Strange bokeh?

[Jaemie]

I posted these photos in a separate thread and several people commented that the blurring seems unusual, like a gimmicky PP trick, and even nauseating. I wonder what others might think and what might be the cause or if it's typical to this lens. These were taken with a Canon FD (1980s) 50mm f/1.8 lens mounted with a glass insert FD-to-EFS adapter to a Canon Digital Rebel camera. Nothing else on the camera. It doesn't bother me; I find it rather appealing, actually. But I'm surprised at the reactions.

Any thoughts? Is this normal?

1.

65mm (50mm lens with glass adapter and 1.3x crop factor)
1/2000 sec
f/2.8 (iirc)
ISO 100

2. SOOC except for sizing, same camera settings as first image

 

[Derrel]

I proudly named that "Tilt-A-Whirl bokeh". It has its very own character. Very aggressive. Almost carries with it a sense of motion or movement. And yet, the in-focus foreground looks relatively calm and normal and not-moving. Kind of like the way the world looks right after one steps off the Tilt-A-Whirl ride at the fair. I suspect that the effect is caused by the teleconverter effect of the glass found in the FD-to-EOS adapter, when used with that lens design.

 

[Jaemie]

I proudly named that "Tilt-A-Whirl bokeh".

In one of my greatest *derp* moments, I actually googled that phrase when I first saw you mention it in the other thread. :schwetty triple facepalm:

 

[mjhoward]

It almost looks like mirror lens bokeh.

 

[Big Mike]

I'm the one who finds it nauseating. Sort of like you might feel after getting off the Tilt-a-whirl.
To me, it's just bad bokeh. That's pretty subjective, others will love it, but I don't. It seems to be the opposite of the 'creamy' bokeh that most people find desirable.

I've seen it before, usually on cheaper lenses, or maybe older designs. But I'd probably guess that the adapter has a considerable influence here.
Which is one of several reasons why I usually tell people to forget about trying to adapt FD lenses to their EOS cameras.
That being said, I've got an FD 50mm F1.2 that I'd like to try on a digital body.

 

[unpopular]

I proudly named that "Tilt-A-Whirl bokeh"

No! That's mine! I MADE THAT ONE UP!

 

[enzodm]

I'm too pretty sure is the adapter, it is too pronounced to be the lens alone. Adapters with glass are not the best unless very expensive (it seems there is also some CA on metal borders). Canon initially did its own converter.
When shaped spherically, the name for this kind of bokeh in the old lenses community is "swirly bokeh", e.g., Flickr: swirly bokeh ; in your case seems relatively flat.
However, if you know it, it is a defect you can use in creative ways (and even control it, try to check whether different lighting give the same bokeh features).

 

[unpopular]

Early fast glass is weird. Cheap adapters do cause ghosting and coma. Not sure if they affect bokeh.I

 

[Jaemie]

I'm too pretty sure is the adapter, it is too pronounced to be the lens alone. Adapters with glass are not the best unless very expensive (it seems there is also some CA on metal borders). Canon initially did its own converter.
When shaped spherically, the name for this kind of bokeh in the old lenses community is "swirly bokeh", e.g., Flickr: swirly bokeh ; in your case seems relatively flat.
However, if you know it, it is a defect you can use in creative ways (and even control it, try to check whether different lighting give the same bokeh features).

This is great information. Thank you.

 

[Compaq]

I've experienced something similar with my nifty fifty Great lens for the money, but it lacks in certain areas (bokeh included, IMO).


IMG_8809edit by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

 

[pixmedic]

At least the nifty fiftys are cheap

 

[KmH]

Bokeh is an aesthetic quality. So some might well use terms like - crappy, unbalanced, jittery, nervous, barfy, unpleasant - rather than strange.

Today's inexpensive 'nifty-fifties' commonly have the pleasant bokeh killing design flaw of to few, and poorly shaped aperture blades.