Why won't Nikon fix the 50s?

[david_kelly1]

Several recent posts, including Kevin Peng's today and one of mine a

few days ago, have dealt with the harsh 'bokeh"of *all* of nikon's

50mm lenses,both manual and AF, with the f1.4s generally regarded as

worst. I even emailed expert Bjorn Rorslett and got the bad news that

any aperture f2.8 and smaller was likely to produce ugly results. So

I sold my almost new 50mm f1.4 AFD and went back to using the 35mm f2,

which has smooth blur, as my "normal." Canon, Pentax and minolta all

seem to have no trouble making sharp, fast 50s with smooth OOF areas,

so how hard could it be? What will it take before Nikon addresses what

has become a notorious flaw in these otherwise excellent designs?

[erik_loza]

Wow, I never knew that my old 50mm f1.8 had "harsh bokeh"! Is that a bad thing? Do you

think that Bjorn Rorslett can fix this problem for me? Should I sell all my Nikon stuff and

buy another brand that doesn't have such harsh bokeh? Maybe I should start a personal

blog about all the stuff Nikon is doing wrong. Nahhh....I have to actually go take some

pictures now.

[gary_woodard]

Bjorn Rorslett, "any aperature of F 2.8 and smaller was likely to produce ugly

results." I own four Nikon 50mm lens, the 50mm 1.4 AF, the 50mm 1.8 AF, the

50mm F2 AI, and the 50mm 1.8 MF, I think Bjorn needs to get his head

examined, all are great lens. Notorius flaw, new to me.

[EricM]

I like mine too.

[Palouse]

I like mine too-besides, bokeh ain't everything. Besides, here is what Bjorn had to say aabout a couple of the 50s:

50 mm f/1.2 Nikkor

There is a [sic] endearing slight softness (bokeh) when the lens is deployed on a D1/D2-series camera and shot wide open, but the image even at f/1.2 has plenty of detail. Stopped down in the range f/2.8-f/5.6, image contrast is enhanced, sharpness is very good to excellent, and veiling flare has gone entirely.

50 mm f/1.4 AF-Nikkor D

The rendition of the out-of-focus areas can be nice when aperture is large, but tends to be harsher when the lens is stopped far down.

50 mm f/1.8 Nikkor

A small, cheap and unobtrusive lens with an outstanding optical performance - can anyone wish for more?. There is nothing more to be said here. As perfect a lens as anyone could imagine. What a shining little star this is.

 

Oh, feel free to send me your flawed lenses!

[Michael R Freeman]

"... so how hard could it be?"

 

45mm f/2.8P? Optical design (Tessar) has been around for decades, going back to the 45/2.8GN of 1968. Supposedly nice bokeh, if you worry about that sort of thing.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Why won't Nikon fix the 50s? --David Kelly<br>

</em><br>

Just a guess but I think they are tailored for photojournalists.

No lens designer can please all customers with one lens. Many

people are pleased the various 50mm Nikkor lenses including Bjorn

Rorslett.<br>

<br>

I think Bjorn needs to get his head examined, all are great

lens. Notorius flaw, new to me. --Gary Woodard<br>

<br>

Perchance Bjorn as been misquoted somewhat? Bjorn Rorslett list

these in his...</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html"

target="_new"><u>Best of the Best : A not-too-serious compilation

of the best Nikkor lenses</u></a> </p>

 

<p>...under <u>Normal lenses</u>... <br>

<br>

* 50 mm f/2 Nikkor-H (AI)<br>

* 50 mm f/1.8 Nikkor<br>

* 58 mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor<br>

* 50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor (latest versions, including AF D)<br>

<br>

Maybe you should read what Bjorn actually says about these lenses...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Bokeh should not be the only criteria buy which a lens is chosen

anymore than sharpness. Different lenses have different

characters. Match the lens to your intended purpose.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

If you meant McCarthyism its a little too late for that.<br>

[kelly_flanigan1]

The thread is a real hoot.<BR><BR>Smoother OOF areas usually means a less correctly lens; one with MORE flaws. A 5cm F3.5 Nikkor made for the Canon rangefinder in the 1930's has smoother OOF areas; but wont have those test figures in sharpness; that folks worship. A 1950's Nikkor 5cm F2 for Nikon Rangefinder; or Leica screwmount; has a beautifull OOF look; but wont make straight A's on a sterile lens test report. Modern Canon; Pentax; Minolta fast normals are not perfect in the OOF area either. The movie industry new this OOF stuff 60 years ago with focus pulls; it took decades for still photographers to coin a goofy buzz word; and discover OOF lens quality. The flaw is that still photographers are narrow minded; and tend not to took at OOF areas; lighting; or characteristics of lenses; of all vintages.

[david_kelly1]

I did not quote -or misquote- Bjorn Rorslett: In answer to my query he emailed me privately that the 50mm f1.4 AFD would tend to produce harsh out of focus areas at f2.8 and smaller. If this does not matter to you, fine, enjoy. It's certainly a fine lens in other respects.

[kelly_flanigan1]

My first F1.4 for the Nikon slr was the 5.8cm F1.4 I got in 1962. It has harser a OOF look than my Exakta's 50mm F2; but was sharper abit. I never really thought it as a defect; just a characteristic of the slr's F1.4. Later I have owned several 50mm F1.4; single and multicoated. When did Bjorn Rorslett start with Nikons? why has it taken 4 decades to "discover the flaw":)?

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Leica M F1.0 Noctilux of mine has a nice OOF look at the faster lens openings. The one that Modern Photography tested in March of 1976 failed their minimum requirement of sharpness at the center at F2; F2.8; F4. Plus it failed their minimum standard for a test at the corner; at F2.<BR><BR>This is a failed ; below acceptable test report. With other more normal lenses; they would not even print the test. <BR><BR>Would the Noct be better if it gave better sterile lab test numbers; and worse OOF effects? Would this make folks happier? would this be a fix? when will Leica fix the "notorious flaw"? :)

[douglas_green1]

Probably they weren't aware that they were broken.

[bjørn rørslett]

Bjo[sic]rn has shot Nikon since 1964. He wants to know his tools and how they perform, for the better or worse.

 

Back to the topic here: A lot of lenses do change their behaviour when they are stopped down. Internal veiling flare can be an issue for some fast lenses (for example, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 105/1.8 Nikkor to name a few exhibiting this more or less clearly) and this is reduced to insignificant amount when the lens is stopped down from wide open. Residual colour fringing is evident with some fast lenses wide open (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 50/1.4 are examples). Some lenses do perform remarkable well wide or nearly wide open (28/2 at f/2-f/2.8, excellent field flatness) in sharp contrast to other designs (neither 28/1.4 AF nor 35/1.4 is a good performer at f/1.4-f/2 and both have a lot of field curvature too at closer range). The CRT-Nikkor 55/1.2 is a marvellous performer at f/1.2 and even better at f/1.4, it also has a very smooth and endearing bokeh. The 50/1.4 AF is quite soft wide open, improves at f/2, is superb at f/2.8, and runs into a potential bokeh issue beyond that f-number. The old 50/2 is excellent at f/2 and the newer 50/1.8 is quite soft until it reaches f/2.8. The 300/2.8 AFS shows impressive bokeh until it is stopped down beyond f/5.6 and get terrible by f/11. The 300/2.8 VR is creamy smooth all the way from f/2.8 to f/22, and the same holds for 200/2 VR from f/2 to f/22, whilst the manual 200/2 renders background quite harsh when it is stopped much down. And so on. This shows lenses do perform differently and have to be treated on an individual basis as well. The different characteristics are no problem if you are aware of them, which is basically why I do lens testing at all. Learn to know your lenses and they can become your friends.

[vivek iyer]

"The different characteristics are no problem if you are aware of them, which is basically why I do lens testing at all. Learn to know your lenses and they can become your friends."

 

Well said, Bjorn. Every lens has its own limitations and plusses. I am perplexed at the folks who try making gross generalizations about everything.

[andreas_weber]

> So I sold my almost new 50mm f1.4 AFD

 

Because someone else told you, if you took pictures with it, the background wouldn't be smooth enough to please him? Well, I guess your problem isn't the bokeh of your lenses...

 

Andreas

[gary_watson]

Bokeh, schmokeh. The "notoreity" of this flaw seems pretty much restricted to this board and then just to a handful of self-absorbed purists. I LOVE my 50s--crap bokeh and all--for their functional virtues, among them speed, sharpness and light weight.It's the "herd of independent minds" issue again, no? For those gripped by OCD regarding OOF issues, just buy the 45/2.8 AI-P and enjoy life.

[SCL]

Get a life. If you don't like the characteristics of a particular lens then simple don't buy it. Most people could give a hoot about "harsh bokeh", myself included. BTW I own this lens and love it, and I own and use a Noctilux. Each lens for separate purposes.

[bwcombs]

I think that Bjorn said it quite well. Learn to know your lenses.

Use them and get to know their strengths and weaknesses. And

in the process you will get to know YOUR strengths and

weaknesses as a photographer.

[charles_miller]

First, many thanks to Bjorn Rorslett. First for gracing this forum with valuable and specific knowledge about Nikon lenses. Second for his contributions to the photographic arts as evidenced, in part, by his marvelous web site. And not least, for his patience and tolerance with the few, but inevitable, impolite comments.

 

It is fine if bokeh seems like no big deal to some folks. By comparison, I don't have any real fast lenses because I don't fancy shallow depth of field in my photos, and I don't don't shoot in low light. But so far I haven't "lost my mind" and started ripping those f1.2 beauties out of other peoples' hands just to protect them from themselves. So please folks, just leave us bokeh fans out of your plans for world domination.

 

By all means get a 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 because they do so very much for so very little. I still keep mine for that very reason. But, get SOMETHING else if you actually ever become interested in trying to make photographic art. And yes, the 45mm AIP lens works extremely well for certain purposes, just like all the other moderately priced lenses on the market.

[john schroeder]

I've always been very happy with my Nikkor 50 f1.4 AFD lens. Good or bad bokeh has always been a subject of opinion. In my opinion the Nikkor 50 f1.4/f1.8 lenses are fine.

[brian_caldwell]

David:

Its unclear to me that other manufacturers have an edge over Nikon in this department. Its certainly not the case with Zeiss, whose 50/1.4 appears to have as bad or worse bokeh than the corresponding Nikkor: http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.php?t=d&a=&ff=50&ft=50

 

Also, many people claim that the 45/2.8 GN and newer P lenses have better bokeh than the other Nikkor 50's. With respect to bright ring and line doubling effects I have to disagree. If you stop down any of the Nikkor 50's to f/2.8 you will not find bright edges on defocused background highlights, but both of the 45's show this. IMO the only bokeh advantage of the 45/2.8 is a more circular pupil shape. If the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 only had a better iris diaphragm they would absolutely trounce the 45P.

 

Bjorn:

On several occasions you allude to lenses whose bokeh gets harsher as you stop them down. This is contrary to aberration theory, because virtually all photographic lenses have slightly undercorrected spherical aberration (just what you want for good bokeh) when stopped down. Is the effect you're seeing just due to increased DOF or polygonal aperture shape, or is it something else. I'm extremely curious about this.

[david_kelly1]

Well, I sure got ripped a new one for raising this issue, but I have too many Nikkors that are sharp, contrasty, and *still* render OOF areas beautifully:the 24 f2.8, the 35 f2, both 85s, and the marvellous 105 f2.5 among others, not to think that Nikon can't improve its 50s, which are pretty much the only lenses in the line where this problem exists. 50s are all-purpose street shooters and in street shooting often you can't choose your backgrounds, so the quality of the OOF areas does count, a bunch of distracting double lines or hard-edged highlights can ruin an otherwise good shot.

[vivek iyer]

In my experience, the 50/2 Summicron is the best 50mm lens I have ever used in terms of the image rendition (right amount of contrast and right amount of contrast gradation). None of the 50mm Nikkors come close to this. The 50/2 Planar made for Contarex is supposed to be even better than the Leitz Summicron when it comes to sharpness and OOF rendition.

[daniel_colfax]

Just last week I took <a href="http://www.eastcolfax.com/blog/index.php?showimage=160">this picture</a> using the 50mm/1.8 wide-open. I like the bokeh just fine.

<br><br>

Disclaimer: I just run a photoblog, I'm not a professional, and my blog deals exclusively with geographic-specific pictures. But I still don't think the lens is anything to sneeze at, particularly given the ~$99.00 price.

[bjørn rørslett]

Brian: I can only report what I see in my photographs. I'm not an optics expert as such and hence don't know what the theory says should be there.

 

For me, "bad" bokeh is about an OOF rendition in which lines get doubled and highlights get sharp, harsh edges. It is not about increasing DOF as such. Some lenses impart a very smooth and creamy texture to the background which holds up well when the lens is stopped down, despite the obvious increase in DOF. Typical examples are 85/1.4 AF, 200/2VR, and 300/2.8 AFS VR. The older versions of these three lenses, viz., 85/1.4 MF, 200/2 MF, and 300/2.8 AFS, differ significantly in the way they behave when they are stopped down. Hopefully, a theory exists to explain this. For me, the images suffice on their own.