Lenses with the "best" Bokeh !

heartyfisher

Surprisingly, I don't think we have had a thread identifying the lenses with the best bokeh for our Nikon cameras.

Can we divide recommendations into the wide, normal and tele ranges( super tele ? ). Some image samples would be nice too ..

And "best" is loosely defined.. like "its sick!", "beastly", "bees knees" ;-) since its all very subjective anyway.... :bz

Vipmediastar_JZ

Sigma Art 35mm Nikkor 50mm 1.2 ais Nikkor 58mm 1.4 G Nikkor 85mm 1.4G/1.8G Nikkor 70-200 Nikkor 300mm f4 and lastly Nikkor 105 G.
those are the ones I have experience with.

But Nikkor 200f2 should be better and maybe Nikkor 135mm f2 DC I don't have experience with these

Ironheart

The most interesting Bokeh I've personally played with is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D. I'll dig out some photos so you can see what I mean.

Nikoniser

The "Best" Bokeh for me has a few aspects -

1. The lens must be true apochromatic ( no color shifts red/green of out of focus area )

2. The out of focus specular highlights must be smooth, without onioning, sharp rings around the edge, and the stopped down aperture ring must make a perfect circle without making a Hexagon of them.

3. The lens must be sharp enough wide open to produce good "pop" ie contrast between the in focus areas and out of focus areas.

4. Freedom from Coma is better.



If a lens has all this, I can shoot it confidently, knowing that the out of focus areas will always look good.

However, there are lenses that break all these rules, like the 50mm 1.4D that has great bokeh via some sort of Nikon witchcraft.

tcole1983

Out of my lenses the 300 F4 takes the cake. Close behind is my 105 F2.8.

300 F4






105 F2.8







Just to throw it in there my 17-55 F2.8

heartyfisher

Is that the PF version of the 300 F4 ?

spraynpray

No hearty, tcole1983 has the 'oldie but goodie' version.

framer

Either DC lens, you have to try them, just creamy...

The 400 2.8 is quite good also.

I like the 300 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 also.

Never had the 85 1.4 but I've heard it's the standard.

framer

NSXTypeR

The 105mm macro is pretty good.





The 18-135mm in good conditions can turn out some creamy bokeh.



And the 35mm 1.8 too.

tcole1983

spraynpray said:

No hearty, tcole1983 has the 'oldie but goodie' version.

Yep. The AF-S version.

Killerbob

I can attest to that the 200mm f/2 has fantastic bokeh... It is the perfect lens for portraits (when there is space enough):



D810 | Nikon 200mm | 1/800 | f/2 | ISO 400

heartyfisher

Man that 200 F2 must be the champ ! absolutely cream machine ! More samples ? =P~

spraynpray

Personally I don't like the effect at the collar and shoulder.

Ironheart

Maybe she just has a really fuzzy coat?

WestEndFoto

spraynpray said:

Personally I don't like the effect at the collar and shoulder.

Are we talking about a bokeh issue or composition issue? Meaning, is there a lens which would improve on the effect because it has superior bokeh?

tcole1983

Click on the picture and look at the other shots. He has some more shot with it. I think that is just an editing effect and not a true artifact of the lens.

It is nice, but I don't see that much of a difference in my 300 F4 or 105 F2.8.

WestEndFoto

tcole1983 said:

Click on the picture and look at the other shots. He has some more shot with it. I think that is just an editing effect and not a true artifact of the lens.

It is nice, but I don't see that much of a difference in my 300 F4 or 105 F2.8.

The depth of field at 300mm at f/4 is almost identical to the depth of field at 200 at f/2. The 105 at f/2.8 on the other hand is almost 5 times as much.

So if you are comparing the 200 and 300, you will need to look closely. However, the difference between those two lenses and the 105 should be quite obvious.

However, passing judgement on "bokeh" without any knowledge of the circumstances that effect bokeh (lens focal length, aperture, distance between camera and subject, distance between subject and background, etc.) is really just a guess. You need to identical shots of the same subject with the same framing to begin to pass judgement. And then when you consider the effects of compression based on different focal lengths and how that effects the relative size of your subject and background, comparing two lenses becomes even more problematic.

And these are only discussing bokeh as understood by beginners, as what I have really been describing is simply depth of field.

Bokeh as understood by people that understand bokeh is entirely different and I feel that the following Wikipedia article describes it as well as anywhere else I have seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Importantly, bokeh is the character of the out of focus areas. And passing judgement on an out of focus area without even knowing what it looks like when in focus is impossible.

Further, I feel that my 85 1.4G produces some very pleasing bokeh. However, there is something about my 135 DC 2.0 that takes it a step further that cannot be explained by the difference in focal length. My 200mm f/4 on the other hand produces poor bokeh. Sure, the background is often completely out of focus and even very beautiful depending on the colours in the composition, but the bokeh is aweful. If I can see form in the background, such as a flower that is obviously a flower, it looks aweful and I try to avoid that. I got the same result from the 105 2.8 when I tried that, though not quite as bad. That is why I would not use a macro lens for portraits with a shallow depth of field (however, the portraits can be very nice if shot at 5.6 or 8 - thus no bokeh). For my 85 and especially the 135, a background flower takes on a very beautiful quality even if it is only a little out of focus.

My 50 1.4G actually produces some decent bokeh, but not as good as the 85 or 135. My 50 1.2AIS also produces some nice bokeh in cases where this lenses excessive spherical aberration wide open is flattering. In other cases, it is not flattering. However, I am not sure that this is bokeh as bokeh is strictly defined.

Feel free to peruse this album in my Flickr account to see examples of all five lenses and their bokeh:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/albums/72157647093518903/with/21361292953/

And this album of portraits has numerous examples with the 85 and 135:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/albums/72157648913066317

Vipmediastar_JZ

"The depth of field at 300mm at f/4 is almost identical to the depth of field at 200 at f/2"

I been meaning to ask if the 300mm f4 was comparable/equivalent to the 200mm f2 in any way from a design point. As if I want the same look can I save money by getting the 300mm f4

tcole1983

@WestEndFoto Easy now. I just said from the examples they didn't look too different in my opinion. In no way trying to belittle the 200 f2. I know @SquamishPhoto shoots it and it looks really nice. Obviously a side by side teat with the same subject matter would be an appropriate test, but the thread is just about what you think is the best.

Your opinion is the 105 isn't great for portraits and don't like the bokeh. I like mine and think the bokeh is excellent.

WestEndFoto

Sorry if I was a little short. I am a little short of sleep with a five day old and typed the above under pressure to free myself up.

Actually, I think that the 105 would be great for most portraits as they are shot at 2.8 or greater with less importance attached to the background. And the bokeh on the 105 is certainly nice compared to my 200 which is garbage for bokeh. I would call the 105's bokeh decent. My above comment was a little harsh.

But I bought my 200 for macro, so I am not concerned about bokeh. If I want bokeh on macro I will put my Kenko extension set on my 135.

If you are shooting portraits, the 105mm 2.8 Macro is not the lens of choice. The lens of choice is the 105mm DC 2.0, where the bokeh rocks and you can open it a stop wider. I looked at this lens closely too, but opted for the 135 DC 2.0 because it is "farther from my 85", is a longer focal length for portraits (a super-tele, perhaps the 300 2.8 when it is updated, is on my to list for portraits) and due to the longer focal length the depth of field wide open is even narrower than the 105.

Of course if you want a decent macro lens and a decent portrait lens and can't afford both the DC and the 200, the 105 is a great compromise that I often recommend.

WestEndFoto

Just to add to my above comments about bokeh and depth of field being two unrelated concepts.

Despite the concepts being different, great bokeh can look spectacular wide open, which is why many of us lust after fast portrait lenses.

Also, this is often a common source of misunderstanding as to bokeh's true nature.

pictureted

I've found better bokeh with the Zeiss 100/2, Nikon 105/2.5AIS, 200/4 Macro and the new 200-500 at 500/5.6 than any of my other lenses. The one lens I covet is the Zeiss 135/2.

Killerbob

I was only saying that for my shooting style, I am really happy with the 200mm and the bokeh it produces. I have recently shot a number of indoor cultural gala shows, like the opening of the Arctic Winter Games, as well as the closing, and here the 200mm truly delivered as well. It is a very fast lens and tack-sharp as well:)

donaldejose

From all reports, and images, I have seen the 200mm f2 has great bokeh.

paulr

Zeiss Otus 14/55 at F1.4 5000 at ISO 250 MANUAL Focus and D810

donaldejose

Manual focus for BIF? Are you crazy or crazy skilled?