Bokeh characteristics of popular portrait lenses: 85mm-200mm

[studio460]

<p>A few weeks ago, I began searching for a new portrait lens for my Nikon D800E. Someone suggested the Sigma 150mm macro, which I subsequently ordered (but haven't yet received). After vetting things like sharpness, distortion, minimum-focus distance, etc., I finally came to consider its bokeh characteristics more critically.</p>

<p>My previous standard of measure had been the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, in both 'D' and 'G' versions. But another member pointed out that these acclaimed short-teles aren't necessarily without flaws either. As for the title of "best bokeh" among Nikon's line-up, I think the DC-Nikkors likely reign supreme (save for the uber-pricey Nikkor 200mm f/2.0). I plan to post some samples for comparison, and would invite others to post as well. I'm interested in others' comments/critiques on bokeh quality and character of the various lenses to be discussed.</p>

[studio460]

<p><strong>AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G:</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/85bokehx1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> FX: f/2.2 [full-frame]</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/85bokehx2.jpg" alt="" /><br /> FX: f/1.4 [full-frame]</p>

[studio460]

<p><strong>AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D:</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/180dxbokehx1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

DX: f/2.8 [full-frame]</p>

[studio460]

<p><strong>AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 [DX]:</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/85dxbokehx5.jpg" alt="" /><br>

DX: f/1.8 [full-frame]</p>

[studio460]

<p>Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 Ais [DX]:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/35aisz.jpg" alt="" /><br>

DX: f/1.4 [full-frame]</p>

[studio460]

<p>Notes:</p>

<p>While looking through my files, I found the above two DX-captured, maximum-aperture images. The 85mm DX shot of Vanessa is aided by the fact that the background was fairly distant. However, I also noticed other DX-acquired 85mm f/1.8 images in my files that had equally buttery bokeh, largely due to its 127.5mm-equivalent angle-of-view, I suppose. While a 35mm lens (52.5mm-equivalent) isn't considered a traditional portrait lens, at f/1.4, this Ais/DX combo produces an incredibly beautiful aesthetic quality.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ralph, I cannot access my pictures at this moment, but about a year ago, I used the christmas tree to check how my various lenses behaved with regards to out of focus highlights. It was all still on DX, and I have noticed that quite some lenses do look smoother and better on FX (D700) than they did on DX (D300).<br>

A very short run-down: most pleasant surprise was my (then brand new) 50mm f/1.8G, it really is a lot nicer than the AF-D. The AF-D 85 f/1.8 was, in my view, better than most online sources suggest. I figured the winner would be my AiS 105 f/2.5, but strangely my AI'ed 105mm f/2.5 looked better stopped down (wide open, they're identical). But the 105mm was beaten - the smoothest I saw in these test, is actually my Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro.<br>

For what it's worth, my 180mm f/2.8 looks a bit better than what your photo shows here, my AiS 35 f/1.4 didn't quite look as nice as your photo above (but your photo lacks highlights in the OoF area a bit) - in my experience, this lens can get quite nervous-looking OoF.<br>

I'll dig up some of these photos for bokeh-fun.</p>

<p>The photo of the orange with the 180 f/2.8 - great photo, really nice!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks for your reply, Wouter, and I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions here. I'm finding the comparisons a bit surprising, and I expect, more surprises are in store. The biggest surprise was the 35mm Ais, but as you say, there are no highlights or speculars to judge that lens against the others.</p>

<p>Just as I saw some surprises in my quick-and-dirty sharpness tests, I'm finding them here as well. When shooting DX, I found my 50mm lenses looked great if there were no highlights, but nervous, if there were. Now you've encouraged me to compare my 50mm f/1.4D with my 50mm f/1.4G as well (and my AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX).</p>

<p>But now, I'm mostly wondering how to get that 35mm Ais/DX look with an FX body and a longer AF lens??? Maybe I'll be shooting some portraits on DX with the 35mm Ais! (I'll try the 50mm f/1.2 Ais first.) Thanks for the orange photo compliment!</p>

[studio460]

<p>AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D [DX]:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/50dxbokeh1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

DX: f/1.4</p>

[studio460]

<p>I've already ordered the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO for shooting tack-sharp portraits with my D800E, but now, I'm having second thoughts due to its uneven bokeh character. Unfortunately, I find the "cat's eye" shaped bokeh on highlights quite annoying:</p>

<p>Sample 1: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/r_jackson/3085358278/<br /> Sample 2:

<p>I'm not sure what a good alternative is now. I was looking forward to the increased compression from the longer 150mm lens, plus its modern AF-S style focusing, optical stabilization, and relatively fast aperture. I suppose the AF Nikkor 180mm is the closest in the Nikkor line-up (I own one, but it's damaged). I may be also be back to re-considering the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D. Or, I can just live with the overly long AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I which I already own (but rarely use).</p>

[studio460]

<p>I just requested an RMA from B+H for the Sigma 150mm, and am now testing my 70-200mm VR I. The five-foot minimum focus distance on the 70-200mm is a bit limiting--would a close-up filter muck up the optical performance too much? (Unfortunately, with a PK-11A extension tube I would lose AF.)</p>

<p>I must say, the 70-200mm's bokeh looks a helluva lot better than the football-shaped highlights in the Sigma 150mm. I think the bokeh in the first Sigma sample image (squirrel in tree) is so odd-looking, it looks almost like a spinning time-exposure.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Well, it looks like I just saved myself $1,100 bucks (which can now go towards that "much needed" AF-S 35mm f/1.4G I've been wanting--plus there's a $200 Nikon instant rebate in effect, so I'm actually "saving" money!). Although I almost went with the 135mm DC, I think already owning one DC lens, the 105mm, is "enough."</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>The bokeh in the squirrel picture has a case of the swirlies. I actually think that's the worst thing to have, because it imposes a global structure on the entire image. I hope yours doesn't do that.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Luke said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The bokeh in the squirrel picture has a case of the swirlies. I actually think that's the worst thing to have, because it imposes a global structure on the entire image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely, Luke! I totally agree. Good. I'm not crazy, and I'm not seeing things. Thanks. The photozone review mentions this artifact specifically, so I'm sure all of the Sigma 150mm lenses are built this way. Serves me right . . . I already own a perfectly good, long portrait lens--the 70-200mm. It's sharp as hell, too.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>I think "cat's eye" is common with lenses at their max aperture, but should reduce with stopping down a bit. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Yes, photozone did say that it abated as you stopped down. But I would want to shoot this lens wide-open from time-to-time. I haven't noticed that particular artifact in any of my Nikkors, at least not to that degree. While not completely wide-open, here's an AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 sample (I have another one wide-open, but can't locate it at the moment):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/50bokeh1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> DX: f/2.2</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Actually posting my images? But then people would know how incompetent I am! (Bites nails nervously.)<br />

<br />

I would point out that a relatively smooth background will look smooth on any lens. If you're going to compare bokeh, you really need some point light sources (or at least lines) in out-of-focus regions, rather than smooth boundaries. Which goes to show that any lens can take a good photo under the right conditions - the difference between lenses (and cameras) is what they can do in bad conditions. The bokeh difference is often fairly marginal - I happen to know that I often shoot in cases which are bad at showing some aberrations, which is why I obsess. All else being equal, it's worth getting the "better" lens; for an awful lot of images, it really makes much less difference than the skill of the photographer, so there comes a point where it's better just to have <i>something</i> and get on with shooting.<br />

<br />

That said, I'm interested to see the results. (Photozone have taken to posting simple bokeh tests, although not for all reviews.)<br />

<br />

One aside: sharpening, of course, is quite good at taking the smooth edge of a blur circle and turning it into nervous transition bokeh. So there's a relationship between the amount of sharpness and bokeh behaviour.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly... 70-200 VR1 on an FX camera? Well, supposedly the bokeh is quite nice (ignoring a little colour fringing), but I hope you know (and don't care) what happens to the corners at 200mm...</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>> Yes, photozone did say that it abated as you stopped down. But I would want to shoot this lens wide-open from time-to-time. I haven't noticed that particular artifact in any of my Nikkors, at least not to that degree. While not completely wide-open, here's an AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 sample (I have another one wide-open, but can't locate it at the moment):<br>

You should examine this <em>completely</em> wide-open to see worst case; I believe this is related to vignetting. <br>

Check the Nikkor 70-200VRII at Photozone<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=1<br>

...scroll down to bokeh and hover with mouse over 70mm, 135mm , and 200mm. The bokeh shapes at 2.8 are circular at 70mm, but not at 135mm and 200mm. <br>

Then check the 85/1.4G http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/606-nikkorafs8514ff?start=1 <br>

...circular bokeh starts at F/2.8</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Ralph, pop one of the Kenko DG (AF) tubes on your 70-200mm. Works well. The 'effect' of the tube length varies with lens focal length, takes a bit of getting used to, but that's normal behaviour! VR works on my VRII, and 105mm VR macro.</p>

<p>I'll go and see if I can do a bokeh test....</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Ralph, I hope you'll forgive me saying this, but I think you're getting a bit obsessed with your lens collection. It's not healthy on your wallet or your creativity IMHO. I know because I've spent years trying to break myself of obsessing over lens quality - pretty unsuccessfully so far. I call it an interest in optical design, but if I'm honest with myself it's really a bit of a displacement activity.</p>

<p>I really like the pictures you've shown, and find nothing wrong with their bokeh, sharpness or anything else. So why d'you feel the need to expand your existing lens range? Not having the "right" lens can become an excuse for simply not taking pictures, and that can't be good. My advice would be to keep your money in your pocket and just take your camera out a lot more.</p>

 

[CvhKaar]

<p>tried the 50mm fast lenses ( love the 1.2 AI-s, but it has its limitations), the 85mm 1.4D, also verrryy nice, the 135DC also love that although it also has some faults (CA) which limit its usage, but Bokeh wise ( and when more distance is not a problem) the 300mm F4 AF-S wins, maybe by a small marge, but used wisely and wide open it defenetly beats the rest of the lenses mentioned... :-)</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I am with Rodeo on this one.... I have been following Ralph's threads for the past week but since I am not in the same league as you guys I never said anything about it. I just don't have the knowledge.... but looking at all his great pictures I always wondered what he is looking for..... <br>

I think you have a great lens collection already and what ever you are looking for I am sure you can achieve it with your equipment. <br>

I am sorry to say it but maybe you should think about it</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Ralph<br>

Before you buy the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G read the reviews on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. In fact if you are interested send me an email and I would be happy to FTP a couple of RAW files to you.</p>

<p>From the reviews I read before I bought mine it kicked ass. After mine showed up I tested it against my 35mm f/1.4 AI-S. I used live view to focus the AI-S lens and AF on the Sigma. At all apertures the Sigma consistently out performed the Nikon. From being sharper and smoother wide open to being much smoother in the OOF backgrounds when stopped down.</p>

[rick_chen]

<p>+1 on the Sigma 35mm<br>

Although I wouldnt say it's that noticeably better than my nikkor 35mm f/1.4G, maybe it is in reviews, but real world samples I find it hard to tell. I own both. Online reviews and test charts is showing the Sigma about 10-15% better in sharpness than the nikkor, and they both have very similar characteristics in terms of center and edge sharpness.<br>

But the price is good that's for sure, at $900, a good 40-60% cheaper</p>