It's the AF-S 50(G) Hearty.

Looks like you had less wind problems than me Andrew! Nice and sharp.

Nice photos Spraynpray. I went out to hunt some bokeh with my 50 1.4G. The results at f/1.4, crop sensor:

nice lens ..:-) which 50 1.4 is this?

spraynpray said:

Have I missed anything?

Well, apart from those things you mentioned!

Here are three snaps taken with my new 50/1.4. The point is to show the quantity of bokeh at different apertures with the same distances. Taken at f1.4, f5.6 and f16 taken in the wind so not for critique!

spraynpray said:
. . . the quality [of the bokeh] will vary mainly due to the aperture shape.

No, not according to the author of the site Niko linked. According to him, diaphragm design has little to do with the character of a lens' bokeh--it's the design of its optics which is the primary determinant.

spraynpray said:
The longer the focal length used on a subject or the wider the aperture used on any lens, the more pronounced the quantity of bokeh.
Have I missed anything?

Image sensor size (larger = more fuzzy).
Focal-plane to subject distance (shorter = more fuzzy).
Distance from subject to background (super-far away = more fuzzy).

To recap this thread so far:

Two identical focal length lenses used at the same aperture on the same subject will have the same quantity of bokeh, but the quality will vary mainly due to the aperture shape. The longer the focal length used on a subject or the wider the aperture used on any lens, the more pronounced the quantity of bokeh.

Have I missed anything?

NikoDoby said:
Bokeh Test With Various Lenses
http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Yes, interesting link. Again, I wasn't referring to the "quality" or "character" of various lens' bokeh, which, from your referenced link, shows that they are clearly varied, I was simply referring to their general similarities in magnitude, at similar focal lengths and apertures (of which, only a few examples were presented).

NikoDoby said:
This thread would probably make more sense if you guys stopped mentioning DOF and stick to bokeh only.

I think it would have lessened the debate had I not used the term, "bokeh," and instead used the term, "out-of-focus fuzzyness."

NikoDoby said:
IStudio the only thing your samples show is that your f2.8 180mm lens is sharper at 180 then your f2.8 80-200 lens at 200.

Yes, the 180mm is sharper. However, I completely disagree that that is the only thing the samples show.

so one more from me, nice link niko :)

Agreed, nice link.

Yes, nice link Niko.

NikoDoby said:

For those who aren't already confused here are some more visual samples to confuse you even more :^)

Bokeh Test With Various Lenses
http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Nice link niko. I will have to keep my eye out for one of those old nikon E 75-150.

I was sure someone was going to mention this but the real reason for a DOF calculator is to know how much of your image will be IN "perfect" focus. Outside the area is worthless since it depends on the lens.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Say if you are shooting landscape with a lens at 18mm you want to know where to set the focus distance so that infinity is in focus as well as getting the "near limit" as close as possible to your lens.

I'm with adamz. Your description of bokeh sounds more like DOF studio. Two lens with the same focal length etc. can have very different bokeh. Yes DOF and bokeh are related but they are not the same thing. This thread would probably make more sense if you guys stopped mentioning DOF and stick to bokeh only. Studio the only thing your samples show is that your f2.8 180mm lens is sharper at 180 then your f2.8 80-200 lens at 200.

For the most part telephotos give better bokeh regardless of wider aperture.

For those who aren't already confused here are some more visual samples to confuse you even more :^)

Bokeh Test With Various Lenses
http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

I've concluded that I can't replace my 50 1.4 with my 17-50 2.8 zoom. There's something about a portrait properly nailed at 1.4 with that lens that can't be replicated with my zoom, regardless of the quality of the light circles either lens produces..or whether the photos even reveal any discs of light. Whether its called Bokeh or it's just some unnamed quality representing the contrast between the focused area and the nice smooth blur, together with the sweet colors, my 50 1.4G is here to stay.

Sigh.. I have been keeping away from this discussion,,but I guess I finally have to .. I think I know what bokeh is and well because it is not the same as what many of you are saying I think I may be wrong.. anyway

I think bokeh is not just the shape of the out of focus points of light. which is circular or pentagon depending on the shape of the aperture.

Bokeh is not DOF, DOF is the amount of area that is in focus.

Bokeh is feel and nature of the out of focus points of light. The best bokeh looks like what you get when you take a white circle on a black background and apply a fair amount of gausian blur to it.

Some good and modern lenses have a nice round white disk for the out of focus points of light. This results in good bokeh(but not the best).

Many of the modern zoom lenses with long ranges like my 18-200VR has really bad bokeh at most focal lengths. The out of focus points of lights looks like several concentric rings of light. with weird radiating bands as well.

Wide aperture Lenses with F1.0 to F1.2 usually have bad bokeh due to the corrections needed for sharpness by the aspherical elements.

studio460 said:
(even the character of the bokeh happens to be virtually indistinguishable in this example). Even If each lens' bokeh is "unique," I would be hard-pressed to tell which lens shot which, or if both were shot with the same lens, without checking the EXIF data. I would be interested to see the differences between the Nikon and Sigma lenses you suggested.

while this may be true for some cases, you can't argue that lenses don't have different bokeh. while sometimes it's similar, other times it's pretty obvious. An unfair example would be as kyoshinikon just mentioned a mirror reflex lens which will leave you with that, well some say "distracting" donut bokeh, although some people like it.
such as this http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/discuss/72157604545634741/ (which i believe someone has posted on the forum as an example before as well)

that being said,there is a huge difference in the quality and shape of the bokeh between my lenses. I may be wrong, but this is my guess. Over time as we have stepped into the digital age bokeh amongst lenses has probably gotten much more similar. The majority of my lenses are from all over the years and I mainly shoot with film. The bokeh between these lenses is pretty radically different. Correct me if I'm wrong but the bokeh has mostly to do with aperture blades and their shape correct? I assume modern lenses are all pretty similar, while older ones probably had more variety. Let me end with saying I have no idea if thats true, haha, just guessing.

Bokeh Advice?

Don't get a reflex lens "smirk"...

I one with you shivaswrath: both the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8 have lovely bokeh...

Does anyone have a shot from the 135mm f/2 to show?

alls I know is I love my 700-200 VRII bokeh :-)

just posted this one up from a shoot a month ago (back log):

adamz said:
To elaborate this a little bit more, each lens has it's own unique bokeh (out of focus rendering) and two different lenses that covers exactly the same focal length and exactly the same apertures (i.e. nikon 70-200/2.8 and sigma 70-200/2.8, nikon 50/1.4 and sigma 50/1.4) will render the out of focus areas in a different way.

I think you're splitting hairs here. As I said, given the same focal length and aperture, generally speaking, the amount of bokeh (or, to avoid any "confusion," in other words, "the relative sizes of the circles-of-confusion resolved from the images' out-of-focus areas") will be similar in degree.

For example, in the two images shown below, the amount of bokeh appears nearly identical (even the character of the bokeh happens to be virtually indistinguishable in this example). Even If each lens' bokeh is "unique," I would be hard-pressed to tell which lens shot which, or if both were shot with the same lens, without checking the EXIF data. I would be interested to see the differences between the Nikon and Sigma lenses you suggested.

AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED: 200mm @ f/2.8

AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED: 180mm @ f/2.8

I know what bokeh is, although when I read that "... two different lenses at identical focal lengths, at identical apertures, will have similar amounts of bokeh..." I want to make sure, that other users on this forum will not take such a shortcut, as this what You are referring to is not bokeh itself but clearly it's DOF. To elaborate this a little bit more, each lens has it's own unique bokeh (out of focus rendering) and two different lenses that covers exactly the same focal length and exactly the same apertures (i.e. nikon 70-200/2.8 and sigma 70-200/2.8, nikon 50/1.4 and sigma 50/1.4) will render the out of focus areas in a different way.

adamz said:
studio - don't confuse bokeh with DOF!!!!

Why would you think I've confused them? The terms used in these posts should be clear in the context of this thread. The term "bokeh" is used to describe the imaging characteristics of out-of-focus areas. Images employing shallow depth-of-field tend to have more out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is the result of any one of several variables, one of which is, shallow depth-of-field. Clear enough?

studio - don't confuse bokeh with DOF!!!!

studio460 said:
All else being equal, two different lenses at identical focal lengths, at identical apertures, will have similar amounts of bokeh (e.g., the amount bokeh of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens zoomed to 180mm, will be the same as a fixed-focal length 180mm f/2.8 lens, when both are set at f/2.8). Variances in diaphragm design may affect the character of the bokeh, but the amount of bokeh will be about the same.

That's what I thought too. Thanks for clarifying it studio460.