how good is the bokeh?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Giovanni Azua, May 1, 2007.

  1. Giovanni Azua, May 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Giovanni Azua

    Pete D Guest

    Somewhat harsh actually.
     
    Pete D, May 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Giovanni Azua

    frederick Guest

    lol - I'd agree with that.
    But it is a good shot.
     
    frederick, May 2, 2007
    #3
  4. Giovanni Azua

    Pete D Guest

    And I agree with that.
     
    Pete D, May 2, 2007
    #4
  5. Giovanni Azua

    Paul Furman Guest

    It's not bad, there are no sharp edges but there is a bit of ring
    effect. What makes it harsh as others mentioned is when those rings make
    a distracting overlapping pattern, which this does have a little bit.
    Bokeh is very dependant on the lighting conditions & focusing distances,
    it's possible to get good & bad bokeh out of good and bad lenses (both
    ways). My best bokeh lens is the 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR macro. Here's some
    examples:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.ph...-garden/Nursery/plants/2007-04-27&PG=2&PIC=8>
     
    Paul Furman, May 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Giovanni Azua

    C J Campbell Guest

    I have this lens as well. You actually can get good bokeh out of it
    wide open in the midrange of its zoom, especially for objects that are
    relatively close (but not too close). In this mode the lens can be used
    for 'close-up' photography (if close-up is understood to be 20' - 40'
    away) and you get good bokeh with a very nicely blurred background.

    But the sad truth is that with this lens the bokeh is usually on the
    harsh or globby side. Choose your backgrounds carefully.

    Nice shot, though. I like the lighting on the head.
     
    C J Campbell, May 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Hi Paul,

    Many thanks for the advice, it is very warmly appreciated :)

    I got the idea from your pictures, I really liked them. I currently
    have my eye fixed on precisely that lens you mention the
    Nikkor VR 105mm f/2.8, it is awesome even though Kenrockwell
    does not recommend it!!??

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105vr.htm

    anyway I did not find his claim of issues with the AF sustained
    by any other reviews, so seems he got a flawed sample.

    Many thanks again.

    Regards,
    Giovanni
     
    Giovanni Azua, May 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Hi Pete!

    Many thanks for your feedback!

    I was surprised to know it is harsh but indeed it is distracting
    from the main subject, probably a bit of artificial Gaussian blur
    would help making it better :)

    Once more many thanks!

    Regards,
    Giovanni
     
    Giovanni Azua, May 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Hi,

    Many thanks for your feedback and advice, greatly appreciated!

    I really like this lens though it is heavy! after a full day hanging around
    the Zoo I could not feel my shoulders anymore :) worthwhile though
    after getting shots like this one :)

    Best regards,
    Giovanni
     
    Giovanni Azua, May 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Giovanni Azua

    Paul Furman Guest

    I haven't compared with the old 105 AF (ask Rita) but yes I find the AF
    hunts an awful lot. I assume that's because it's primary use is for
    macro so it's a bit lame as a telephoto for AF. I tend to manually focus
    anyways, especially with macros. The only time I need AF is when
    tracking a bee or something like that where there just isn't time to MF
    and it has worked fine for that purpose at 3 feet away or so, even with
    2x TC but if you have stuff in the far background, it'll wander out to
    infinity & back & get lost, or if you are using it for birds with a TC
    it'll zoom way in looking for mosquitos up close. OTOH I can manually
    focus with adapters bringing it to 5x magnification, the focus is so
    fine it's easy to manually focus and that's probably what makes it so
    slow at longer distances.
     
    Paul Furman, May 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Giovanni Azua

    frederick Guest

    Ken Rockwell makes things clear:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/aboutrvw.htm

    "...this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical
    presentation of fact."

    "I had no idea that by 2002 my site would become the world's most
    trusted and popular source of technical information world wide through
    the Internet"

    heh heh.
     
    frederick, May 2, 2007
    #11
  12. I'll second what Paul said. I have both versions of the 105 and I primarily
    use them for macro and almost never use AF. When I do use AF both lenses
    are very capable, but the older AF-D version does tend to hunt a bit more
    than the VR version. This is pretty much normal because the focusing
    mechanism needs to travel more on these lenses. The VR version is a superb
    lens and will give great bokeh for portraiture work. Keep in mind these
    lenses are extremely sharp and can be a bit too sharp for portraiture. You
    can literally count the pores on a person's face. If you primarily do
    portraiture I suggest you get the 85/1.4 AF-D.

    Oh, I like your shot with the 80-400. I think the bokeh is a hell of a lot
    better than what can be had from the 18-200mm VR. Here's a shot taken with
    the 18-200.

    <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/smoker.htm>







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, May 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Giovanni Azua

    C J Campbell Guest

    Yeah, it is. I hope you are not using the Nikon camera strap because it
    will kill your shoulders with a heavy lens like that. Get a looooong
    strap so that the camera can be hung diagonally across your chest and
    rest on your hip.
     
    C J Campbell, May 3, 2007
    #13
  14. Just plain Dave, May 5, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.