zigipha Loc: north nj

look up "bokeh". Affected by the optics and the blade arrangement used for aperature.

not sure of the mass of tiny ring, unless it a mass of light point sources..can you post an example?

blackest Loc: Ireland

This shot shows it pretty well

bubbly rings limited exif as its manual but 55mm and about f2

(Download)

zigipha Loc: north nj

looks like you have specular highlights on all the blades..so each blade is giving a dot of blur.. yes?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

If you wish to combine narrow depth of field with out of focus specular highlights then you will need to invest in a lens capable of bokeh.

blackest Loc: Ireland

So to track down such a lens ...

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

What lenses do you have presently?

blackest Loc: Ireland

mostly manual lenses
ka 50mm f2 pentax
55mm f1.7 topcor
18-55mm da samsung f3.5 - f5.6
pentax 75-150 f4 km
pentax ka 28-80 f3.5 - f4.5
tamron 80-210mm km f3.8-f4
sigma 75-300mm f4.5- f5.6 km
sigma 80-200mm f4.5 - f5.6 ka

i'd say my favourite lenses would be the topcor and the sigma 75-300mm

i also have a f1.7 35mm and a 14-42 panasonic on m43 and theres a 28-135mm on my canon eos-d1 mark II.

that pretty much covers most of my lenses

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

More than one really needs . . . sounds like you're a collector :-D

Most any lens will give you bokeh . . . if you are close enough to the subject and far enough away from the background. The quality of bokeh is created by the roundness of the iris in your lens. Generally the more leaves in the iris, the smoother the circumference of the opening . . . the smoother and more round the bokeh. Not all backgrounds let you create bokeh, as it is the blurred image of a light source/reflection/high light. Also generally the more wide open the lens, the shallower the DOF, the more the background is OOF . . . the more pronounced the bokeh.

Your 55mm f1.7 topcor, wide open, and the tamron 80-210mm km f3.8-f4, wide open and the zoom set at 80 mm (to get maximum aperture of F/3.8), should both produce good bokeh.

Now . . . having said all that . . . I would like to add that, in my humble opinion, bokeh is incredibly over rated. I hear lots of discussion here on the forum about bokeh and the special equipment and skills to create it . . . and many of the examples of the bokeh that have been shown are lacking in necessary sharpness of the subject matter, good composition and even poor exposure. A portrait with nice bokeh . . . and at the same time with only one eye in focus, is not an acceptable result. If you must have bokeh, so be it, but not at the expense of the other, more important necessities of a good image.

I love a nice bokeh used properly, but I certainly would not purchase a so called "bokeh lens" to accomplish it. A "bokeh" lens is like a "portrait" lens . . . they are a figment of the imagination of advertising gurus trying to lure you into spending more of you hard earned $$$$$

Hope that helps . . .

blackest Loc: Ireland

yes i will have to play tomorrow and see what results i get. in the mean time i have been looking at ebay....

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

. . . . to add to your collection? :shock:

blackest Loc: Ireland

well a 28-200mm f3.8-f5.6 fa

then theres a couple of Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm F3.5 Sonnar MC m42 fit.
and a
Takumar 55mm F1.8 m42
also a Pentax f1.7 smc ka 50mm

hopefully one will come my way :)

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

when absolutely necessary, and there is no other way of obtaining a photograph or digital image, you go to the maximum aperture. it is not a matter of small versus large, but a matter of available dark.