50mm f/1.8 AIS bokeh

[kevin_peng1]

I just read some discussions in the archives about the generally bad

bokeh of the 50 mm Nikkors. Among the various lenses, the 50 f/1.4 AF-

D and 50 f/1.8 AF were often cited as having bad bokeh.

 

I just got back some prints that I shot with a 50 f/1.8 AIS, mostly

wide open or stopped down to f/2 or f/2.8. The background, located

about 10 yards away from the subject (which is in focus about 5 feet

away), is light green and harsh--the little circles of light have

bright, well-defined edges and there is a lot of doubling. Since the

little circles look like they could be heptagons instead of circles,

I'm guessing this particular frame was one where I stopped the lens

down to f/2 or f/2.8.

 

Does the 50mm f/1.8 AIS suffer from the bad bokeh problems that some

posters have described about the 50mm f/1.4 AIS and AF-D? If it does,

how should I avoid it when shooting against a background that's not a

nice, well-controlled studio background? The double images are really

annoying; also, more than one of the pictures whose background is the

ivy behind my house is so noisy that it looks like it could be a

pointillist painting.

[david_h._hartman]

There are several 50/1.8 AIS Nikkors. The 50/1.8 AIS (early

version) has the same optical formula as the AI version and has

an aluminum barrel. Its longer like the 50/1.8 AI but has a

faster throw on the focus ring and is smoother. <br>

<br>

The 50/1.8 AIS (late version) shares the 50/1.8 Nikon Series-E

formula with the AF 50/1.8(s) and AF 50/1.8D(s). These all have a

plastic lens barrel. There is also an aluminum barreled 50/1.8 AIS

pancake lens with an aluminum barrel that was sold only in the

Japanese market. All but the Series-E are multi-coated.<br>

<br>

I dont think any of the 50mm Nikkor are known for their

great bokeh. Some attribute this to the 50/2.0 AI but in his article

in the <a

href="http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n02_e.htm"

target="_new"><u>Nikkor, Thousand and One Nights, Tale Two</u></a>,

OSHITA, Kouichi writes, However, when fully open an out-of-focus

background can become harsh or appear doubled, so handling the

background requires care.<br>

<br>

Perhaps the lens you want is the 45/2.8 AIS P Nikkor.<br>

<br>

Here is where I go for the best subjective evaluations on the web...<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>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a><br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[scott_mcloughlin]

What is good bokeh? For many on this list it simply means a strong OOF blurring, so the longer the FL the "better" the bokeh.

 

This is not my own definition of good bokeh. For me, good bokeh is a gradual, smooth transition from the focal plane to OOF areas. During this transition, objects should maintain their shapes. There should be no or minimal doubling of OOF object shapes. Any specular highlights should be nicely rounded, with no surrounding brighter halo than the highlight itself and not "aperture blade shaped."

 

Among the Nikon normals, I'll 2nd the 45/2.8 AI-P for a lens with good bokeh. IMHO, this Tessar design based lens has a wonderful signature. Sharp enough, especially at closer focus range, and very nice bokeh. Plenty of aperture blades to help keep specular highlights nice and round.

 

It's a little pricey, but then the construction of the lens is of very high quality. Very nice, smooth manual focusing. In general, one pays for nice build.

 

If you look around, one can find them used or on sale or remainder. I picked up a new one marked as "used" at B&H because there was a crack in the supplied UV filter. I just bouhgt a B+W filter and am as happy as a clam.

 

The Nikkor 50/1.8 (I have the latest AFD) *is* an extremely sharp lens and a great bargain, but it's not suited to all styles of shooting or desired photographic rendering of a scene.

 

Best of luck.

 

Scott

[vivek iyer]

Most Nikon lenses are made with a built in "Bokeh" filter (that removes any "bokeh") with the exception of a very few. Any lens wide open, should give well rounded specular highlights. But most lenses may just yield crappy images when shot wide open.

 

In comparison, the 50mm/2 Summicron I use with my Leica reflex does not have the bokeh filter.

[albert_smith]

<I>Does the 50mm f/1.8 AIS suffer from the bad bokeh problems that some posters have described...</I><P>

 

I love my 50mm Nikkors, but when M used a Leica 50mm for the first time I could see the difference in the rendering of the background blur. Long before the internet and the popularity of the word "bokeh", some books talked about this effect. It is not that the Nikkors are "bad", it is that the Leica lenses look better with some types of backgrounds. I still use my Nikkors anytime that I want a wide aperture selective focus effect. I just know that they are not as smooth as they could be.<P>

 

Here is a shot made with a 50mm f/1.8 AIS (large barreled) Nikkor at f/1.8. This is a fraction of a self portrait that I made from a tripod to show juggling, so I used f/1.8 to get a very high shutter speed to freeze the pine cones. The effect in the trees is about normal from this lens. It is a little jagged and harsh, but there is no way to quanitify this effect.<div></div>

[albert_smith]

<I>Does the 50mm f/1.8 AIS suffer from the bad bokeh problems that some posters have described about the 50mm f/1.4 AIS and AF-D?<P>

 

The double images are really annoying;...</I><P>

 

I did a bokeh test some time back for all of my normal Nikkors at full aperture, so I can show you the effect from the f/1.8 and f/1.4 at those two wide-open stops with the same subject. The background is a backlit kitchen table, and you can clearly see that both lenses have the double image in the blurred area.<div></div>

[albert_smith]

... and now the f/1.8.<div></div>

[EricM]

"The double images are really annoying;..."

 

using a dslr by any chance, Kevin?

[charles_miller]

David Hartman nailed it:

 

I don?t think any of the 50mm Nikkor are known for their great bokeh. Some attribute this to the 50/2.0 AI but in his article in the Nikkor, Thousand and One Nights, Tale Two, OSHITA, Kouichi writes, ?However, when fully open an out-of-focus background can become harsh or appear doubled, so handling the background requires care.?

 

Perhaps the lens you want is the 45/2.8 AIS P Nikkor.

[e._m.]

I'd say the 45mm P is a nice choice if your *main* criteria is having a "normal" lens with good bokeh. I'd say any of the other 50mm lenses is a better choice if bokeh is not your primary concern.

 

What I really, really don't like about the 45mm is the large amount of light falloff wide open, f/2.8 being the fastest speed, and the fact that a 50mm lens is going to edge it out in general performance and handling of the lens. I think the supposed advantages when it comes to the 45mm having better contrast versus a 50mm are like splitting hairs given today's multicoatings.

[kevin_peng1]

Thanks for all the responses...

 

Dave, I have a late 50/1.8 AIS with a plastic barrel. I just reread Bjorn Rorslett's opinions on the page with all the "normal" lenses. Maybe I can start saving up for the 45/2.8 P, but I will keep on using the 50/1.8 if there is not a light in my photo.

 

Scott, I agree with you that good bokeh includes highlights that don't have edges that are brighter than the highlight itself. I guess I'm less picky about the shape of the highlights--a polygonal highlight isn't that ugly to me; instead, I think it's cool. But maybe I'll gradually learn more about photography and begin to notice the aspects you mentioned.

 

Vivek, what is the bokeh filter that you talk about that the Leica Summicron doesn't have? Is it one of the elements or something about the elements or is it the absence of aperture blades when wide open?

 

Albert, the ivy in my pictures looks almost exactly like the trees in the right-hand side background of the picture of you juggling pinecones. I don't like the highlights there...they have very bright edges and are so close together and there's so many of them. Thanks for sharing the test photos.

 

Eric, I am using color print film. Is the doubling effect worse or better on a dslr?

[vivek iyer]

Kevin, The answer is as David and others said, "I don't think any of the 50mm Nikkor are known for their great bokeh."

 

No special elements in any 50mm Nikkors they just are no good when it comes to the "bokeh"issues

[steve_chan5]

<p>Of the Nikon 50's that I've tried, the ones with the best bokeh seem to be the 50/1.2 and the 50/2. Both still tend to ring bokeh, but I don't think either one tends toward doubling.

<p>I think the 50/1.2 is a pretty cool - the depth of field is really shallow, but the OOF areas are very acceptable (imo). Here is a sample photo wide open. There were issues with white balance and exposure, but the OOF character should be evident.<div></div>

[robert_marotz]

I can't say I found the 45mm f2.8P lens to be any better than the 50mm f1.8 AFD in regards to bokeh. In fact it was often worse when photographing with specular highlights. I'm not sure where people are getting their experience on the 45P's bokeh, but nobody seems to be posting examples to demonstrate. The reviews rarely have photos, and when they do they are not good examples of the "bokeh advantage" over the other normal primes except the circular signature when stopped down opposed to polygonal, which doesn't show you how harsh lines tend to be in photos like <a href="http://www.tc.umn.edu/~maro0049/testing/45pd.jpg">this example</a>

<br><br>

Some people think the bokeh from the 50mm F1.2 Nikkor is reasonable, I dunno. It may be safe to assume there are no Nikkor normal primes with good bokeh.