«

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>>
>> Looks very "busy."
>
>Are you implying that it's different or not from the old version? I
>don't think anyone ever claimed this new model has better bokeh, or
>worse. The new one is supposed to be sharper.


Nikon specifically claimed in a release to dealers that the new lens
was specifically designed to give a pleasant rendition of out of focus
areas. If I can find it in our "filing system" I will quote the words
that were used. However, I think it was probably a reference to the
increase in the number of diaphragm blades and the fact that they are
now curved.

Nikon loves to concentrate on what metal diaphragm blades do, when
everyone should by now realise that bokeh is a quality obtained not
from metal, but from glass.

You cannot disguise harsh bokeh with fancy diaphragm blades - the
shots Rich linked to clearly demonstrate that. However, a crude iris
diaphragm will show up a case of harsh bokeh for everyone to see.


>That spec lens allows you to 'get more bokeh' with a full body shot (at
>a reasonable working distance). The rest has more to do with the choice
>of background than the lens, or what you decide to do with what it
>allows.


If you need to choose a background to suit the lens, that implies the
lens has harsh bokeh. Using a lens with smooth bokeh means you don't
have to worry about the background; even backgrounds with specular
highlights can be defocused into mush.


>I doubt there is an 85mm f/1.4 lens from any brand with better
>bokeh, or worse, that could really be pinned down. Some will be sharper
>with more or less CA.


On the contrary, there is significant variation in bokeh between
brands, and between different designs within brands. Bokeh may be of
little importance to many photographers, especially those who shoot
through crappy consumer junk lenses at f/8. However, it is likely to
be of great importance to the majority of buyers of expensive 85mm
f/1.4 lenses because of their intended use as classic portrait optics.

On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
> PeterN<> wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
> $:
>
>> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...=1039&message=
> 39064364
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks very "busy."
>>>>
>>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
>>>> inability to comprehend written material.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
>> that are fine.
>>
>
> Thanks for the 180, moron.


So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
equality of the lens.

--
Peter

On Aug 10, 8:36*am, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> *wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
> > $8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com:
>
> >> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
> >>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
> >>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...=1039&message=
> > 39064364
>
> >>>>> Looks very "busy."
>
> >>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
> >>>> inability to comprehend written material.
>
> >>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
>
> >> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
> >> that are fine.
>
> > Thanks for the 180, moron.
>
> So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
> emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
> Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
> equality of the lens.
>
> --
> Peter

Ah the subject line hijacker. The last resort of the internet
scoundrel. You should be ashamed.

On 8/10/2011 6:46 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> Robert Coe<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> :> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>>>> :>
>>>> :> Looks very "busy."
>>>> :
>>>> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
>>>> : inability to comprehend written material.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
>>>> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
>>>> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 here.
>>>
>>> For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
>>> reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
>>> highlights, this is a poor result.
>>>
>>> For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
>>> costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.
>>
>> Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included.
>>
>>
>>> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh
>>
>> Got anything to substantiate that?
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mmf14g/
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/1437990@N23/
>

And what was the f stop for those images.

--
Peter

On 8/10/2011 6:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>>>
>>> Looks very "busy."
>>
>> Are you implying that it's different or not from the old version? I
>> don't think anyone ever claimed this new model has better bokeh, or
>> worse. The new one is supposed to be sharper.
>
>
> Nikon specifically claimed in a release to dealers that the new lens
> was specifically designed to give a pleasant rendition of out of focus
> areas. If I can find it in our "filing system" I will quote the words
> that were used. However, I think it was probably a reference to the
> increase in the number of diaphragm blades and the fact that they are
> now curved.
>
> Nikon loves to concentrate on what metal diaphragm blades do, when
> everyone should by now realise that bokeh is a quality obtained not
> from metal, but from glass.
>
> You cannot disguise harsh bokeh with fancy diaphragm blades - the
> shots Rich linked to clearly demonstrate that. However, a crude iris
> diaphragm will show up a case of harsh bokeh for everyone to see.
>
>
>> That spec lens allows you to 'get more bokeh' with a full body shot (at
>> a reasonable working distance). The rest has more to do with the choice
>> of background than the lens, or what you decide to do with what it
>> allows.
>
>
> If you need to choose a background to suit the lens, that implies the
> lens has harsh bokeh. Using a lens with smooth bokeh means you don't
> have to worry about the background; even backgrounds with specular
> highlights can be defocused into mush.
>
>
>> I doubt there is an 85mm f/1.4 lens from any brand with better
>> bokeh, or worse, that could really be pinned down. Some will be sharper
>> with more or less CA.
>
>
> On the contrary, there is significant variation in bokeh between
> brands, and between different designs within brands. Bokeh may be of
> little importance to many photographers, especially those who shoot
> through crappy consumer junk lenses at f/8. However, it is likely to
> be of great importance to the majority of buyers of expensive 85mm
> f/1.4 lenses because of their intended use as classic portrait optics.


For events use low light manual focus at f1.4. An interesting idea, and
a practical concept. <\end sarcastic tag>

Here's what Nikon says about the lens:

Updated FX-format ultra-fast classic portrait lens boasting high picture
quality


Updated FX-format ultra-fast classic portrait lens boasting high picture
quality
•Ultra-fast portrait lens
•Edge to edge sharpness
•Nano Crystal Coat

<http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/ThemeID.18145600/productID.213468800>

The word "bokeh" is conspicuously absent, except in a claim by a "reviewer."


--
Peter

On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Aug 10, 8:36 am, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
>>> $8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com:
>>
>>>> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
>>>>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...=1039&message=
>>> 39064364
>>
>>>>>>> Looks very "busy."
>>
>>>>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
>>>>>> inability to comprehend written material.
>>
>>>>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
>>
>>>> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
>>>> that are fine.
>>
>>> Thanks for the 180, moron.
>>
>> So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
>> emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
>> Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
>> equality of the lens.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> Ah the subject line hijacker. The last resort of the internet
> scoundrel. You should be ashamed.

And changing a subject line to one that is more appropriate to the
subject has what to do with the validity of your original comment.
And even less to do with your evasion of direct questions.


--
Peter

On Aug 9, 7:51*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
> almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
> ONE SIXTH of the price? *Surely learning how to focus manually is
> worth a $1500 saving?

I converted to AF in 1994, after 25 years of manual focusing.
A weekend rental and a bunch of testing had shown me
that the camera could do it both better and faster than I
could.

My eyes have not improved any since then; in fact,
I'm now wearing glasses, and not just for reading
(not bad enough that I need them to drive
legally though).

So at least some of the time, a preference for
AF is not solely ignorance and laziness (though
I cannot totally disclaim those in my life as
a whole either).

On Aug 10, 7:01*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 7:51*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
> > almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
> > ONE SIXTH of the price? *Surely learning how to focus manually is
> > worth a $1500 saving?
>
> I converted to AF in 1994, after 25 years of manual focusing.
> A weekend rental and a bunch of testing had shown me
> that the camera could do it both better and faster than I
> could.
>
> My eyes have not improved any since then; in fact,
> I'm now wearing glasses, and not just for reading
> (not bad enough that I need them to drive
> legally though).
>
> So at least some of the time, a preference for
> AF is not solely ignorance and laziness (though
> I cannot totally disclaim those in my life as
> a whole either).

Fair enough, if your brand of photography makes it vital that you go
with the faster AF lens, then there is nothing wrong with that.

On Aug 10, 9:32*am, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, RichA wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 8:36 am, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> *wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
>
> >>> PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> * *wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
> >>> $8f2e0...@news.shared-secrets.com:
>
> >>>> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...=1039&message=
> >>> 39064364
>
> >>>>>>> Looks very "busy."
>
> >>>>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
> >>>>>> inability to comprehend written material.
>
> >>>>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
>
> >>>> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
> >>>> that are fine.
>
> >>> Thanks for the 180, moron.
>
> >> So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
> >> emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
> >> Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
> >> equality of the lens.
>
> >> --
> >> Peter
>
> > Ah the subject line hijacker. *The last resort of the internet
> > scoundrel. *You should be ashamed.
>
> And changing a subject line to one that is more appropriate to the
> subject has what to do with the validity of your original comment.
> And even less to do with your evasion of direct questions.
>
> --
> Peter

Scoundrel.

On Aug 10, 6:46*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> >Bruce wrote:
> >> Robert Coe<b...@1776.COM> *wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>> :> *http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
> >>> :>
> >>> :> *Looks very "busy."
> >>> :
> >>> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
> >>> : inability to comprehend written material.
>
> >>> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
> >>> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
> >>> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.
>
> >> +1 here.
>
> >> For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
> >> reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
> >> highlights, this is a poor result.
>
> >> For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
> >> costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.
>
> >Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included.
>
> >> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh
>
> >Got anything to substantiate that?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mm...s/1437990@N23/

Wow! This one makes me dizzy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andybar...ol-afs85mmf14g

It looks like the kind of problem you get when you use one of those
16mm or "TV" lenses that is too wide on a micro4/3rds camera. They
call it, "swirl." There is a thread here:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27062