Used 35-70/2.8 and 85/1.4, which one has better bokeh?

[leslie_cheung]

<p>You don't necessarily need long, fast lenses for bokeh. The separation of subject and background distance is also a key factor...<br>

<a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9237284_78d872ae6c_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a></p>

<p>Tokina 12-24mm @ 24mm F4 or 5.6</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"However when you look at how most Nikon lenses deliver the bokeh, you may come to the conclusion that Nikon has designed these lenses to be sharp and contrasy at the expense of bokeh."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>CC, you're more correct than you might realize.</p>

<p>Keep in mind the following anecdote is decades old and many things have changed over the years. Nikkors in general seem to have much more pleasant bokeh than they did years ago.</p>

<p>Back in the early 1980s when I was studying journalism in college my instructor persuaded me to switch from an emphasis on photojournalism to reporting. I was a better writer than photographer then, although over the years I've become equally mediocre at both disciplines.</p>

<p>I still had a photographer's eye so I played a little mental guessing game while sorting through photos for the upcoming issues of the college paper. I noticed differences in the out of focus areas (this was pre-bokeh... we didn't have a term for the concept back then), and realized I could more often than not identify the photos taken by the fellow who owned a Nikon, compared with the less well off students who used Canons or other brands. At the time many students used a Canon AE-1 or A-1, both of which were more affordable than the comparable Nikon F2, F3 or FM. (I couldn't afford either - my rig was a Ricoh SLR and three standard K-mount primes.)</p>

<p>The Nikkors seemed more prone to what is now called nisen bokeh - relatively harsh doubling or multiple out of focus lines and hard edges. The Nikkors also seemed, subjectively speaking, to produce somewhat sharper, contrastier photos - although this may well have been due to the darkroom skills of the photographers, who each developed and printed their own work. It may also have been that the Nikon owners were simply better photographers, although the best student photographer I knew of from college used Canon back then (and she's the only student photographer I can think of from those years who became a successful and very good pro PJ).</p>

<p>It wasn't until I read Mike Johnston's article on bokeh back in the 1990s that I realized there was not only a concept behind this informal observation, but also a term to describe it. And at the time the most insufferably bokeh-obsessed photographers were Olympus OM system owners (I was one of 'em). Zuikos did seem to sacrifice a certain amount of ultimate resolution (supported by scientific tests) in exchange for more pleasant out of focus rendering. Canon FD lenses were very close. And, of course, there were exceptions, notably the 105/2.5 and 180/2.8 AI and AIS Nikkors.</p>

<p>I'd bet that Nikon engineers didn't really pay much attention to bokeh until everyone on the internet began yakking about it constantly. (Heck, very few of us paid much attention to it until the past decade.) However, the article for the 50mm f/2 AI Nikkor on the Nikon Japan "Thousand And One Nights" series indicates that at least some folks inside Nikon did recognize this intangible factor years ago.</p>

<p>Anyway, my anecdote is moot now if you own or plan to buy only more recent Nikkors. I can no longer reliably tell the difference in bokeh between any of the various manufacturers. All of 'em make some lenses with pleasing bokeh and all of 'em make some with mediocre bokeh. The toughest challenge is usually out of focus foliage in daylight. Some lenses that seem to have acceptable bokeh in other conditions may fail miserably when the background and/or foreground have a lot of foliage, grass or trees.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Incidentally, this thread has prompted me to shoot a few illustration photos with the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor to emphasize the bokeh characteristics. I'm too lazy to dig through my boxes of indifferently categorized CDs/DVDs to find the test photos I did in 2006. Easier to just shoot a few more. I'll try to post 'em later.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>The 35-70mm is the closest zoom alternative to prime lenses that I've seen or used, though I admit I haven't tried say the 28-70mm f2.8. It does get some of that "look" particularly with wider apertures and smaller DOF.</p>

<p>That said, it is <strong>not</strong> a prime, and owning the 80mm f1.8 one can see the difference in sharpness and distortion if you're looking (pixel peeping) and the the 80mm definitely has a "je ne sais quois" quality about it that isn't completely there in the 35-70mm. It's certainly more there than say kit lenses or even some higher cost off brand lenses, but not totally.</p>

<p>Frankly the 80mm f1.8 is the sharpest lens I've ever used and just gives fantastic portraits. Other than or bragging rights I've never been tempted to the 80mm f1.4, in part because the price just wasn't there, but perhaps the prices have dropped so much now that its not a big deal.</p>

<p>Finally, even though the 80mm is by far what I would consider my best portrait lens, the 35-70mm is my walk around lens for shear flexibility. It is the best trade off between zoom and quality that I've used.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>Just for reference I copied the "evaluations" of bokeh from dpreview on several Nikon lenses to give us an idea of how such quality is evaluated:<br /> <strong>35/1.8 AFS:</strong><br /> "...With its relatively fast maximum aperture, the 35mm F1.8G can produce substantially blurred backgrounds, and while these can be slightly hard-edged in character (especially at F1.8), bokeh is generally rather appealing. Stopping down progressively smooths out the harsher edges, with perhaps the best compromise in the region of F2.8."</p>

<p><strong>70-200/2.8 VRI:</strong><br /> "One genuinely desirable, but difficult to measure aspect of a lens's performance is the ability to deliver smoothly blurred out-of-focus regions when trying to isolate a subject from the background, generally when using a long focal length and large aperture. Here the 70-200mm VR is an excellent performer, producing smooth, attractive bokeh which rarely detracts from the subject."</p>

<p><strong>70-200/2.8 VRII:</strong><br /> "...After shooting hundreds of frames with the lens, it appears to have something of a split personality in this regard. At close distance in particular, it can give marked double-image 'nissen' bokeh, which isn't pretty. But more distant backgrounds are rendered very smoothly indeed, and in reality this is likely to be more representative of the most typical uses of this lens."</p>

<p>It is particularly interesting to note the difference between the two 70-200 zooms. Keep in mind that the VRII was designed to give corner to corner sharpness in a FF camera, a weakness in the older lens. As a result, the bokeh quality is also altered. I cannot forgive myself for selling the 105/2.5 because I thought the newer AF version should be just as good with the added bonus of being able to AF ... Designing a lens is not easy.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>. . . Or is it because it's the new photography buzz word to describe "better photography"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Richard, I assume this is just rhetorical? In case you didn't know, no matter what one may think about the topic, it's been discussed passionately for many years, and way before photo.net came into existence.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

[richardsnow]

<p>Yes, it was rhetorical...and Bokeh, although passionately discussed for many years, is seriously one of the last things I look at when evaluating a lens. Personally it goes like this:</p>

<p>Is the lens a focal length/zoom range that I will use and how much will I use it?<br>

Is the lens fast enough for my intended use?<br>

Is the lens of sufficient build quality?<br>

Is the lens too heavy/not heavy enough to make my camera an overall balanced unit?<br>

Does the lens produce sharp/good color/good contrast photos on my camera throughout the range of aperture I intent do use it (basically it's max aperture to f/11)?<br>

Finally...how is the background rendered in photos with shallow DOF. </p>

<p>Seriously, is you really shoot Bokeh, I think you'r missing the point, which is your subject. And while pleasing Bokeh can help emphasize the subject and make the overall image more pleasing, I don't think it is a top priority for most lens purchases.</p>