[6BQ5]

FF users can create with little fuss. Just open the lens to f/2 or something like that and viola! - instant bokeh. The Q is capable of recording nice bokeh but it takes some work for sure. Subjects must usually be photographed as close as possible, sometimes at the minimum focusing distance of the lens. Or, maybe you have to compose your photograph to have enormous distance between the subject and the surrounding background.

Have you recorded some nice bokeh with your Q? Got some good subject isolation to make FF users envious? Share it here! Tell us how you made the shot.

Here's one from a local cemetery.



The statue is about 4" tall. I got as close as I could to the statue and locked focus on the face. An 06 zoom lens was mounted on my Q7 and the lens was zoomed in to 37.7mm according to my EXIF data. I set the aperture to f/3.5 to give enough depth of field for all the features of the face to be in focus. You can see the wings starting to lose their crisp edge and they are blending into the background. Using f/3.2 probably would not have been enough.

Ok, your turn!

[Abbazz]

Very nice picture, Boris!

The 06 telephoto zoom is very capable of delivering out of focus backgrounds, especially when used at the far end of the zoom range (45mm), near wide open and and close to the subject. In fact, this lens has a very beautiful bokeh, with nicely shaped highlights. Here are a few recent pictures of our Southern Hemisphere Spring (check them full size by clicking on the pictures).

1:


2 (do you see the aphids ?);


3:


$4:


5:


6:


7:


8:


The 06 lens really something special: the lens is sharp enough over the whole field to be used wide open from 15mm to 45mm, it is absolutely free from lateral chromatic aberration, has very low vignetting and distortion. The above pictures have not been corrected for chromatic aberration, vignetting or distortion. That's not too shabby for an f/2.8 telephoto zoom that trades for less than $200 and is fully usable wide open! To get the same results from my Sony A7II, I would have to spend a lot more money...

Cheers!

Abbazz

[EDIT] Sorry, I just noticed that vignetting and distortion corrections were automatically applied in Adobe Camera Raw. But even without the corrections, the 06 telephoto zoom is perfectly able to deliver beautiful, clean pictures. Abbazz

[Heinrich Lohmann]

The 01 doesn't do too bad either:Some Fall colour from the backyard - PentaxForums.com I totally agree with you
on the 06 lens, it's superb.

[barondla]

Abbaz, no bokeh examples from the .666 Devil's Speed Booster combo?
Thanks
barondla

Have to look for some of my Canon 50mm 0.95 shots.

[Sluggo]

Do Blur Control scenes count?


dying mums
Q7, 01, BC medium setting

[Abbazz]

Abbaz, no bokeh examples from the .666 Devil's Speed Booster combo?
Thanks
barondla

Have to look for some of my Canon 50mm 0.95 shots.

Here are a few shots with the Nikkor 55/1.2 mounted on the Devil's Speed Booster. All pictures taken at F/1.0 (F/2.0 on the lens); click on any picture to view it full-size:











I know some of you may ask: why F/1.0 (F/2.0 on the lens) and not F/0.666 (F/1.2 on the lens), as allowed by the DSB? The answer is quite simple. It's just because F/1.2 on the Nikkor suffers from spherical aberration and coma. There is also a lot of purple fringing. As a consequence, pictures have rather poor sharpness rapidly decreasing from the center to the edges, very low contrast and a purplish color balance that is not easy to correct. Here are two shots, the first one taken wide open (F/1.2 on the lens) and the second one at F/2.0:





And yes, the wide open picture is not too bad because I did my best to enhance the picture (I boosted contrast and clarity, corrected color balance and chromatic aberration). You can actually see the effect of coma on the edge of the distant leaf, even on a web sized picture. So, I prefer to shoot this lens stopped down to F/2.0, although the seven blade aperture does sometimes show in the bokeh as a consequence. F/1.2 is only usable for very low light shots (like candlelight dinners or night photography under street lights), where a centered subject and high contrast lighting will help mitigate the lens' defects.

Cheers!

Abbazz

PS: I would love to use my Canon 50/0.95 lens with a Speed Booster!

[barondla]

Thank you Abbazz for the Devil's Speed Booster bokeh pics. They look nice. Do you think the Nikkor at 1.2 performs better than the Canon 0.95? My Canon doesn't look better than your Nikkor shot. But, I may not have tweaked the processing as much.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

[Abbazz]

Thank you Abbazz for the Devil's Speed Booster bokeh pics. They look nice. Do you think the Nikkor at 1.2 performs better than the Canon 0.95? My Canon doesn't look better than your Nikkor shot. But, I may not have tweaked the processing as much.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

I will try to do some comparison shots with the 55/1.2 Nikkor and 50/0.95 Canon lenses.

I normally use the Canon "dream lens" on 24x36 "full-frame" bodies, either film or digital, because I feel its character is more pleasant when used over the whole frame rather than on smaller cropped formats. For example, check the wonderful and bokehlicious pictures taken by photographer Paul Marbrook: Sony A7 with Canon 50mm f/0.95 Dream Lens

Cheers!

Abbazz

[barondla]

I will try to do some comparison shots with the 55/1.2 Nikkor and 50/0.95 Canon lenses.

I normally use the Canon "dream lens" on 24x36 "full-frame" bodies, either film or digital, because I feel its character is more pleasant when used over the whole frame rather than on smaller cropped formats. For example, check the wonderful and bokehlicious pictures taken by photographer Paul Marbrook: Sony A7 with Canon 50mm f/0.95 Dream Lens

Cheers!

Abbazz

Paul's images are beautiful. My lens doesn't look like that when used on the Q. It does give the big out of focus bubbles in the background. It also gives major purple fringing. I haven't played with trying to remove fringing in editing software. The larger Q7 sensor is a little more forgiving and might be usable.

Didn't they make 2 versions of this lens, TV and still? I have the TV. It has 2 rear adapters. One is a C mount thread. The other is a big brass screw thread. What does your lens have that fits into the Sony adapter? Sorry for all the questions.
Thanks,
barondla

[Abbazz]

Paul's images are beautiful. My lens doesn't look like that when used on the Q. It does give the big out of focus bubbles in the background. It also gives major purple fringing. I haven't played with trying to remove fringing in editing software. The larger Q7 sensor is a little more forgiving and might be usable.

I'll try with both sensors and let you know.

Didn't they make 2 versions of this lens, TV and still? I have the TV. It has 2 rear adapters. One is a C mount thread. The other is a big brass screw thread. What does your lens have that fits into the Sony adapter? Sorry for all the questions.

Mine is the "TV" version which has been converted to Leica-M mount. The conversion is clean (it was performed by Eastcamtech, who seems to be out of business now) and the lens is RF-coupled.The conversion was done without the butchered rear element:


Credit: Eastcamtech

This is better than the original Canon 7 mount lens and also than most conversions, which have an incomplete rear element in order to leave room for the RF cam:


Credit: JapanCameraHunter

Cheers!

Abbazz

[barondla]

I'll try with both sensors and let you know.


Mine is the "TV" version which has been converted to Leica-M mount. The conversion is clean (it was performed by Eastcamtech, who seems to be out of business now) and the lens is RF-coupled.The conversion was done without the butchered rear element:


Credit: Eastcamtech

This is better than the original Canon 7 mount lens and also than most conversions, which have an incomplete rear element in order to leave room for the RF cam:


Credit: JapanCameraHunter

Cheers!

Abbazz

Egads, they cut the freaking rear element up! Man, I thought the Canonites were heathens for butchering Pentax aperture couplers. This is far, far worse. Hard to believe from Leica people.

Thanks for the pics and explanation Abbazz. Now I gotta get mine on the Q and take some shots.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

[Abbazz]

Egads, they cut the freaking rear element up! Man, I thought the Canonites were heathens for butchering Pentax aperture couplers. This is far, far worse. Hard to believe from Leica people.

Thanks for the pics and explanation Abbazz. Now I gotta get mine on the Q and take some shots.
Thanks for sharing,

You're welcome!

The original Canon 50/0.95 lens for the Canon 7 camera had the cutout in the rear element; only one version of the TV lens had an intact rear element. Here's the bayonet of the original lens for Canon 7:



Here's the bayonet of my lens:



You can see the RF coupling cam at the top of the picture. The rear element beneath is intact. Also, the tech who did the mod retained part of the "ears" that you can see on the original lens above, in order to allow the user to depress the lens lock lever. Because of the large diameter of this lens, the lens lock lever on the Leica cameras is completely covered by the lens when it is mounted, thus preventing the user to unlock the lens. The metal part on the right of the picture allows the user to activate the lens lock lever.



Here's the lens on the tiny Q-S1:





And, as a comparison, the Nikkor-S 55/1.2 with the Devil's Speed Booster:





Sorry for the dust on the lenses and for the poor pictures, taken under my LED desk lamp while testing a (new to me) Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[adjutant]

Pentax 16mm 1.4 BOQEH

[Abbazz]

Pentax 16mm 1.4 BOQEH

Nice! Is this the C-mount lens?

Cheers!

Abbazz

[adjutant]

Nice! Is this the C-mount lens?

Cheers!

Abbazz

Yeah, it's a c-mount lens. Picked it up for 30 dollars on ebay.

This pic is full res