NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: turnschuh on May 09, 2016, 21:25:32
-
Hey,
im looking to get a wide-ish lens for my d7100. I usually use 50mm or more so even there is a big difference between 20mm and 28mm for me its not so mutch.
What is important for me is creamy bokeh like the 58mm 1.4, tamron 60mm or sony SFT 135mm
what lens in the range 20-35 would give me the creamiest bokeh below $1000?
-
check the Sigma 24/1.4
-
For DX 20mm isn't that wide so I'd go for the AF-S 20/1.8G ED Nikkor if sticking to Nikon's offerings. If you have megapixels to spare one can shoot a bit loose and crop in post. This works for FX as well as DX.
I'm finding the flare and ghost issues aren't bad with the 20/1.8 and I have no complaints with the bokeh either. It goes without saying that the lens is sharp so a 0.8x crop is no big deal for a moderately high MP camera.
Dave
The only lens in the group you asked about that I own is the 20/1.8G. I'm very pleased with this lens.
-
"Creamy bokeh" and wide angle lenses are incompatible conditions. A wide angle has small circles of confusion and only for very large apertures and focused in the near range can you have any truly smooth bokeh.
-
Yes, something like that maybe :
-
"Creamy bokeh" and wide angle lenses are incompatible conditions. A wide angle has small circles of confusion and only for very large apertures and focused in the near range can you have any truly smooth bokeh.
I think the OP is really asking about the quality of the bokeh - do the background blurs have soft edges which blend together in a smooth "creamy" way? Or do the blurs have hard edges giving busy, nervous or double-line blurs in the background?
As far as I know, most of the recent wide primes have fairly smooth bokeh, the picture above is a good example...
-
When the background is well outside the DoF zone the size of the blur circles is dependent on the physical size of the aperture not the aperture ratio. This puts the DX format at a disadvantage to FX and larger formats.
Bokeh as I understand the word refers to the quality of the blur rather than the quality or size of the blur. Bab Atkins Photography has article on this on his website. There is also a blur calcultor offered for download but l've never gotten it to work on Windows 7. There was a Russian guy with very detail math to support this. I'll get his name when I get home. I don't think the article is on the web at this time.
Dave
-
many thanks for the input so far, I know this is a difficult topic because bokeh is very unspecific. Basically I want it to have smooth when focusing close/mid range.
What lens is the picture above?
currently im torn between the nikon 24mm 1.8, the sigma wich was mentioned above and the tamron 35mm.
When reading reviews the information about bokeh differs from site to site. eg. some say the sigma bokeh is harsh others say its smooth.
So im realy lost. Maybe it doesnt matter mutch and they all produce about the same?
Then it would be to decide between 1.4/660g (sigma) vs 1.8/330g (nikon)?
-
A lot of reviewers say rounded aperture blades on a lens will give good bokeh. That's largely false, a rounded aperture opening will produce round blur circles rather than polygonal (which is preferable), but it has no effect on how smoothly those blur circles blend together. The latter quality is really much more important. So discount any reviews which base their assessment purely on the shape of the aperture.
Most reviews which explore bokeh further usually do so only at close range, where the background blur circles are largest, and usually looks smoothest. That is only of limited use since most pictures are taken at medium-far distances. At far distance the DOF of a wide lens may extend to infinity so bokeh is not relevant (except in the foreground). At medium distances the DOF can still be surprisingly small, especially when the image is viewed large, so bokeh is still a very important part of the picture. In my experience this is the region where many lenses struggle.
This is why comments on bokeh vary so much.
For what it's worth, the Sigma 35/1.4 is known for being very sharp, but the bokeh is rather harsh. In contrast the Nikon AFS 35/1.4 is not as sharp but produces a more pleasing "rounded" image. I suspect the same is true of the Sigma 24/1.4 vs the Nikon 24mm. But note I have no direct experience with any...
Is it possible to go to a shop and try the lenses you are interested in? Ultimately you are the best judge of which lens performs to your liking.
-
many thanks for the input so far, I know this is a difficult topic because bokeh is very unspecific. Basically I want it to have smooth when focusing close/mid range.
What lens is the picture above?
The Sigma 24/1.4, which is fine except the weight...
-
My newly purchased 24/1.8G is currently at Nikon service (to re-adjust the focusing mechanism). So these are the only examples I can share now.
Both are shot with an FX body (D750). The Rhododendron image was shot at f4.0 (not trimmed), and the net fence, wide open (only so slightly trimmed to adjust the level).
If you are particular about bokeh, and only need a wide"-ish" lens on FX, I would go for the 24/1.8G, simply because its DOF is thinner than that of 20/1.8G. Both 20/1.8G and 24/1.8G weigh 355g, not 330g (just to nitpick).
-
Two examples of the 28/1.8 G
The first one wide open, the second at 2.8
-
Ill check into the 28mm! At least it has more reviews then the new 24mm 1.8
Its a strange Focal lengh so I didnt check it out mutch, on DX it would be 42mm instead of 35mm for the 24mm 1.8?
I gotta test that on my zoom how it feals.
-
Oh yes, forgot to mention, both on FX. First one with D700, second with D800E.
-
20mm f1.8 focused very close
-
From the examples posted here and elsewhere, it seems that all the newer (last 7 years or so) Nikon wide primes have designed with special attention to producing smooth out of focus images. First importance is to decide what focal length you want.
-
May I also loop in the AFS 24mm/1.4G ?
I love the way it renders, which for me goes beyond bokeh only.
If lucky, you might find such a lens used for the price range you indicated, or close to it.
A few eamples, all images unprocessed. Just resized
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142873583/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142880498/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142873606/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142873589/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142890796/original.jpg)
D800E Full resolution (http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142873601/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142873597/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142873587/original.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142890780/original.jpg)
rgds, Andy
-
Hey,
im looking to get a wide-ish lens for my d7100. I usually use 50mm or more so even there is a big difference between 20mm and 28mm for me its not so mutch.
What is important for me is creamy bokeh like the 58mm 1.4, tamron 60mm or sony SFT 135mm
what lens in the range 20-35 would give me the creamiest bokeh below $1000?
Creamiest bokeh?
Bokeh and wide-angles are kind of mutually-exclusive, typically.
I have both the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S and the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, and use them for reverse-imaging.
Both have Close-Range Correction, both produce pleasing bokeh when reversed:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001313_large.jpg)
28mm f/2.8 Ai-S (@ 2.1x)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001379_large.jpg)
20mm f/2.8 Ai-S (@ 3.4x)
-
I did a lot of tests using the 18-105 and with the different focal lenghs, 20, 24 and 28mm. I liked 28mm the best so I got the 28mm 1.8g and Im very happy so far!
thanks for the advice everyone.
-
oh man, this lens has a lot of problems with LoCA. I probably will give it back, witch is a shame because otherwise it would be perfect!
Before this lens I didnt even know about this effect but man this purple and cyan realy stands out.
What a waste to such a great lens! :(
I will try the 24mm next :(
-
I just got the Nikkor 20/1.8G to replace my Sigma 18-35/1.8 on a DX camera - sure there is CA wide open but it is easily fixable in post en I am happy with its "bokeh"
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7347/27286322453_7cfc62ee29_o.jpg)
Successor Sigma 18-35 (https://flic.kr/p/Hzcx2p) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
-
Nice Arend. I think every fast lens has CA.
-
3 more from today with the 20/1.8G on a D500, first one @ f/1.8, the other two @ f/2.2
1
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7649/27817557242_6dedb5d6e0_o.jpg)
_AWV1458 (https://flic.kr/p/Jo9fBU) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
2
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7370/27817556672_837c7fdd5f_o.jpg)
_AWV1478 (https://flic.kr/p/Jo9fs5) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
3
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7413/27306112863_0194d50c3a_o.jpg)
_AWV1470 (https://flic.kr/p/HAWY2n) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
-
As mutch I hate the 24mm focal length I love the performance of the lens, im very happy.
As for now I plan to use the 1.3 mode to simulate 30ish mm. I realy wanted the 28mm but the 24mm will offer some other interessting opportunitys.
I will probably keep it for now.
I plan to add the 58mm 1.4 in the future to build a lightweight travel kit. Im actually more of a 50ish mm lover so 24mm is very challenging for me.
-
As mutch I hate the 24mm focal length I love the performance of the lens, im very happy.
As for now I plan to use the 1.3 mode to simulate 30ish mm. I realy wanted the 28mm but the 24mm will offer some other interessting opportunitys.
I will probably keep it for now.
I plan to add the 58mm 1.4 in the future to build a lightweight travel kit. Im actually more of a 50ish mm lover so 24mm is very challenging for me.
Similar for me. I like combinations like 25mm/ 50mm, 35mm/ 85mm, or 40mm/ 90mm.
After purchasing the 58 mm 1.4 my existing 35 mm focal length feels "too close". The 28 mm 1.8 would be perfect. But sadly the 28 mm 1.8 seems to be the weakest offering of the three above mentioned lenses... So I am wondering, too: Is the 24 mm preferable...?
-
Relatively weak and good enough are not mutually exclusive. Try it.
-
I have always been partial to the 24 mm focal length and have used plenty of such lenses throughout my formative years in photography.
Just acquired the 24 mm f/1.8 and trying to accommodate it. These newfangled optics have their own idiosyncrasies compared to their manual predecessors.
With the caveat that 'bokeh' and 'wide angle' are like going in opposite directions, the 24/1.8 is actually quite good if used up close. Here is an example of an Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag on the banks of a nearby river. Shot at f/11 with the D500.