ with any of them. And I think that's the perfect conclusion here... Even my old M 50 f4 Macro, I think, can hang in there with these lenses despite being what, 40 years old by now. Probably something like 50 years when we think the design was already available as a Takumar, then a K version, before my M version came out. Macro lenses are so well designed and have been so for a long time now, and I think that if we can learn anything from this shoot is that if we have a macro lens, we shouldn't worry if it's good enough, it very likely is, and we should just go out there and shoot and make the best of it

05-23-2018, 08:53 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	The micro-contrast of the Tamron 90, (#3) has always been a step above any other lens I've tested it against.

05-23-2018, 12:58 PM - 1 Like	#27
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	Its interesting how the divide goes considering how different 1 is from 4. Reminds me of a ted talk about spaghetti sauce. On spaghetti sauce - Malcolm Gladwell \| TED-Ed. I was really interested in how the browns vs greens rendered differently. I like the green in 4 much better than in 3 but the brown in 3 better than in 4. I don't think to much about bokeh most off the time because it is a secondary consideration most of the time. I want that bird I need my long lens. I need this framing I need this focal length. I rarely have redundant focal lengths with me at a single time so that choice of which lens for bokeh can't apply. This test gives me inspiration to be able to think more of bokeh. I often come home and find that some shots I took have very pleasant or distracting bokeh from the same lens. I have even taken out a lens with character bokeh to produce as many different characters as I could. Think of swirly bokeh with the hellios only works in some conditions. My tests have almost invariably been flowers. This means green leaves brown dirt or blue/white sky. I now think (but yet to test) different lenses are better with different colors. Now I have to go test because if a certain lens works great with certain colors a slight change of angle to get minimize certain colors might give me a much better composition. Here are some examples of what I mean. I love this first and hate the second, both from the sigma 70mm. I think it has to do with the red channel.

05-23-2018, 01:58 PM	#28
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by swanlefitte I rarely have redundant focal lengths with me at a single time so that choice of which lens for bokeh can't apply. Same here, I bring one macro, which one depends on circumstances. And actually all three of my macros I own are the result of my wife stealing the Tamron 90. But she uses it so much it's usually not available for me to borrow. She actually uses it as her walk around lens. I bought the Sigma, because it was affordable and seemed really good. I got the 50 because I wanted something smaller. I got the 100 because I wanted WR. Before you know it you have 4 macros, even though at any one time, I'm not going to have more than one with me.

05-23-2018, 02:22 PM	#29
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,867	Originally posted by normhead Macro-bokeh-test Out of these four, I like mine smooth... so it has to be No4. Normally mind... I like wee circles of white ish light.

05-23-2018, 02:27 PM	#30
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kerrowdown Out of these four, I like mine smooth... so it has to be No4. Normally mind... I like wee circles of white ish light. That the longest of the bunch, and makes me wonder how much we might like the 200 ƒ4 macro. But it's unlikely there will ever be one here for a test.