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

[senthil1]

<p>@Rob Sheppard</p>

<p><em> <a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=5036571">Sen C</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Aug 19, 2010; 03:49 p.m.</em><br>

<em> </em><em> Just an example for creamy bokeh...</em><br>

<em>>>so Sen, did you blur the foreground in post?</em></p>

<p>Nope, absolutely no post processing except for a little straightening of horizon, curves and a bit unsharp mask, and NO selective blurring of foreground or background.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity - does it look artificial or blurred on post??</p>

<p>Cheers,<br /> Senthil</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Most people just want to hear the music. </em></p>

<p>That may be, but the artist performing the music, especially if they have a classical training, will pay attention to every minute detail of their performance. This isn't a bad thing, it is what makes the music enjoyable to even those who know something about music. Same is true of photography also; if you want to make a fine photograph you will pay attention to detail.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Les - I will refrain from humor. Yeesh!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You actually have to do something, before you can begin to "refrain from" it.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>That may be, but the artist performing the music, especially if they have a classical training, will pay attention to every minute detail of their performance.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>True, but they will NOT fuss over the precise details of the RECORDING, only the PERFORMANCE. Musicians who are also audiophiles are <em>extremely</em> rare, as I know from experience. My friend Pat, who sang at the Met, had the worst, cheap stereo system in the world.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>You actually have to do something, before you can begin to "refrain from" it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then I expect you can now refrain from <em>ad hominem</em> attacks?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Les writes</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>True, but they will NOT fuss over the precise details of the RECORDING, only the PERFORMANCE. Musicians who are also audiophiles are <em>extremely</em> rare, as I know from experience. My friend Pat, who sang at the Met, had the worst, cheap stereo system in the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am a professional musician and know many as well, and have been a very serious musician for more than half my life, and this is categorically untrue in my experience. I think your friend was an anomaly.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00X78w"></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 20, 2010; 05:02 p.m.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You actually have to do something, before you can begin to "refrain from" it.</p>

<p>Then I expect you can now refrain from <em>ad hominem</em> attacks?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Then I hope you will refrain from Bokeh posts in the future....a topic of which you obviously know little.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>True, but they will NOT fuss over the precise details of the RECORDING, only the PERFORMANCE.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can tell you, from direct personal experience dealing professionally with musicians (from classical artists to banjo players and bar bands) and those working in the recording and broadcasting industries: that is <em>really</em> incorrect. I can't even count the number of drummers who would spend hours obsessing with the recording crew over the tonality, ring, reverberance, phase correctness, and other subtle technical (and laws of physics) things that contribute to subtle<em> qualitative</em> nuances in the resulting recording. I know vocalists that are better than many professional recording engineers at noting a response curve problem that's preventing a consistent-sounding mix of two takes.<br /><br />The problem here, Les, is that you seem fixated on this whole thing as an either-or. Being thoughtful about one aspect of the tool's behavior doesn't mean it's the only thing taken into consideration. In fact, oddly, you seem far more concerned about the use of the <em>word</em> than you are about the fact that the optical issues involved get talked about in the first place. Would you actually abandon the crusade if all of the exact same conversations kept happening, and all of the manufacturers and users kept bringing the issue up, but everyone agreed to say "the quality of the out of focus background blur" instead of "bokeh?"<br /><br />Lastly: As we've established in thread after thread on this topic, the differences between lenses are concrete, demonstrable. Real. This is not idiotic audiophiles swearing that one SATA drive cable sounds better than another while fetching the data needed to play their MP3 files. Whether or not a jaggy background matters to you doesn't matter. Nikon is well aware that their older (and newer) 85/1.4's reputation is <em>not</em> about sharpness at f/8. It's about the quality of the out of focus background element rendering when used with a wider aperture. Does saying that feel more rational, since I used the required extra 15 syllables in mentioning it?</p>

[mark liddell]

It is true that shallow dof is very much in fashion, just look at the most popular wedding pros like Jessica Claire, Jasmine Star et al who shoot 1.2 lenses wide open with natural light. Then again so is selective focus with TS lenses - yuck.

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Very true Mark. Other, like Jose Villa, Jonathan Canlas, Leo Patrone, Riccis Valaderes, Leah Mccormick, etc, etc also shoot wide open with both 35mm and MF lenses. </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Les Berkley - Then I expect you can now refrain from <em>ad hominem</em> attacks?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I haven't made any, so there's nothing to refrain from. Although, since you just made a false accusation, it does appear to be the territory that you're treading into.</p>

<p>You started a rather belligerent "knock the chip off my shoulder" thread, and you just kept getting worse as time went on and people countered the numerous misconceptions in your rant. You then tried to defend the bad day you shared with us as "humor". I merely called you on that bit of sophistry.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>Bokeh doesn't matter too much. The only people that look at OOF areas are photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. Non-photographers look at an image and like it for reasons of which they're unaware, the b-word being among them, but their brains are connecting at a gut level. If you add up all the detail touches and TLC that better photographers put into their images, you'd understand that all the little things we do, taken together, add up, and can make a good photo into a stunning photo.</p>

<p>Sadly, it seems most responders have chosen to ignore the OP's question and got alll hung up about the 'B-word'. I wish someone could actually show some examples of images from the new lens, specifically detailing the OOF highlights at wider apertures, and/or comment on whether the lateral CA has been improved/eliminated from the 85/1.4D. By the specs, it's a different number of lenses and grouping. How does that change affect the images in actual practice (not rumor, not speculation, not MTF curves, but actual images). New lens buzz is all good and well, but without images it'd be like buying a pig in a poke.</p>

<p>I'm wondering whether I'm going to order the new 85/1.4G - specifically if it's worth the asking price. To me, improving on the 'D' lens would almost have to be diminished returns. OTOH, it's a bit like drag racing - speed is expensive...how fast do you want to go? I'd dearly like to hear (or see) some solid info on how the new lens performs (especially for $1700 when a new 'D' gray market version is about $1050). And is it finally a bayonet hood?</p>

<p>Anyone?</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Peter Hamm:</strong> I am a professional musician and know many as well, and have been a very serious musician for more than half my life, and this is categorically untrue in my experience. I think your friend was an anomaly.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have written about music and audio for about twenty years. Pat was an anomaly of sorts, but I have known many musicians--classical, rock, folk--who have pretty poor audio gear. Point is, they want to sound good, so folks will get up and dance. They don't obsess over minutia the way audiophiles do. A clam embarrasses them but the precise nature of the soundstage does not. Fabio, OTOH, had Gayle Saunders of Martin-Logan build him custom electrostatic speakers that cost him a hundred grand. I didn't express myself well on this, for which I apologize.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Matt Laur:</strong> Would you actually abandon the crusade if all of the exact same conversations kept happening, and all of the manufacturers and users kept bringing the issue up, but everyone agreed to say "the quality of the out of focus background blur" instead of "bokeh?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I promise. No more bokey out of me. But I will still feel sad for newbies who truly want to photograph, and are told of this all-important, mystical attribute that is only to be found in lenses they can't afford. I want people to discuss equipment as a whole, not just as a producer of soft backgrounds. I don't want to hear nonsense like 'you can't get bokeh with micro 4/3'. Here is a banal snapshot to prove them wrong.</p>

<p><a title="_1000991-1.jpg by wogears, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4912154292_7e6d0df1cc.jpg" alt="_1000991-1.jpg" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>Matt, when I look at your Dogpictures, I see the personality of the animals, not sharpness or bokeh or Tiefenscharfenschadenfreude. (Why do we say, 'sharpness' or 'chromatic aberration' in English--if we are using that language--but we need 'bokeh' to mean 'blur quality'?) That's all. Out.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yes, it has a bayonet hood. And the AF-S mechanics are important regardless of the optical changes, in that you can have your camera perform AF, but still grab the focus ring and manually adjust. That's not possible with the D version.<br /><br />As for your request: Bjorn just got his to review. So, stay tuned. They've just <em>announced</em> it, they haven't started putting them on the shelf for general sale yet. It will be interesting to see how Sigma's new 85/1.4 HSM stacks up.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Les Berkley - But I will still feel sad for newbies who truly want to photograph, and are told of this all-important, mystical attribute that is only to be found in lenses they can't afford.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't feel sad, Les. There's so much nice bokeh those newbies can have for 1/10 to 1/5 the $1960 US price of the new 85mm f1.4.</p>

<ol>

<li>One of the lenses that comes up frequently in discussions of bokeh, at least in Nikon mount, is the 105mm f2.5. This discontinued, but plentiful, lens that can be found for $100-200 used. Truly amazing lens on a film camera, where it's nearly a perfect portrait length (Personally, I prefer a 135mm, but that may just be the way I learned). It's a bit long on a newbie's APS DSLR, though, but great for tighter portraits.</li>

<li>The Tamron 90mm f2.8 has bokeh so nice it's hard to believe it's a macro lens. A modern autofocus lens, it's one of the few that can do double duty: a near perfect 135mm equivalent portrait lens with a combination of good sharpness in the plane of focus and great bokeh outside it, along with the ability to go to 1:1 macro. $409 brand new with the rebates going on right now.</li>

<li>The Samyang 85mm f1.4 is a new arrival, introduced about 18 months ago. This manual focus lens is often seen under the names "Bower", "Polar", "Vivitar", or "Opteka", and has a reputation for startlingly good bokeh. It can be found new, in Nikon mount, for about $350. On a film camera, it's a great short portrait lens, on a DSLR, a 125mm equivalent that puts it smack into long portrait range, between the venerable 105mm and 135mm.</li>

<li>The Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton is a modernized version of the old Topcor 58mm f1.4. 58mm normals went out of style in film SLRs in teh 60s, but they're near perfect "short portrait" lenses on cropped DSLRs. The Voigtlander draws with quite respectable bokeh.</li>

<li>If you really want pretty bokeh in a normal on an APS DSLR, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is quite respectable, at $430 new.</li>

</ol>

<p>See, sadness is totally unnecessary. This is a happy time.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Here are some Test pictures by Magazine "DIGIFOTO" ... ( they are not the best in the world for this subject but still..)<br>

<a href="http://www.dfpro.nl/artikel/2329672/testfoto%E2%80%99s-nikon-af-s-nikkor-85mm-f-1-4g">http://www.dfpro.nl/artikel/2329672/testfoto%E2%80%99s-nikon-af-s-nikkor-85mm-f-1-4g</a></p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Nikon missed on this one.</p>

<p>The 85 1.4 needed VR.</p>

<p>This disappointment just makes me more grateful for my Nikon 105 VR.</p>

[john_morris4]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here are some Test pictures by Magazine "DIGIFOTO" ... ( they are not the best in the world for this subject but still..)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dfpro.nl/artikel/2329672/testfoto%E2%80%99s-nikon-af-s-nikkor-85mm-f-1-4g" target="_blank">http://www.dfpro.nl/artikel/2329672/testfoto%E2%80%99s-nikon-af-s-nikkor-85mm-f-1-4g</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the link. The series of bicycle shots are challenging. Just a little rough wide open, perhaps, but very well behaved from f/2 on up. It looks like Nikon have tried hard to be keep it right at the edge of beautiful out-of-focus-background-blur, trying to keep stuff that's in focus sharp. If they've also managed to avoid discernible focus shift, that will be nice.</p>

<p>Joseph, do you happen to know if the Voigtlander 58/1.4 also behaves decently on an FX camera?</p>

 

 

 

[CvhKaar]

<p>Hi John,<br>

The Nokton is on review Photozone , its in the Canon Fulframe dept. but that should not differ to much from Nikon FX as far as Bokeh goes ....<br>

The part that I always miss in reviews for these type of lenses is : How do they render Coma from lights in dark places ( like scity/treet lights at night..) , a lot of times those look very unrealistic or become just plain round circles ..... ( this is where a 58mm 1.2 Noct. realy shines for instance, whish I had the money for that one... :-) ).</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>It's good to get the bokeh discussion out of the way say we can move on to the really important subject of lp/mm.</p>

[photom]

<p>I am not an expert on bokeh or VR, but I have read that VR can cause unpredictable changes to the look of the bokeh at times. I assume this would bother many of the bokeh "purists".</p>

<p>Andre Noble Said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon missed on this one.<br>

The 85 1.4 needed VR.<br>

This disappointment just makes me more grateful for my Nikon 105 VR.</p>

</blockquote>