I Found My "DREAM" Bokeh Lens But I Can't Afford It

[Erik Lund]

Here is link to more on the lens
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=8510.msg140137#msg140137
The above images has very different Bokeh IMHO and no where close to the 300mm f/2 - consider posting those in another thread,,,

[Fons Baerken]

Roland, thank you for posting.  I always learn so much from your posts.

The 300/2 lens has a blur index (focal/largest aperture) of 150.  That's the same as the 600/4 lens.   While the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 have blur index's of 143 and therefore would produce slightly less blur.  While the 200/2 has a blur index of 100, producing much less blur than any of these other lenses, but of course it's much cheaper and lighter.

The reason that I got excited about the 300/2 that's on Ebay is that I'm not a big fan of 400, 600 and 800 supertelephotos lens.  For me, the 300mm focal is about as long as I like to shoot.

What would the blur  factor be on a 300mm f/2.8 my guess on above mentioned numbers around 130?

[Jack Dahlgren]

What would the blur  factor be on a 300mm f/2.8 my guess on above mentioned numbers around 130?

“Blur index” seems to be defined as focal length/largest aperture so 300mm f/2 = 150. 300/2.8 = 107. However, since f stop is focal length over entrance pupil, this “blur index” is really:

Focal length/(focal length/entrance pupil)

which can be simplified to:

Entrance pupil(in mm)

Focal length drops out of the equation altogether.

I’m not certain how useful such an index is.

[MEPER]

Some lenses also seems to blur more than blur index indicates because lens has some imperfections in the optical design like the 85/1.5 Helios 40 which can give some nice bokeh results if used wide open.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Some lenses also seems to blur more than blur index indicates because lens has some imperfections in the optical design like the 85/1.5 Helios 40 which can give some nice bokeh results if used wide open.

To me quality of blur is more important than the “index”. Subject isolation can be controlled by distance and framing. The existence of the DC lenses shows that blur properties are independent of blur index.

[MILLIREHM]

Bruce, go for the 200/2 VR II, it has one of the best Bokehs if not THE best ever, and it is cheaper. I bought mine used (like new) for 3200 Euro. Bokeh quality is not only a functoin of indices.

[BruceSD]

.
Blur quality and blur quantity are two separate characteristics.

Blur Index is simply a rough estimation of the quantity of blur.  It can be used to get a ballpark feel for amount of blur produced by lenses of the same relative focal length. 

[BruceSD]

Bruce, go for the 200/2 VR II, it has one of the best Bokehs if not THE best ever, and it is cheaper. I bought mine used (like new) for 3200 Euro. Bokeh quality is not only a functoin of indices.

Thanks for the recommendation.   

I hope to sell some gear to help fund a new 200/2.   However, I'll likely go with the AIS version as I am strictly a manual focus guy.

Given what's going on out there with the virus, I don't expect my used photo gear to sell as well as it might have before all of this frenzy started.

[Birna Rørslett]

You ought to get the AFS200/2 and use it as a manual-focusing lens. which is what I do all the time. I did own the 200/2 AIS and it is a very nice lens, but the AFS model is much better in optical terms and very easy to focus manually too.

Do replace the lens hood on the AFS 200 with something narrower than the stock hood, though. I used a hood from one of my 300/2.8 lenses.

[Roland Vink]

You might find this article on the development of the AI 200/2 interesting: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0031/index.htm.
The AIS version has the same optics (maybe coatings slightly better)

[MEPER]

It is difficult to evaluate the lens when the sample images in the article are full of noise (it blurs the details)?
And why do they use a 135/2 for sample2 image.....or is it an error in the text below the image?

I think I can make a better shot with my D5200 and a Nikkor 200/4 :-)

[Jack Dahlgren]

It is difficult to evaluate the lens when the sample images in the article are full of noise (it blurs the details)?
And why do they use a 135/2 for sample2 image.....or is it an error in the text below the image?

I think I can make a better shot with my D5200 and a Nikkor 200/4 :-)

Sure it is not digitized film? Reminds me of 400ASA

[MEPER]

I just find it strange that an official Nikon site that want to demonstrate a top notch lens can't show better samples :-)
I remember my Provia 100 and Velvia 100 scanned slides to be much better than this using a Coolscan 9000.

And maybe time has run from D50 (2nd sample) so a D5200 is far superior…...it seems so....

Apart from that I found that a $100 Nikkor-Q 200/4 has great bokeh also……

Nice thing about a D5200 and similar low end DSLRs is that you can mount non-AI lenses because it has no AI-ring to be "jammed".

[Birna Rørslett]

My understanding is that the 1001 Nights series is an undertaking mainly by initiative of retired and former employees. The illustrations are definitively  not taken by professional photographers. The facts presented though draw on inside sources so make for a worthwhile read.

[Imagelover]

This afternoon, Monday 28th of December, I took with me the AI-S Nikkor 300mm f/2 IF-ED together with a Nikon TC-301 teleconverter. I took some shots with that combo, the first shown here at aperture f/2, the second at f/5.6. Just wanted to show you the two images. Exposure was 5 sec. at f/2, 30 sec. at f/5.6.