The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
50/1.4D bokeh - Japanese Garden, Seattle
- Thread starter Lars
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
HI Lars
First of all, lovely photos. :clap:
I had this lens, and sold it very quickly because of the bokeh - on some of these shots it's lovely, but on lots of them it really jars on me. Notably1,2,5, 16 and 19. Basically if there is any complex detail it seems to go nasty.
Instead I've been using the voigtlander 58 f1.4, it's about the same price, and I think it's a different world.
Let's hope that Nikon bring out a new range of primes with the same principles they've used with their new zooms (which have lovely smooth bokeh).
Again - wonderful shots
First of all, lovely photos. :clap:
I had this lens, and sold it very quickly because of the bokeh - on some of these shots it's lovely, but on lots of them it really jars on me. Notably1,2,5, 16 and 19. Basically if there is any complex detail it seems to go nasty.
Instead I've been using the voigtlander 58 f1.4, it's about the same price, and I think it's a different world.
Let's hope that Nikon bring out a new range of primes with the same principles they've used with their new zooms (which have lovely smooth bokeh).
Again - wonderful shots
Lars
Active member
Yes I agree - this lens comes up for discussion from time to time, I thought I'd illustrate a bit. It sat on my D2x when it was stolen, and I won't replace it with another one.
On the subject of new designs - I'm really curious about the 50/1.4 that Sigma is bringing out, they claim that it has good blur rendering, and the front element is large enough to warrant a 77 (seventy-seven!) mm filter thread. Interesting.
On the subject of new designs - I'm really curious about the 50/1.4 that Sigma is bringing out, they claim that it has good blur rendering, and the front element is large enough to warrant a 77 (seventy-seven!) mm filter thread. Interesting.
P
Paul.R.Lindqvist
Guest
Hi Lars!
Nice images.
The Bokeh is not much better then the Voigtländer 58/1,4 wich also has a tendency to render quite a "busy" "nervous" bokeh wide open. Zeiss 50/1,4 is shares the same character wide open,though it gets alot better when you stop it down. Nikkor gets worse...
Im also looking forward to the Sigma 50/1,4 and will compare it against the Voigtländer 58/1,4 Zeiss 50/1,4 Zeiss 50/2 Makro planar, Nikkor 50/1,8 and maybe also the Nikkor 50/1,4.
/Paul L.
Nice images.
The Bokeh is not much better then the Voigtländer 58/1,4 wich also has a tendency to render quite a "busy" "nervous" bokeh wide open. Zeiss 50/1,4 is shares the same character wide open,though it gets alot better when you stop it down. Nikkor gets worse...
Im also looking forward to the Sigma 50/1,4 and will compare it against the Voigtländer 58/1,4 Zeiss 50/1,4 Zeiss 50/2 Makro planar, Nikkor 50/1,8 and maybe also the Nikkor 50/1,4.
/Paul L.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Lars
I disagree about the voigtlander - mine at least has a good bokeh . . and so does Terry's judging by the shots she's posted - far better than the nikkor 50 1.4, can't comment about the zeiss as I don't have one!
D
ddk
Guest
I concur with you Paul, the Nocton's bokeh is too nervous for my taste too.
I don't know about the new Sigma but for now the KING of bokeh in this focal range is still the Noct Nikkor, take a look at these, busy foregrounds and backgrounds against the light in all these shots yet the Noct kept it all clean and creamy, all wide open;
For comparison, Nikkor 50/f1.4 AFD
Last edited:
Lars
Active member
David,
Your 50/1.4D looks better than mine. In your sample, look at the singular highlight at the bottom of the photo and compare to my #16 - mine renders the highlighs with a strong edge whereas yours is somewhat less pronounced.
I think this type of test - a singular highlight against a dark background - is the best way to objectively compare out of focus rendering. It's especially interesting to see what happens with the roundness of the highlight rendering towards the corners - in the case of your 50/1.4D shot this clearly reveals the internal vignetting of the construction (which may or may not cause falloff wide open).
Going back to the new Sigma, this is why I find it interesting - with a huge front opening, obviously the Sigma engineers have tackled the issue of internal vignetting to avoid those non-round corner highlights wide open, as well as falloff. The Sigma weighs 520 grams, which is 40 grams more than the Noct and just 30 grams shy of the heavy 85/1.4D. Either it's built like a tank, or there is a ton of glass in there (well not literally hehe). And as we all know, heavier is always better
. Whether Sigma delivers on all quality aspects remains to be seen, but I think there is good reason to be curious.
Your 50/1.4D looks better than mine. In your sample, look at the singular highlight at the bottom of the photo and compare to my #16 - mine renders the highlighs with a strong edge whereas yours is somewhat less pronounced.
I think this type of test - a singular highlight against a dark background - is the best way to objectively compare out of focus rendering. It's especially interesting to see what happens with the roundness of the highlight rendering towards the corners - in the case of your 50/1.4D shot this clearly reveals the internal vignetting of the construction (which may or may not cause falloff wide open).
Going back to the new Sigma, this is why I find it interesting - with a huge front opening, obviously the Sigma engineers have tackled the issue of internal vignetting to avoid those non-round corner highlights wide open, as well as falloff. The Sigma weighs 520 grams, which is 40 grams more than the Noct and just 30 grams shy of the heavy 85/1.4D. Either it's built like a tank, or there is a ton of glass in there (well not literally hehe). And as we all know, heavier is always better
. Whether Sigma delivers on all quality aspects remains to be seen, but I think there is good reason to be curious.
Last edited:
P
Paul.R.Lindqvist
Guest
Hi Jono.
I think its highly unlikely that the bokeh varies depending on sample variation. The optical formula is the same. Its most likely our diffrent opinion regarding the bokeh that changes it.
Eitherway as i said, the 58/1,4 can produce pretty nice bokeh, as long as you dont put it to the to a torture test.
(im talking about wide open shooting)Upclose it performs very quite well as far as sharpness & bokeh goes.
And i agree with David, the Noct is about as good as it gets, after that the 50/2 makro planar.
Im very excited to try out the new sigma, if the dealer just could ship it already!! :angry:
Ill try if i have the time to show some exmples of what i mean.
/Paul L.
Last edited:
jonoslack
Active member
HI Paul - of course you are right - on the other hand I think lenses get reputations, sometimes ones that they don't deserve - I don't feel that the 58 1.4 is top of the heap - but those shots above were (IMHO) a torture test (and they were all shot wide open as well) , and I don't feel that it performs badly. Certainly in a different league from the nikkor 50 1.4.Hi Jono.
I think its highly unlikely that the bokeh varies depending on sample variation. The optical formula is the same. Its most likely our diffrent opinion regarding the bokeh that changes it.
Eitherway as i said, the 58/1,4 can produce pretty nice bokeh, as long as you dont put it to the to a torture test.
Upclose it performs very quite well as far as sharpness & bokeh goes.
P
Paul.R.Lindqvist
Guest
Yes i agree, and for the record i really enjoy the 58/1,4. Your images are fine, but they upclose wich "hide" some of the nervous bokeh. Its not horrible, but the rendering is at least to my eyes to "nervous" at times.
Look at the shirt in the background.
Ill try to post some better examples this afternoon.
But again this offcourse depends on the elements in the scene, aswell as the distance to the subject.
Here is another one @*F/1,4 that i have no problems with. .-)
Look at the shirt in the background.
Ill try to post some better examples this afternoon.
But again this offcourse depends on the elements in the scene, aswell as the distance to the subject.
Here is another one @*F/1,4 that i have no problems with. .-)
Last edited:
D
ddk
Guest
The fringing in OOF areas aren't from the lens, its a product of the SLR/n. I picked the worst case scenarios for both lenses and the camera which is the pits in these situations.
jonoslack
Active member
Well
I agree that it's all a matter of taste . . . . . up to a point, but I think it also depends very much on circumstance. However, there are some lenses where there isn't much room for disagreement, the nikkor 50 f1.4 being one of them.
I was defending the CV Nokton, because I don't think it's universally bad at all - although, I warrant it can be sometimes.
Having thought more about it I actually think that it's very likely that there is sample variation - just as there is variation in sharpness or focusing or pretty much any other aspect of a lens. I would have thought that it would only take a tiny shift of a lens to fairly radically alter the bokeh.
I've taken a whole lot more pictures with the 58 1.4 to try and induce nasty bokeh (indeed, to try and find anything like your T Shirt Paul).
I really thought this would do it:
or, especially, this one:
but they all seem to be 'okay' at worst.
So, maybe it is a matter of taste, and these DO look nasty to you. Or maybe it's to do with sample variation, and I'm lucky . . . I guess it has to be one of them!
This last Hollyhock was a consolation price for some really boring pictures, and which I rather like - simple though it is:
I agree that it's all a matter of taste . . . . . up to a point, but I think it also depends very much on circumstance. However, there are some lenses where there isn't much room for disagreement, the nikkor 50 f1.4 being one of them.
I was defending the CV Nokton, because I don't think it's universally bad at all - although, I warrant it can be sometimes.
Having thought more about it I actually think that it's very likely that there is sample variation - just as there is variation in sharpness or focusing or pretty much any other aspect of a lens. I would have thought that it would only take a tiny shift of a lens to fairly radically alter the bokeh.
I've taken a whole lot more pictures with the 58 1.4 to try and induce nasty bokeh (indeed, to try and find anything like your T Shirt Paul).
I really thought this would do it:
or, especially, this one:
but they all seem to be 'okay' at worst.
So, maybe it is a matter of taste, and these DO look nasty to you. Or maybe it's to do with sample variation, and I'm lucky . . . I guess it has to be one of them!
This last Hollyhock was a consolation price for some really boring pictures, and which I rather like - simple though it is:
P
Paul.R.Lindqvist
Guest
No need to defend the 58/1,4 Jono, it holds up very well, especially considering the price.
I personally prefer it over the Nikkor 50/1,4 (wich i dont own anymore) And its my choice for upclose "in your face" snaps of the kids.
And your right, the bokeh isnt universially bad. Under certain circumstance, (wide open, and having a challenging background at a distance) its not very pretty imo.
Example straight from the camera.
There are for sure worse cases, Nikkor 50/1,8D is simply horrible. Worst iv seen to be honest.
Nikkor 50/1,8D @F/2
Zeiss 50/1,4 @ F/2
When i recive the sigma ill do a new comparison including all the fifties.
I personally prefer it over the Nikkor 50/1,4 (wich i dont own anymore) And its my choice for upclose "in your face" snaps of the kids.
And your right, the bokeh isnt universially bad. Under certain circumstance, (wide open, and having a challenging background at a distance) its not very pretty imo.
Example straight from the camera.
There are for sure worse cases, Nikkor 50/1,8D is simply horrible. Worst iv seen to be honest.
Nikkor 50/1,8D @F/2
Zeiss 50/1,4 @ F/2
When i recive the sigma ill do a new comparison including all the fifties.