Aperture blades, AF-S 300 2.8 VR ii ED

[leon_pugh]

<p>I recently bought a "complete" Nikon outfit. I have had some issues with the longer lenses.<br>

The Nikon 500mm F/4 has been sent back for testing.<br>

The Nikon 300mm 2.8 , while as sharp as I expected, seems to give a Bokeh that I was not expecting. I come from a few years with a Sony 300 2.8 (SWEET lens) and was expecting the same or better. Images are sharp, but the Bokeh in some cases does not quite look right.<br>

I wonder if the aperture blades could be causing this? I posted a few images of the aperture blades on Flickr. Some are almost wide open, some closed down a bit. I'd like some comments.<br>

Should I be seeing this on a new six thousand dollar Nikon lens?<br>

Can it cause an effect that makes "psuedo-details" pop out in the Bokeh?<br>

(I really can't explain it better than that).</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/Alps_Photos/</p>

<p>Leon</p>

<p> </p>

[jay_poel]

<p>How about posting a photo taken with the lens? </p>

<p>In my totally amateur hobbiest opinion, the lower blades look like they are misaligned and yes, that will have an effect on the bokeh. I have a bunch on Nikon lenses including the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR lenses and they don't look like that.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I doubt such small imperfection in the aperture roundness affect bokeh, at least in a noticeable way, I think. I may be wrong.</p>

<p>In the other hand, looks like VR affect bokeh. About the pics you dislike... has been taken with the VR on?</p>

<p>Definitely a couple of pics will help.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><em>"... psuedo-details" pop out in the Bokeh?"</em><br /> Something like this, maybe? (the small texture is thin gravel)</p><div></div>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Switch VR off and your "strange" bokeh will disappear.</p>

[leon_pugh]

<p>Sorry, I should have specified.<br>

With VR off I get what I think may be less than expected Bokeh.<br>

I would not DARE expect good Bokeh hand held with VR on! (Even on a tripod from stories i have heard).<br>

I will have to find similar shots taken with my Sony 300 2.8 (out for repair) and verify. Maybe then a picture or two of real life photos will be posted, compared and some meaningful comments can be made.</p>

<p> </p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>With VR off I get what I think may be less than expected Bokeh.<br />I would not DARE expect good Bokeh hand held with VR on! (Even on a tripod from stories i have heard).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have heard of good (pleasing) bokeh and bad (distracting) bokeh. But I cannot understand what you mean by "less than expected bokeh". I also cannot conceive how VR can effect bokeh. I do not own a VR lens, so perhaps someone can explain that. (Bjorn?)</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>Mike, I think they are referring to potential camera blur. i.e. when the AF activates, the VR mechanism spins up and the floating element stabilizes. If you press the shutter before this happens, then things tend to look like the example above. Or something like that.</p>

[leon_pugh]

<p>I'll leave the issue for now. When my Sony 300 2.8 returns from repair I will take some images with both lenses and compare. Maybe post a review of the two's results.</p>

<p>What I wanted to know from those experienced users... would unsymmetrical apertutre blades like seen in my photos, cause bokeh to be less pleasing than otherwise possible.</p>

<p>Leon</p>