50mm AF-D...worst bokeh ever???

Phil Young

Phil Young

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,584
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
So I aquired a 50mm f1.8 AF-D from my brother a while ago...

Usually I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole since my old one was very soft wide open.

Anyway, this copy is sharp but man...the bokeh is really displeasing on the eye!

I'm not going to buy another (for the 3rd time) AF-G since I don't use it that much. Just wanted a little rant really lol.

Here's an example shot wide open...

1013552_10153076540800305_995479830_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never got on well with that lens. I found it very sluggish and noisey.

You get hex[or should that be hept?]-bokeh,which I'm not a fan of either.

here's a random one I just searched on my flicker from a few years back:


Bier by Cagey75, on Flickr

Funnily enough, the 2 comments it received praised the bokeh :D some like it rough.

Also, think I mentioned it before,but your cat is our Scrappy's twin!
 
Last edited:
No doubt there's far worse, but I think Phil's point is ... this lens is so popular, and always raved about - yet the bokeh is a bit gank.
 
That is awful. Better set it on f11 quick smart.
 
yes, it's not a looker is it. Always amazes me how people rave on about these cheap lenses as if they're something truly amazing... they do a good job at a good price, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
c22w1 said:
Can someone explain to me (novice) what the difference between good and bad bokeh is please? The foreground and background are both blurred out on both of those photos so what is so bad/displeasing with them??
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure, but I'll try:

I believe that good bokeh is where it's just creamy and smooth. However if you look at the OP's photo, the bokeh has what appears to be harsh lines etc in the background which can be a bit unpleasant to look at.

ie. Good bokeh: nice and smooth
Bad bokeh: rough

Hope it helps =].
 
Who studies the background so closely - other than TP members :)

For me, the majority of viewers attention is on the subject and will pay no notice to the background if it is out of focus, regardless of its 'quality'.
 
f1charlie said:
Who studies the background so closely - other than TP members :)

For me, the majority of viewers attention is on the subject and will pay no notice to the background if it is out of focus, regardless of its 'quality'.
Click to expand...

True :). Unless you have something distracting in the background :lol:

I've never really looked at the background of my shots, if it's blurred out, it's blurred out :).

Never noticed how bad the bokeh was when I was with Nikon and had that 50mm...
 
Last edited:
f1charlie said:
Who studies the background so closely - other than TP members :)

For me, the majority of viewers attention is on the subject and will pay no notice to the background if it is out of focus, regardless of its 'quality'.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

C22W1 best you don't learn then you can enjoy photos for their subject and composition rather than analysing too deeply. (I say that with the greatest respect to all analytical people on here :))
 
It's not a question of over-analysing the shot though.... the quality of bokeh can have a massive impact on the aesthetics of a shot. People go to all the trouble of shooting at paper-thin DoF, composing, getting correct exposure, aching over focus... and then they have bokeh that compromises these things. The essence of the shot might be there but it's not on the money...

If this was a plain block of colour in the background you'd not the patterning caused by the lens' particular characteristics - it would probably render as OOF colour. But the blades of grass that are OOF in the shot of the cat have defined edges in places, drawing your eye away from the cat.

The everyday man-on-the-street might not even notice this but it's not to say that quality of bokeh isn't any less important; like many things in photography there are no rights or wrongs, but there are elements that have to be considered...
 
f1charlie said:
Who studies the background so closely - other than TP members :)

For me, the majority of viewers attention is on the subject and will pay no notice to the background if it is out of focus, regardless of its 'quality'.
Click to expand...

Come on don't be silly now... it's harsh on the eyes, even someone that doesn't know about Photography would think that's some kind of effect.
 
f1charlie said:
Who studies the background so closely - other than TP members :)

For me, the majority of viewers attention is on the subject and will pay no notice to the background if it is out of focus, regardless of its 'quality'.
Click to expand...

Every photographer out there on every single photo forum, ever?

On my image, I actually liked the bokeh, for its sparkly-ness tbh. But it's still harsh bokeh, I prefer nice, smooth, rounded type. Most modern lenses have rounded blades, and more of them, to help with that.

As I said, I hated that lens for its sluggish speed and the noise of it in use.. Not so much the result, that was merely an example. But yes, the backing should be important to you when it comes to your images. If not, why ever blur it to begin with. Just shoot stopped down all the time, sure the distracting backing doesn't matter, eh?
 
Last edited:
As in the case of the OP the background can have a dramatic effect on how nice the bokeh looks. With foliage, intersecting lines of grass and leaves etc it's going to affect the look any lens will give unless you can throw it completely out of focus.

The lens in question may well be far from the best bokeh machine but also the background doesn't help.
 
woof woof said:
As in the case of the OP the background can have a dramatic effect on how nice the bokeh looks. With foliage, intersecting lines of grass and leaves etc it's going to affect the look any lens will give unless you can throw it completely out of focus.

The lens in question may well be far from the best bokeh machine but also the background doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Whilst I appreciate that Alan, it still delivers below par bokeh to me personally...

Pretty sure if I did the same shot with my 35 it would deliver a nice smooth OOF area.
 
Phil Young said:
Whilst I appreciate that Alan, it still delivers below par bokeh to me personally...
Click to expand...

I realise that, my point was that this is probably a worst case scenario.

I too have a couple of lenses that can produce quite horrible bokeh if the composition and scene isn't bokeh friendly, but if it is friendly they can also produce quite beautiful bokeh.

Also, with the lenses I'm thinking about the bokeh changes quite a bit on stopping down so going from wide open to a stop of two down may make a difference with this Nikon lens?

Sometimes if I'm not too sure how a shot is going to look bokeh wise I take a couple of shots at different apertures and pick the best as the keeper.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I realise that, my point was that this is probably a worst case scenario.

I too have a couple of lenses that can produce quite horrible bokeh if the composition and scene isn't bokeh friendly, but if it is friendly they can also produce quite beautiful bokeh.

Also, with the lenses I'm thinking about the bokeh changes quite a bit on stopping down so going from wide open to a stop of two down may make a difference with this Nikon lens?

Sometimes if I'm not too sure how a shot is going to look bokeh wise I take a couple of shots at different apertures and pick the best as the keeper.
Click to expand...

Just took couple in the garden with both lenses...

You are right about worst case scenario. The 50mm was still noticiably worse but yeah...where theres not so much distraction...
 
f1charlie said:
Who studies the background so closely - other than TP members :)
Click to expand...

My eyes were drawn to the background rather than the subject because it just didn't look right to me.

It may be that I have been here a bit long and pixel peep a bit too much but that first photo to me looks like someone has done a bad job of cloning/blurring the background...whilst blindfolded.
 
In the cat image the background looks horrible (as if someone has gone a bit crazy with a liquify brush tool).The second however, with the broken glass it's actually really pleasing to me as compliments the main subject.
 
The blurring in the cat photo looks more like a digital effect than an optical one. I agree with Rajkay that the technically rather poor bokeh in this shot actually works rather well here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top