Being in search for a lens capable of producing "nice" bokeh, I'm not sure which of the above mentioned lenses to get - my fav. is the zeiss 50 1.4, but reviews seem to be rare, since it's new...
How about the canon lenses? The lens will be used on the 1d3 for "fun"/conceptional purposes, no commercial work, no pixel peeping etc... - what's important to me is clear rings / great bokeh - MF is not a problem in my case...
I have not used any lens on your list except the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II. The bokeh is not very good. With only 5 aperture blades it is anything but creamy. It has been noticeably distracting in many of my photos. Hope this helps.
It's only got 5 aperture leaves and generates absolutely hideous patterns. Not a big deal if your backgrounds are nice and understated, but if you've got light in the background it becomes nasty quickly.
50L is only worth it's bokeh. I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have 85L like bokeh. It's fast, but not terribly sharp wide open, and suffers from mild CA wide open as well. But, the bokeh is what you are paying for. Not much competes with it: 85L, 200 f/2L, 135L
some like the Rokkor 58 f1.2. The Zeiss ZF/ZE 50/1.4 is fairly decent but doesn't provide the best bokeh in all situations. The Zeiss ZF/ZE 50/2.0 Makro-Planar, however, is noticeably better and excellent in as situations.
If you like spending a lot of money there is always a Summilux, not to mention the Zeiss 55 f1.2 Jahre.
On the other end of the cost spectrum, some of the East German and Russian standard lenses, while not particularly sharp, can deliver quite nice bokeh.
I like my 50/1.8 fine too... for what it is, while the EF 50/1.4 was more annoying to my eyes (even with a few more aperture blades).
Yeah, the 50L and Sigma 50 look great for bokeh... I think the Zeiss will be harsh.
Leica Summicron and Summilux are both nice on my eyes. The Super-Takumar 50 is pretty as well.
And back to Canon, both the TS-E 45 and 24-70L are very nice for bokeh IMO. I think the TS-E 45 is a real sleeper lens (maybe because so many people find a normal lens boring... unless it is f1.2).
I've shot both the EF 1.4 and 1.8 extensively... both are a mixed bag. The way the nervousness from the 1.4 is rendered annoys me much more than the way it gets rendered in the 1.8 somehow... Neither is a "bokeh star."
Karokan wrote:
I had a canon 50 f1.4. took it to B&H to compare with the ZE. bought the ZE. Sold the canon the next day.
+1
Same here. Had Canon 50mm f:1.4 and 85mm f:1.8, and now own 2 CZ ZEs. They outperform the Canons in every respect, and nowhere as much as wide open.
But be ready that focus confirm "only" works for me some 65% of the time, meaning I have to "hunt" back and forth with the focus ring a couple of times around the focus point until I get the AF of my 40D to confirm.
I compared the CZ 50mm to my beloved 35L, and, for me, the IQ of the Zeiss is at least as high, and it definitely has more contrast
I voted for other. I think the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 has the nicest bokeh. If you go to the alternative gear forum and look at the admirable blur thread you will see many examples. You can also look up information on how to convert this lens to Canon mount as well.
mh2000 wrote:
EF 50/1.8 wide open with a tree in the background:
That's an exceptionally fine portrait, hopefully exemplifying a notion that good non-commercial photography doesn't hinge on gear prices nor manic postprocessing.
PetKal wrote:
That's an exceptionally fine portrait, hopefully exemplifying a notion that good non-commercial photography doesn't hinge on gear prices nor manic postprocessing.
While the pic is nice, It looks postprocessed to me.
