DSLRUsers.com

A quick comparison between 3 lenses of boke (bokeh). All taken inside with a bit of camera shake due to the low shutter speed (well below 1/focal length) but serves to show the boke quite well. All exif data should be intact, no pp at all, just resized.


50mm 1.4 @ 2.8 1/6sec




45 2.8 at 2.8 1/8 sec




70-200 at 2.8 1/8 sec






and just in case anyone thought in the 45 2.8 we didn't see aperture blades only barrel here it is at f4 1/4 sec




Conclusions. Well the 45 and 70-200 have much better boke than the 50 1.4. The 70-200 is acknowledged by many to have great boke for a zoom. I would concur. Ron Reznick and a few others like the boke of the 45 and rates it almost up with the 85 1.4. I think the normal range (50mm) is a great range for portraits inside on a D70. The 45 is in that range but I believe has better boke than the alternatives in that range (50 1.8, 50 1.4, 60 2.8 or 45 2.. Downsides are only 2.8 so not a low light lens, manual focus and expensive (a bit over $400). Upsides are great boke, great quality (like an old manual Nikkor) and the smallest lens you will put on your D70. Hope this helps

Good work Glen - makes it nice and simple to see the differences. Does anyone have a similar pic from the 50mm 1.8?

Sheepie, I have that lens too, will take one before the christmas tree goes down.

For Sheepie


50mm 1.8 at 2.8 1/3 sec



seems similar to the 50mm 1.4

At the risk of being shot down...I think boke is far more complex than something that can be judged from a single set of images. Boke is altered with the f/stop and whilst some lenses have lousy boke at f/1.8 they may come into their own at f/5.6! Boke also changes with the camera to subject distance and some lenses may excel with their boke at 2 meters whilst falling down at 5 meters. The trick is to find a lens that has beautiful boke at the f/stop and shooting distance that you, the photographer, work at most often. Most lenses also have a sweet spot....and it will take you a year of constant shooting to discover where it is. At the sweet spot the lens gives of its best sharpness and has boke to die for. I had a 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor that when set to f/5.6 at 2.5 meters had boke that could make me cry with its beauty. The lens was OK at other settings but was magic at its sweet spot. I'm sure other experianced photographers have similar storys about their lenses.
I hope this gives you some food for thought in relation to camera optics.

Thanks Matt, very good point, which I was not aware that lenses changed their boke at different f stops. I actually picked 2.8 as a shallow depth of field most likely to be used in portraits, which could be replicated by all in the test. You have now made me realise to be accurate I should get the tripod out, and go through all the f stops. Could be useful to get to know the lenses better. You have let me know there is more to this than my thumbnail test. I still think the 45P will be at the top though (only had it a day but seems better so far having shot from 2.8 to 8 )


ps I have a 85 1.8 which I love, but just a bit too long inside most of the time. Will be trying it at 5.6 now, thanks

Glen
I think the most useful tests would be to place a subject about 10 meters in front of a clump of trees and then shoot at different F/stops. The camera should be 2 or 3 meters in front of the subject. I think boke is most interesting when you can just make out the background subject matter. This is only my personel opinion....but I would be most interested in your results, and your opinion on them.

Will give it a try Matt, might look for a bust rather than someone to sit there but will give it a try at those distances

I too will be very interested in your results Glen... I have yet to see a really good test showing boke from a reasonable range of shots and lens but I suspect that you have the right lens selection to make it interesting.
Hope you have a nice looking bust available to use...

good luck !!!

Michael.

MJ, I am thinking of asking the next good looking girl which comes past if I can use hers


Matt K, your question of which do I prefer is great as it really got me thinking. At times I prefer the background sort of recognisable and with other subjects not recognisable like the 70-200. Fact is, I don't know how to manipulate the boke for sure (always thought it was model to background distance combined with lens) so these tests should help a lot. Good thing the tripod arrives today

Hi Glen,

I noticed in your tests so far that are shot at a constant f2.8 - I think if you shot the 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 and the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8 you would see much better background boke. The lenses that produced the best results in your tests were shot wide open - I think that's the key.

I wonder what the kit lens at 80mm would produce if it was wide open too?

Whilst I think you're right Jordan, in practical terms I find wide open shots, especially portraits etc give you nice bokeh but perhaps only the subject's nose in focus... not very helpful much of the time... of great interest to me is nice bokeh with a little more of the subject in play... for example this obligatory cat shot is at f/2.5 yet barely has her head in focus... I've a number of group portraits outa focus as a result of wide aperture seeking a nice bokeh.

Craig, will try all apertures to see what results come out of it. My Gitzo just arrived, will do this in the next few days as would be a good way to get to know my lenses. Also as Matt pointed out I dont really know the boke characteristics at different apertures of the same lens, so would be nice to know that. MJ, will try at a few apertures so we can see the results

And it occurs to me that Bokeh would be a good name for a cat.

Change the name of yours and confuse the hell out of it for a month

Actually animals learn very quickly. My daughters dog is named Bella, I would call it Wombat when talking about her and not wanting her to realise I was, took about 2-3 weeks and she knew I was speaking about her

A quick silly question from me. I noticed the lights in the background are in a heptagon shape. What apeture setting would you have to use to make those background lights circular?

Also, I was under the impression that the 50mm 1.8 had 5 blades and should produce a pentagon shape for the lights. This doens't seem to be the case in the examples provided.

Wile E, I could be wrong here, but I believe a small enough f stop should show the Christmas tree lights as they really are (because they will be in focus). I dont think they will ever be round. I believe the circular highlights are the result of rounded blades which are a feature of the 45 2.8, 70-200 and 85 1.4. That I believe is a contributor to the boke. I dont believe the 50's will ever show a rounded highlight like that.

The 50 1.8 has 7 blades and you are right, you can count each blade on the example photo. Which is why it was a good demo of rounded aperture blades versus standard, maybe not perfect on the rest of boke though.

I think in primes from memory all the DC lenses (defocus control), the 85 2.8 PC micro, the above lenses and all the big AFS tele's 300, 400, 500, 600 have rounded blades. There are some zooms and probably a few other primes as well with rounded blades.

Well, I've been drooling over my new 70-200 vr with nowhere to use (Bad weather and all) and this here conversation gave me a reason to shoot!

Notice the bokeh in the background eh? And now I have my Chistmas cards for next year

SWEET! THNX

[url]http://www.sierrafirerescue.com/images/people/enzo_1.jpg[/url

Andy

oops..premature posting!

http://www.sierrafirerescue.com/images/people/enzo_1.jpg
http://www.sierrafirerescue.com/images/people/enzo_2.jpg
http://www.sierrafirerescue.com/images/people/enzo_3.jpg

A

Sorry Glen, I think my post may have been slightly mis-interpreted.

I really like the soft rounded light thingy of the bokeh that the 45 2.8 produced (and not the heptagon shaped ones of the 50's). So, it sounds like I'm going to have to look more towards the lenses you mentioned. I was initially looking at the 50 1.4 - but not so much anymore cuz of this exercise... Oh well.

Are there any that you/anyone else knows about that has rounded blades? I've heard the 85 1.8 or 1.4 produces nice bokeh, and is quite good for portraits (although with the 1.5 multiplier, I'm not entirely sure seeing as it may be a little 'long' for my tastes). Do those two have rounded or straight blades?

Actually, are there any disadvantages to having rounded blades?

Thanks!

wile_E wrote:I really like the soft rounded light thingy of the bokeh that the 45 2.8 produced (and not the heptagon shaped ones of the 50's). So, it sounds like I'm going to have to look more towards the lenses you mentioned. I was initially looking at the 50 1.4 - but not so much anymore cuz of this exercise... Oh well.

Wile_E,

I would wait to see the 50mm 1.4 tested by glen at f1.4 - I think you will find that the boke is round. Not to say it is the best lens for you - depends what you are looking to use it for - and what aperture you are planing to use the lens mostly at.

Mj wrote:Whilst I think you're right Jordan, in practical terms I find wide open shots, especially portraits etc give you nice bokeh but perhaps only the subject's nose in focus... not very helpful much of the time... of great interest to me is nice bokeh with a little more of the subject in play... for example this obligatory cat shot is at f/2.5 yet barely has her head in focus... I've a number of group portraits outa focus as a result of wide aperture seeking a nice bokeh.

I totally agree that depth of field could be an issue but there are other factors at play in depth of field like the distance you are to the subject and the focal length of the lens. I don't own either the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, but I do shoot the 85mm 1.8 for alot of portraits - and I tend to use it wide open - rarely but sometimes at f2.

As for focused noses - a rule of thumb for portrait work is to focus on the closest eye - hopefully the nose will also be in focus but if your depth of field is that shallow it is better that the nose (rather than the eye) suffers.


cheers,

Attencati, nice shots. I thought you had bought an Enzo when I saw the title

Craig, here are the examples. You are right. (these are just a quick test before I do the big test)

50mm 1.4 at 1.4 1/10 sec nice round highlights




50mm 1.4 at f2 1/8 sec heptagonal highlights showing





45 2.8 at 5.6 at 1/1.3 sec still round at two stops from wide open
(also plenty of camera shake, a bit bigger so everyone can see)




So Craig, you were spot on. I also think the round blades make a difference when not wide open. Nice shot of your son.

Yeah he's a cute kid - thanks.

I like the way the rounded blades keep the round highlights at higher apertures - pretty neat.

Glen, these series of images you've taken are quite insightful - and not only on the bokeh front. Thanks.

The 50mm lenses are famous for their ability to take really sharp images. But in the case of wanting smooth circular light sources, their 'transparency' impacts negatively for light passing the aperture blades, clearly showing its shape. I tend to find this apparent in macro lenses as well, their potential for sharp images negatively impacts upon their ability to work as a portrait lens, ie. for good bokeh. Tamron 90 and images from other D70 member's Sigma 105 for instances tended to render light sources with the shape of the lens' aperture blades apparent.

I believe this is why only a select few lenses have received hype (justifiably so) as being both superbly sharp and capable of rendering wonderful bokeh. The 85mm Nikkors (both flavours), 70-200VR, 45/2.8P and 180/micro being the ones I've come across.