So what lenses would you buy?

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Sorry, checked exif. It's f5. And I should mention that this is less than 20% of the original.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>nice cat shot, alastair, but hard to evaluate the quality of OoF areas since the cat takes up most of the image. i do see a defocused black area in the background, but i'd expect more "creaminess" at wider apertures than f/5, and with more background in the picture to really show the bokeh.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Thanks, Eric. I take your points. I just happened to have taken this shot recently. I was checking that the camera's left AF point was not an issue with this lens.</p>

<p>Here's the original picture. I didn't like the cactus in the background, hence the crop.</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The 85mm <em>f/1.8</em> AF-D is impressively sharp across the frame, but known for ugly bokeh, at least wide open</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see this often repeated, and I think it's slowly growing an "internet myth". The AF-D 85 f/1.8 needs to be stopped down to be impressively sharp (wide open, it's not very sharp at all, stopped down it sure is). Bokeh is less than the f/1.4 versions, but not by any means ugly. It's still way better than a AF-D 50 f/1.8, and actually also better than the 50 f/1.8G. In my view, bokeh is at its best wide open, stopped down it can become a bit more nervous - but as always, bokeh is quite subjective.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Interesting, Wouter. I don't have an 85 f/1.8 AF-D (because of its reputation) - I've only looked at images taken by them, and I certainly have an issue with the bokeh shown by them. I've not analysed many full-aperture images on that lens for sharpness, so maybe I'm reading too much into reviews - I may also have been guilty of comparing it with the f/1.4 AF-D.<br />

<br />

I'd suggest that the 50 f/1.8 AF-D's bokeh is a fairly low bar to pass (I <i>do</i> have one of those). To me, the AF-S 50mm is at least a bit better than the AF-D, although the sharpness improvement (while far from perfect) is the reason I got one. My D800 is really making lenses look bad - notably my 14-24, rather depressingly. Hence my Zeiss 21mm lust... Anyway, I'd not claim that either 50mm f/1.8 is all that hot on bokeh, but at least they're cheap.</p>

 

<blockquote>but as always, bokeh is quite subjective</blockquote>

 

<p>There are specific things we can talk about objectively. In some images I've seen, the 85mm f/1.8 has an emphasized contribution near the edges of blur circles at f/1.8, giving the "rolled condom" effect that I would consider to be "bad bokeh" (in that it has a negative effect on making the background distraction-free); "good" results tend to be considered to be at least a uniformly-lit blur circle, if not a drop-off in illumination away from the centre (see Sony's STF lens). Some lenses have a lot of LoCA, giving the bokeh coloured borders which can also be considered distracting. And, of course, polygons are often a bit more distracting than circles in the background, so we need to consider aperture blade shape.<br />

<br />

These are objective ways in which bokeh can be compared. Whether bad bokeh bothers <i>you</i> is entirely subjective. Regular readers will know that I spent a lot of money to get rid of LoCA in blurred backgrounds, but don't expect it to bother anyone else, for example.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Andrew, true the AF-D 50 f/1.8 is a very low bar to pass, and I got the 50 f/1.8G for exactly the reason of having a bit more calm in the background (and happy with that - it's a very nice lens).<br>

I know some stuff can be observed more objectively, and I actually did spend some time on it out of curiosity. For comparison, I used my x-mas tree last year as a nice pointy-light background, to see how my different lenses came out. Nothing scientific, just a way to kill a cold evening in good fun. The AF-D 85 f/1.8 was, to me, surprisingly quite OK, though stopped down it's got quite a bit of outlining and polygons; but not the ugly "onion-effect" inside. It's not the prettiest, but it's not extremely busy either. The problem for the 85 were the other lenses I tested alongside: the 105mm f/2.5 (2 of different vintage), and the surprise, my Tokina 100mm macro (smooth!). In this company, it lost, easily. But compared to a 16-85VR at similar apertures (onions with a clear dot inside), or short primes (double outlines), it's really not that bad.<br>

That all said, it's one heck of a landscape lens. And that's not why most people buy a 85mm prime.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks for the review, Wouter! Sounds like you have a good sample, at least. For what it's worth, the 135 f/2 DC is supposed to be a bokeh dream, but I find the LoCA makes it unusable. Fortunately the 200 f/2 is a good substitute, except in weight and price. I'll be interested in how the new Zeiss does. As you suggest, I got an 85 as a portrait lens - actually as a better way of losing the background after using my 90mm Tamron macro for the same purpose. Now I think about it, differentiation from that lens was on my list of reasons for going f/1.4. Not that it's a consideration of much relevance to someone shopping for lenses in isolation.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I see opinions can definitely vary. Personally I find the 85mm 1.8D to be quite a sharp lens, that I've often used in the wider-than-2.8 range, with bokeh that is acceptable but not special starting at maybe 2.2. The 1.8G is certainly better (I have both and will offload the D soon) but the 1.8D isn't exactly a lens one must run away from.</p>

<p>Also, I keep seeing photos posted with bokeh that looks pretty much ordinary for a reasonably competent lens as examples of how a lens has super bokeh. Really, at f/5 any of my lenses that can do 85mm can replicate that cat photo, and that concert photo could easily have been shot with a 50mm 1.8G. I mean, it's not that hard to pick a photo you shot with pretty much any lens that exhibits reasonably competent bokeh. E.g., this one, bet you can't tell what lens it is:</p><div></div>

[western_isles]

<p>I have the 50 and 85mm Nikon primes and both are first class lens. I also have the 24 PCE which I regards as my best lens but it does cost a lot. <br>

Based on the performance of the other primes I have I would go for the 24/50/80.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>