[WJJ3]

I want to start a thread about 28mm lens bokeh!

I have been shooting with the SMC-A 28mm F2 and to be honest, am not particularly thrilled with it's bokeh. Other aspects of the lens are great; small, fast, sharp 'A' lens. So I enjoy using it, but occasionally the bokeh is not nice. For example, I like the attached photo, but to my eye, the bokeh is distracting and busy.

So Im wondering which 28's are producing nice bokeh? Pentax brand or other, please share your 28mm prime lens bokeh!

Attached Images

 

[kuuan]

I think the S-M-C Takumar 28mm f3.5 bokeh is quite decent ( sorry, do not have any sample with more oof highlights though )

Pentax *istDs
S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5





Pentax *istDs
S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5

[pcarfan]

I have the Pentax F28/2.8 and I will take some test shots and post it, and will post any you want, just promise me, if you ever sell your 28/2, you will give me the first dibbs

[JohnBee]

I too have been on the fence with 28mm bokeh.
harsh and busy seems very common from what I've handled(vivtar, Takumar, SMC Pentax)
Though I'm still looking for that one special lens to satisfy I'm starting to think it may not actually exist.

Having said that, the Super Tak 3.5(to date) has been my best lens so far.

[axl]

guys, just sacrifice 3mm and get 31ltd. I'm pretty sure you'll be happy with bokeh of that one

[Just1MoreDave]

Aperture blades aren't the only factor in bokeh, but Pentax is stingy with their blades for 28s and 35s. Most only have 5 blades. The FA28/2.8, FA35/2 and all 28mm f2 lenses have 6. To get more, you need the FA31 or K28/3.5 Shift.

Edit: forgot the DA35/2.8 macro with 9 blades. Actually felt bad about this omission for hours. Fortunately no one noticed.

[StephenMerola]

I have the Sigma EX DG 28mm f/1.8 and I think the bokeh is decent. I will try to post an example later. This lens has 9 blades.

[EdMaximus]

guys, just sacrifice 3mm and get 31ltd. I'm pretty sure you'll be happy with bokeh of that one

That's a huge sacrifice in the Bank even though I'm about to do something similar.

Here's a shot with the Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Close Focus (K02) for bokeh purpose.

[noel]

This is a pretty old one, but this is from the Vivitar 28mm (by kiron) f/2.5

[JohnBee]

That's a huge sacrifice in the Bank even though I'm about to do something similar.

I second that statement.
The entire reason behind going with Pentax was to benefit from the better glass without breaking the bank. Otherwise, I would have just stuck with Nikon

[stevebrot]

I second that statement.
The entire reason behind going with Pentax was to benefit from the better glass without breaking the bank. Otherwise, I would have just stuck with Nikon

Based on comments from other threads, I am not sure you would be better off with Nikon. The consensus was that Nikon glass under 50mm pretty much sucks.

What I am trying to grasp through all of this is why there is the expectation of great bokeh from this focal length. Most available designs date back to 35mm film usage. In that world, the 28mm is a pretty substantial wide-angle...about the same as a 19mm on APS-C. Know anyone who is picky about bokeh with their 19mm? Now, I know that might sound like I am being dismissive, but "back in the day", the main concern was distortion, resolution, and contrast for landscape and architecture shooting. Bokeh was truly not even a design consideration. Who cares about background blur in a shot of the Grand Tetons?

The other thing that I have noticed is that most of the "bad bokeh" shots posted here are at fairly low magnification (i.e. not very close to the subject), have generous DOF, and were taken at smaller apertures. Take the same situation with lenses at other focal lengths and you will get similar results. I am not kidding! Even my Jupiter-9 has crazy bokeh under certain conditions. (16 blades and a sterling bokeh reputation...)

Translation...are you sure that your expectations regarding focal length, bokeh, and price are realistic? If you want it all (corner-to-corner resolution at all apertures, bokeh, low distortion, and pixie dust) at focal lengths less than 35mm, you are going to pay in a major way for the privilege regardless of brand.

Steve

BTW...The FA 31 Limited is not particularly expensive compared to the company it keeps...compare to Zeiss and Leitz, not Canon or Nikon...

[JohnBee]

The consensus was that Nikon glass under 50mm pretty much sucks.

Having shot Nikon for a few prior to Pentax, I can say with assurance that the consensus you're quoting is nothing but blunt propaganda. Nikon was fine under 50mm at that time, with an impressive(affordable) 10-24mm, not to mention the 14-24 and 24/2.8 which were but a few of the reputable lenses with above average IQ. Not to mention the massive third party support as well.

So my initial statement was framed on the compromises that follow the Pentax cost of ownership in exchange for the prosumer bodies Nikon offered. And so, dropping 1200 and change for a lens in my case completely negates the objective of saving on glass with Pentax. I mean... If I'm going to drop 1200 on a lens, then I might as well get off the midrange bandwagon and reopen the prosumer doors with Nikon(ie. D700)

Whatever the case, the argument that Nikon is either lacking or inadequate under 50mm is nothing more than branding propaganda. Do a little searching and you will find that the Nikon camp was/is in very good hands in the wide angle end of things.

[arpaagent]

I have an SMC Pentax-F 28mm F2.8 and an S-M-C Takumar 28mm F3.5. Here are a few examples.

F28/2.8 (4 images)









S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5

[Pentaxor]

I have an SMC Pentax-F 28mm F2.8 and an S-M-C Takumar 28mm F3.5. Here are a few examples.

F28/2.8 (4 images)









S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5

content protected by owner !

[arpaagent]

content protected by owner !

OOOPS my bad. thanks for pointing it out. Should be good now.