50mm f1.4D Bokeh

[david_kelly1]

Mike Johnston gives the AF Nikkor 50mmf1.4D a low rating for

bokeh, but Bjorn Rorslett writes that "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." Do you agree,

and if so, in your experience at what stop does the bokeh get

harsh?

[vivek iyer]

You are cherry picking statements from various sources and are posing a confused question.

 

It does not matter what aperture you use, it is more important which lens you use and (even more importantly) under what lighting conditions. I have used some lenses that give very pleasing OOF renditions even at f/16, depending on the lighting condition, subject and the magnification.

[lex_jenkins]

First of all, bokeh is entirely subjective. Even those of us who have convinved ourselves that we speak the dialect of bokeh and know all of its nuances may disagree about the importance of certain characteristics.

 

Aperture shape, as determined by the number (and, occasionally, arrangement) of iris blades, is not always the dominant factor. When a lens is used wide open it is not a factor at all.

 

Some of us want to see a diffuse blending of colors, with shapes becoming less distinct with distance and DOF.

 

My pet peeve is harsh bokeh, an effective of doubling or "cross-eyed" bokeh, which usually shows up on linear objects such as twigs, stems, fences, buildings, etc. Unfortunately, this characteristic seems fairly common with Nikkors.

 

Then there's coma, astigmatism and other factors. It's a mess.

 

So it's entirely likely that Mike and Bjorn are both correct: Wide open the 50/1.4D AF-Nikkor may have good bokeh which becomes harsh as it's stopped down.

[c_o1]

Here are two photographs I took with my 50mm AF-D. Good bokeh(tree) and bad bokeh(girl)

Both were taken at f4. I think the variation in distance between the subject and background

was the most important factor. The 1.4 is sharp and has great color rendition. Who knows

what else it is corrected for. I love it.

By the way, the girls mother has never heard of bokeh and could care less.<div></div>

[c_o1]

Continued<div></div>

[chris haake]

I don't find this question to be confused at all. David is simply taking statements from a well-respected source such as Bjorn and asking why it doesn't seem to jive with statements from another. In doing so, he's simply asking for clarification.

 

That being said, David, perhaps you could email Bjorn and ask him your question. I've emailed him before and he responded quite promptly with very helpful comments. Just be sure you send a PLAIN TEXT email only...no HTML markups at all, otherwise it won't get through to him. You can get his email address from his web site.

[cálico]

Maybe it's an ugly Bokeh.... but that child is absolutely gorgeous! She saved your photo! (I'm sorry.... but I simply couldn't resist). :)

[c_o1]

I think what happens to us a lot is that we already own or are possibly purchasing a lens and

we do exhaustive google searches looking for favorable reviews. And we get angry when we

read something unfavorable about our equipment.

Mike Johnson has forgotten more than most of us will ever know about camera lenses. He

loves 50mm's too. He gave his opinion on the bokeh. He's right, it can be crummy. I wouldn't

worry about it too much. I don't think he would want you too either.

[c_o1]

Calico, THANK YOU, she is nice. :)

[bwcombs]

Your two photo displays of "Bad Bokeh" and "Good Bokeh"

further confirm Lex's statement that bokeh is purely subjective. I

don't think that there is such a thing as good or bad bokeh. Okie

dokie?

 

(I like them both. And the girl does make the shot.)

[mark_gay]

Bokeh's like crema on a coffee, froth on a beer.. attractive but unpredictable.

 

I'm sure I'm just not in the same league, but I'm happy when I get the composition right and, even more, the lighting. Heck, the number of pictures I lose to poor focus... if the out-of-focus is pleasing, well that's just the icing on the cake.

 

Having said that, the 180mm f/2.8 EDIF shoots a lovely background but it's not easy to use in place of a 50mm.

 

Mark

[Robert_Lai]

Of all of the normal Nikkors that I've had my hands on, the 50mm f/1.4 has the ugliest bokeh. I have the AIS version, but the AF has the same optics in a plastic package. Mike Johnston is entirely right in his rating of 3/10. Note that he doesn't rate the f/1.8 much higher (5 instead of 3). The worst case scenario for bokeh with these lenses are at minimum focus, and with the lens 1-2 stops down from wide open. Wide open, all lenses give round highlights which are not so offensive. At f/2 or f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens will give nice 7-sided shapes. They wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so BIG and noticable. By f/4 and smaller apertures, the nasty shapes are small enough to be less obtrusive and obnoxious. I and some friends have been working on a compilation of the properties of all of the normal Nikkors that we own amongst us. I can't give you all of the information (there's just too much), but here's some examples at f/2.8, where things are getting really ugly!<p>

My mums with the 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.8, 18" subject to film distance. There's a bit of veiling flare at this distance and aperture. Bokeh is provided for you by the white fertilizer specks in the soil.<div></div>

[Robert_Lai]

The last time I did this, people wanted to know how things looked at more usual subject distances for this lens. So, I devised a new test with the subject at 1.2 meters away from the film surface. The focus point is the eye of my garden crane statue. Bokeh is provided for by spaces between the shrubbery in the background.<p>Is there anything good about the f/1.4? Of course there is! Between f/2 and f/2.8, it is the sharpest of the 50mm lenses. It beats the 50mm f/1.8, and the 50mm f/1.2.<p>For good bokeh, I would look into the 45mm f/2.8 P.<div></div>

[Robert_Lai]

Since somebody is bound to ask, here's the lens wide open at 1.2 meters distance. Overall, I find this lens to be very sharp from f/2 onwards, and it has some barrel distortion. It also flares easily if the light is near the axis of the lens. Surprisingly, when the light source is off towards the edges, (in night scenes), the 50mm f/1.4 is superior to the 1.2 and 1.8 in resisting flare and ghosting.<p>My impression of the lens is that it's highly corrected and sharp. If your criterion is only lens sharpness, then run out and buy this. But, the really ugly bokeh has me preparing to sell it. After all, the foreground and background are also part of the picture for me.<div></div>

[Robert_Lai]

OK, I make a correction here. The bokeh of this lens even wide open can be really ugly too!

[david_kelly1]

Wow, the difference in the OOF quality of CO's tree-trunk shot

and Robert's Crane is huge, I guess a lot more than one stop of

aperture is involved. CO, can you give the details of

camera-to-subject and subject to background difference -and

anything else that might have made the bokeh so smooth?

 

Thanks to all who did not sneer: I have used the 35 f2 as my

walking around lens for years but recent medical events have

parked my butt in an electric scooter and I have to do my street

shooting at somewhat greater distance; hence my interest in

learning to work around the 50's well-known defect.

[lex_jenkins]

C O, the perfection of the human child as exemplified by that adorable little girl aside, it has nothing at all to do with bokeh. If an object or subject is in focus, there is no bokeh to discuss. Bokeh applies only to the characteristics of how a lens renders *out-of-focus* subjects and objects.

 

And, fortunately, when one has such wonderful subjects to photograph, what kinda ADD hypercritical hankie-snuffler will notice bokeh anyway?

[icuneko]

When I look at CO's little girl photo my vision goes straight to the girl with the background bokeh there but not primary. When I look only at the trees' bokeh in the background I do see bokeh per se, but not really harsh. Usually, at least for me, I attend to the portrait subject and any bokeh is a far second, or more like a psychological background or support. In this very fine portrait the girl is IT. Bokeh is just icing on the cake.

[charles_miller]

To C O,

 

Thank you for posting that first image. It shows both the exceptional strengths of the 50mm f1.4 lens, and also its regretable weakness.

 

So what you have captured in that image is a perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, quite sharp, beautifully rendered, and adorable subject. However, the background looks like it was rendered with a "brick and crayon shavings" action. In my experience your first image has about the average amount of "hokey bokeh" that I would expect from a Nikon 50mm lens.

 

I agree that the background effect changes depending on the distance from the subject to the background. However, I also think there are some other factors.

 

By the way, as a rule I don't think that most Nikon lenses have bokeh problems. Primarily just the 50mm models.

[c_o1]

The shot of the little girl was cropped to 8x10. I eliminated that dandelion at her feet and

much of the bad bokeh real estate above her head. I really don't worry too much about the

bokeh in my photographs. Lately, I'm on a hyperfocal kick anyways. This thread did cause me

to go look at some photographs that I took with my old system. My SRT 101 with it's 58mm

1.4 lens. Now that lens had some dreamy bokeh. Oh well, I still love my Nikkor 50mm 1.4

AF-D. This was an enjoyable thread but I think we should move on from bokeh and discuss

something truly important: like a 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8 battle. :)

[edpiercy]

IMO, and after looking at photos galore, it seems to me that good or bad bokeh is more dependent on the nature of the background itself -- i.e. some types of backgrounds just tend to look better than others when they are out of focus. This is something that you will probably notice quicker looking at BW shots. But of course the same idea applies to color. I'm not saying of course that the lens doesn't figure in to it at all, but only that there is another aspect of it.

[edpiercy]

Please disregard my previous entry. I stand corrected.

[vivek iyer]

I would agree with your previous entry, Ed.

[bryan_ray1]

Robert, can you show the results with your garden swan with the 45mm aip?

[Robert_Lai]

Sorry Bryan,<p>

I returned the 45 P before I thought of photographing this bird statue for portrait distance bokeh testing.