03-05-2011, 03:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2011, 03:02 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299330026' post='6526']
Checking the popularity of the thread (which is way too long and at the same time off the track), I really can't believe this! There are very knowledgable members here but when it comes to fights like Nikon vs. Canon it always gets messy...
BC, you have a decent technical knowledge about digital phtography. How come you can say that Canon lenses generally have better bokeh than Nikon lenses? This is really unbelievable. Every lens has it's own characteristics and you know that the characteristics of bokeh depends on many criterias (not only the lens itself; but sensor format, lightness and colors etc...). "Smooth transitions" you say... This highly depends on the focusing distance and the distance from the focused point towards background. And within this focused and background distance, the creamy transition highly depends on where you put the OOF subject. The color tonality in the background also effects the smoother nice look. Apart from these, there are spherical aberations which may even differ for the same lens model from sample to sample. They have a great effect on smoothness also. Usually, lenses are not perfect, they're spherically under or over corrected. This means it is rare to find a lens with pleasent background showing the same performance in foreground. So, how could the statement of yours can be quantified and generalized and also can be considered as valuable in such a forum by showing some sample photos?
I don't know who wrote it but something like this was written above "thanks god different lenses have different characteristics in terms of bokeh"... Please live with this.
Serkan
[/quote]
Why is it so strange for me to say this? It is ridiculous to claim that all lenses have the same quality of bokeh, right? Some lenses, like a certain 90mm from Leica and a certain 35mm from Zeiss, truly have a bokeh quality that stands out.
What you are right about that often, when a lens shows less desirable background bokeh, it may do better with foreground bokeh. good example, in my view, is the Nikon 85mm f1.4 G, actually. Very smooth foreground bokeh.
But, alas, what usually is valued as much more important is background bokeh. simply because most photos have a background, and foreground subjects tend to blur more anyway.
You point out that different distances make for different blur, of course it does. But the amount of blur is NOT what smooth bokeh is about. It is about smooth transitions between different elements, structures and colours.
And simply, some lenses do better than others. I know many in this thread aremaking it out to be a fanboy battle, I on the other hand am just saying what I have noticed from seeing many images, it is way less subjective than a lot want to make it out to be.
I have noticed the unattractive bokeh of the new 85mm f1.4 G at its very introduction. Same with the 35mm f1.8 DX, I was amazed on just how not smooth, and double image/line creating, its bokeh can be. The 200mm f2 VR... same, I never saw it being "smooth" besides it of course blurring a lot at f2 and at 200mm.
You do also not have to be a fanboy of any brand to see what the bokeh of the old and new 50mm f1.4 from Nikon is like.
I just look at images, and I convey the impression I get. Nothing more, nothing less. That some Nikon owners have huge problems with that, I can not change.
I am not in the position to make more scientific comparisons between equivalent lenses, which I do not own. So, there will always be room for Nikon fanboys to flame me and to accuse me of just writing nonsense just for the sake of being a "canon fanboy". Such is online-life.
Sp you may agree, disagree, or be indifferent. You may also disagree with others who rate the bokeh of certain Nikon lenses not very highly. All fine to me, but my opinion is not entirely baseless.
Checking the popularity of the thread (which is way too long and at the same time off the track), I really can't believe this! There are very knowledgable members here but when it comes to fights like Nikon vs. Canon it always gets messy...
BC, you have a decent technical knowledge about digital phtography. How come you can say that Canon lenses generally have better bokeh than Nikon lenses? This is really unbelievable. Every lens has it's own characteristics and you know that the characteristics of bokeh depends on many criterias (not only the lens itself; but sensor format, lightness and colors etc...). "Smooth transitions" you say... This highly depends on the focusing distance and the distance from the focused point towards background. And within this focused and background distance, the creamy transition highly depends on where you put the OOF subject. The color tonality in the background also effects the smoother nice look. Apart from these, there are spherical aberations which may even differ for the same lens model from sample to sample. They have a great effect on smoothness also. Usually, lenses are not perfect, they're spherically under or over corrected. This means it is rare to find a lens with pleasent background showing the same performance in foreground. So, how could the statement of yours can be quantified and generalized and also can be considered as valuable in such a forum by showing some sample photos?
I don't know who wrote it but something like this was written above "thanks god different lenses have different characteristics in terms of bokeh"... Please live with this.
Serkan
[/quote]
Why is it so strange for me to say this? It is ridiculous to claim that all lenses have the same quality of bokeh, right? Some lenses, like a certain 90mm from Leica and a certain 35mm from Zeiss, truly have a bokeh quality that stands out.
What you are right about that often, when a lens shows less desirable background bokeh, it may do better with foreground bokeh. good example, in my view, is the Nikon 85mm f1.4 G, actually. Very smooth foreground bokeh.
But, alas, what usually is valued as much more important is background bokeh. simply because most photos have a background, and foreground subjects tend to blur more anyway.
You point out that different distances make for different blur, of course it does. But the amount of blur is NOT what smooth bokeh is about. It is about smooth transitions between different elements, structures and colours.
And simply, some lenses do better than others. I know many in this thread aremaking it out to be a fanboy battle, I on the other hand am just saying what I have noticed from seeing many images, it is way less subjective than a lot want to make it out to be.
I have noticed the unattractive bokeh of the new 85mm f1.4 G at its very introduction. Same with the 35mm f1.8 DX, I was amazed on just how not smooth, and double image/line creating, its bokeh can be. The 200mm f2 VR... same, I never saw it being "smooth" besides it of course blurring a lot at f2 and at 200mm.
You do also not have to be a fanboy of any brand to see what the bokeh of the old and new 50mm f1.4 from Nikon is like.
I just look at images, and I convey the impression I get. Nothing more, nothing less. That some Nikon owners have huge problems with that, I can not change.
I am not in the position to make more scientific comparisons between equivalent lenses, which I do not own. So, there will always be room for Nikon fanboys to flame me and to accuse me of just writing nonsense just for the sake of being a "canon fanboy". Such is online-life.
Sp you may agree, disagree, or be indifferent. You may also disagree with others who rate the bokeh of certain Nikon lenses not very highly. All fine to me, but my opinion is not entirely baseless.