on 4/9/03 3:23 PM, Garth Wood at garth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> At 03:13 PM 4/9/2003 -0700, Jim Brokaw wrote:
>> If either of you decides that your 40/2.0 is a crappy lens (technical term)
>> and are ready to throw it in the trash, I'll take it off your hands for a
>> paltry sum... <g>
>>
>> I can't believe what they sell for... but I don't think that's driven by the
>> bokeh characteristics. Perhaps the 'bokeh' quality of a lens is in some way
>> related to its maximum aperture...? or the number of elements used for
>> correction...? I've read some comments that the best bokeh comes from lenses
>> of few elements and relatively slower maximum apertures e.g. 50/3.5 CV
>> Heilar, Leica 50/2.0 Summicron, 75/3.5 Rollei Xenotar (Rolleiflex lens).
>
>
> Jim:
>
> I always thought that the most pleasing bokeh came from lenses with more
> leaves for the aperture, creating a more "circular" stop-down. 8 or 9
> leaves seem to be quite good, six leaves not nearly so good. I'm not sure
> that number of lens elements has anything to do with good (or bad) bokeh.
>
>
> Garth
That could be an unapparent connection, in the lenses I listed I think the
minimum number of aperture blades is 8 or 9, and the Leica lens has about 12
or more (based on my sample of two). Seems like older and pre-SLR lenses
tend to have more blades, at least on the expensive cameras. Of course I
have a few old 'less expensive' rangefinders that have 5 or 6 blade
apertures... no doubt less expensive to manufacture.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|