Any Bokeh examples from the new 85mm f/1.4 AF-S?

<p>Anyone seen any examples shots from the new 84mm f/1.4 AF-S showing off its bokeh capabilities?</p>

<p>Nikon's blurb on this lens says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Bokeh Master</strong><br />The AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G is designed to be the ultimate optic for professional portraiture. The fast f/1.4 aperture provides excellent subject-background separation, whilst the rounded nine-blade diaphragm renders stunning bokeh with smooth out of focus areas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From Nikon:</p>

<p>http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2195-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f1.4G/Photography/ER2.jpg</p>

<p>hmmm...not a particularly inspiring shot from Nikon! But thanks for the link ;)</p>

<p>I'm sure this is a great PRO lens and should be risk free for anyone willing to buy it... I'll wait to see my own samples!</p>

<p>To me, the real question is this: at ~$1700US, is it four times better than the AF-D version (which is advertised right now at closer to $400)? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, the real question is this: at ~$1700US, is it four times better than the AF-D version (which is advertised right now at closer to $400)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did you find that price? Buy it now. That's the price for the 1.8 version</p>

<p>Aaaaagh! Three seconds after the official announcement, and someone is asking about the bloody 'bokeh'. And Nikon has embraced the Bokian Heresy! "The ultimate optic for professional portraiture." Right. Most professional portraiture is done in the studio, where you have total control of background placement, contrast, color... Aperture is usually f5.6-8. What the hell has blur got to do with this?</p>

<p>Guess it's time to update my portfolio. Need to shoot a model in contrasty noon light, with one eye out of focus and the camera tilted. Cross-processing might help too.</p>

<p>Yeah, I DO like some wide-aperture portraits, but most of them will be badly dated in five years.</p>

<p>Hey Les,</p>

<p>If you go to <a href="http://www.jessicaclaire.net/">http://www.jessicaclaire.net/</a> the first post has a portrait shot of a little baby. Less than half the baby's body is in focus and in fact even her full face is not in focus. And we are talking about one of the most sought after photographers in the country. So maybe bokeh does have an impact on "modern" day portrait photography?</p>

<p>Btw I am not saying I liked that shot. If I had taken that photo I'd probably have been embarrassed and told people it was an accidental shot. But apparently other people do like it and the photographer herself thought it good enough to publicly upload the image.</p>

<p><em>Most professional portraiture is done in the studio, where you have total control of background placement, contrast, color... Aperture is usually f5.6-8.</em></p>

<p>Well, I don't know how you define professional portraiture. I do know that I've never met a couple who prefer a studio wedding portrait to one made in the summer in a nice location. If fact most loathe studio photography and would only consider doing one if it's pouring on the day of the wedding. Studio portraits are made in the winter when it is too cold outside but other than that generally people prefer outdoor portraits even though the light and background is less well controlled. Also, not all portraiture is formal, some are made in low light indoors e.g. in window light. f/1.4 lenses are very nice for this, with flash of course, you can control the viewer's eye and guide it to the main subject and by using a suitable aperture, let them see the expressions of other people they're communicating with, with subtle blur. Everything else (background clutter) is eliminated thanks to the bokeh.</p>

<p><em>Need to shoot a model in contrasty noon light, with one eye out of focus and the camera tilted.</em></p>

<p>Why would anyone do that? It's not like outdoors it is always contrasty. You've seen clouds, yes? There are trees, buildings etc. which allow you to shoot in the shade, in exquisitely lively, soft light, unlike in the studio, where everything is artificial, boring, repetitive, and controlled to death. And even though you have the f/1.4 aperture available, you can use the same lens at mid apertures if you like, and if the precedent of the 85/1.4D AF and 105 DC are any guides, you'll get very nice background blur even at such apertures like that if the shot is tight. Not so with many a slow zoom.</p>

<p>I often ask people if they will do studio portraits and sometimes they do agree, but it is outdoor portraits and candid portraits in real life situations that make them really get excited. Who cares if the shot is controlled if there's no life in it, nothing real, nothing imperfect that would remind the viewer that these are actual persons and not models or plastic dolls for that matter. ;-)</p>

<p>But maybe that's why I do not do professional portraiture, since I think like this (note that it is the subjects that I photograph who have made me to come to this opinion, not my own preferences).</p>

<p>Hey Les, I'm not that interested in doing wide open portraits either, I was just interested in seeing the bokeh behaviour that Nikon were boasting of in there PR. I've seen shots of foliage where the OOF leaves look more like something from a child's painting by number book than a photograph. I know the lens will not be like that, but I have the D version and it gives very nice OOF effects (didn't people call it the cream machine?) - so I was interested in how the new one compares.</p>

<p>Francisco - I think you're confusing the 1.8D with the 1.4. The 1.8D is currently $400 on B&H, the 1.4D is $1225. So the 1.4G is about $500 more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Francisco - I think you're confusing the 1.8D with the 1.4. The 1.8D is currently $400 on B&H, the 1.4D is $1225. So the 1.4G is about $500 more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, I was responding to the previous post by Peter Rafle.</p>

<p>It is true that in my own fine-art environmental portraits (some of which sell for dozens of dollars), I like to blur the background. It's just the mystical Ooh-Ooh character of the term 'bokeh' that bothers me. It is also true that it is VERY trendy right now to shoot wide-open for 'bokeh'. As I said, SOME images work this way; most don't.<br>

<strong>EDIT:</strong> The attached image was shot with the Nikkor 55-200 VR 'kit' lens--hardly known for its 'bokeh'--but I think the blur is fine and doesn't cause distractions for the viewer.</p><div></div>

<p>My mistake, Francisco and Rob -- you're right, I was looking at the 1.8 AF-D version. Which begs the question "is one stop worth a thousand dollars..." :-)</p>

<p><em>"It's just the mystical Ooh-Ooh character"</em></p>

<p>...and who wouldnt want some mystical ooh-ooh?</p>

 

<blockquote><strong>EDIT:</strong> The attached image was shot with the Nikkor 55-200 VR 'kit' lens--hardly known for its 'bokeh'--but I think the blur is fine and doesn't cause distractions for the viewer</blockquote>

<p>IMHO The out of focus rendition in your example is horrible and does "cause distractions".</p>

<p>Les, thanks for the example - I'm sorry to say that this is exactly the type of OOF that I don't like! The halo around each point overlaps and is causing secondary lines which look to me like ugly brush strokes, not smooth at all. I will say the the upper right corner is slightly better than the grass in the lower right, probably because there are less detail there anyway to be halo'ed into lines.</p>

<p>The old 1.4D gave very nice OOF blurring, even at smaller apertures. Nikon have made a marketing point out of the new lens' OOF performance - just wanted to see examples for myself :)</p>

<p>How about a total lack of background as from a AF-I 400 2.8!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I have to agree with the other posters. The grass in the background especially the part under the goat's chin is distracting. I checked and about 85% of my shots with my 85 f1.4 are at f1.4 to f2.2. The only reason I'm not interested in the new one is that I have the old one and love it primarily for how it renders backgrounds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00X6Wz"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=112337">Les Berkley</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 19, 2010; 09:21 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Aaaaagh! Three seconds after the official announcement, and someone is asking about the bloody 'bokeh'. And Nikon has embraced the Bokian Heresy! "The ultimate optic for professional portraiture." Right. Most professional portraiture is done in the studio, where you have total control of background placement, contrast, color... Aperture is usually f5.6-8. What the hell has blur got to do with this?<br>

Guess it's time to update my portfolio. Need to shoot a model in contrasty noon light, with one eye out of focus and the camera tilted. Cross-processing might help too.<br>

Yeah, I DO like some wide-aperture portraits, but most of them will be badly dated in five years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. What a bunch of bad advice. As to the sample posted with the zoom....talk about ugly, distracting, busy bokeh.</p>

<p>Out of date? LOL! </p>

 

<p>You know what would make that background behind the goat less distracting? If the goat was doing something more interesting. Like if maybe he were eating a printed-out copy of <strong><a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00Wwrn">this thread</a></strong>. Not very nutritious, but lots to chew on.<br /><br />That is a cool-looking goat, though.</p>

<p>Personally, knowing the OOF area won't be distracting is a big relief. Great bokeh is not necessary. However, distracting bokeh ruins most photos. And most of the time, you can't self select your backgrounds especially outside in the field... </p>

<p>great shot ajay</p>

<p>as for les' shot, the best one can say is that the goat takes up most of the frame</p>

<p>Besides the complete out of focus 'bokeh' creaminess, I think the slightly out of focus areas are equally important. What happens in the areas that are just out of focus, in portraits they determine a lot of the look. I like the 105mm F2.5 for this. But I am sure either of the 85mm F1.4's will do perfectly. Too bad I cannot afford either. I'm also pretty sure Nikon will not have degraded this aspect of the lens, so I expect it to be even better in the new version.</p>

<p>@Les - Yeah, I guess its personal choice, but still creamy bokeh is really pleasing. Have never used 85mm f1.4, but can see why Nikon says so...</p>

<p>Just an example for creamy bokeh...</p><div></div>