All the samples I'm seeing I can't believe my eyes. People that are praising this lens must be blind. Or am I blind? Or they've never owned Canikon 70-200/2.8? Yes 50-140/2.8 is sharp and contrasty at every focal length. That's what everyone is talking about, adding 100% closeups to demonstrate its sharpness. But the results are so overwhelmingly flat with the ugliest dirtiest background rendering I can remember on a lens of that kind. Not even in the same universe with Canon 70-200L IS 2. And I don't believe just 1 stop of DOF makes such a big difference. Here is what I am talking about:
Does look pretty bad in all those examples, though the lighting and framing isn't really ideal either, and its kind of a busy background anyways, so the lens had a lot stacked against it, but yeah... pretty nervous and ugly result
Most 70-200 2.8's and especially 300/2.8's would likely look a lot smoother
People need to remember that its not just 2 stops less DoF when comparing this lens to other options on larger sensors, but also the overall quality of the bokeh and way the lens transitions etc also should be considered.
All too often on forum people seem to suggest that its going to be the same look if shot at f2.8 as a 70-200 would be if shot at f5.6, but that hardly is the whole story
This may be another great example of how:
(1) The excitement of a new lens clouds objectivity;
(2) Some reviewers are not objective to start with;
(3) Lemming behavior - everyone says its a great lens, and so therefore it must be. I'll say it too.
That too but what did the Fuji engineers think? How could that happen in the first place? That's what bothers me. They are not stu!@# are they? If we look at other Fuji lenses, the rendering are very nice especially the 56mm.
You are not crazy! I am a big fuji fan, and I thought the same things! In most every sample image I have seen shot at 2.8, the background does indeed look nervous/ugly. Sharp, for sure, but not a pleasant looking overall image.
When I shot crop Canon bodies, I used to have the old Tokina 50-135 2.8 and it was much smoother with the background!
fsiagian wrote:
That too but what did the Fuji engineers think? How could that happen in the first place? That's what bothers me. They are not stu!@# are they? If we look at other Fuji lenses, the rendering are very nice especially the 56mm.
Guess they want for speed and reach above all else on this design ?
Or they wanted to make sure it's available before the holiday shopping rush. A big mistake. I was expecting something similar to Canon 135mm F2 rendering (with more DOF is OK since it's 2.8 on APS-C) especially considering the steep price
millsart wrote:
...
People need to remember that its not just 2 stops less DoF when comparing this lens to other options on larger sensors, but also the overall quality of the bokeh and way the lens transitions etc also should be considered.
All too often on forum people seem to suggest that its going to be the same look if shot at f2.8 as a 70-200 would be if shot at f5.6, but that hardly is the whole story
It's Fuji not m43 so it should be just over a stop (f/4.2). ...still looks bad and much worse than I remember the Canon 70-200/4 I had.
We should remember many great lenses have busy bokeh. Still a letdown for this type of lens.
Who knows. maybe the fact that Fuji is using 7 aperture blades (whether round or not) on this (vs 8 or 9 blades) makes a difference. Look they used 9 blades on 60/2.4 and pretty much everyone loves results from that lens universally in terms of picture quality. The fact remains that I posted samples from 3(!) completely different photographers shooting completely different things with this lens and each one having similar results. So in terms of its use for portrait photography it is a big question mark. I m sure it is great for sports and other uses where creative and pleasing bokeh is not important.
fsiagian wrote:
Or they wanted to make sure it's available before the holiday shopping rush. A big mistake. I was expecting something similar to Canon 135mm F2 rendering (with more DOF is OK since it's 2.8 on APS-C) especially considering the steep price
oh no I knew 135L forget about anything close to that. I kind of hoped anywhere close to Canon 70-200 but it is not in the same universe either.
For some reason though I have a strange feeling that 90mm 2.0 that they are gonna make is going to be spectacular and will look similar to 135L. Well I just hope so.
By the way I think my 18-135 Fuji has better bokeh that this 50-140/2.8
absolutic wrote:
Who knows. maybe the fact that Fuji is using 7 aperture blades (whether round or not) on this (vs 8 or 9 blades) makes a difference. Look they used 9 blades on 60/2.4 and pretty much everyone loves results from that lens universally in terms of picture quality. The fact remains that I posted samples from 3(!) completely different photographers shooting completely different things with this lens and each one having similar results. So in terms of its use for portrait photography it is a big question mark. I m sure it is great for sports and other uses where creative and pleasing bokeh is not important. ...Show more →
Aperture blades should not matter if the lens is shot wide open, correct?
I agree with the OP, the bokeh from this lens looks really awful.
rattymouse wrote:
Aperture blades should not matter if the lens is shot wide open, correct?
Correct.
When stopped down, the most obvious effect of the number of aperture blades and their shape is the shape of the out of focus (OOF) bright highlights, not the bokeh, per se. A stopped-down lens with eight, straight-edged aperture blades with have OOF highlights with eight-sided shape - like stop signs. A stopped-down lens with well-rounded aperture blades will have more or less round OOF highlights.
The OOF highlights in the first image almost have the "donut" effect that you get from a catadioptric lens, or as whumber said, a reflex lens (like a reflecting telescope). Aside from Homer, very few people like the donut effect.
The very well-defined OOF highlights in the second image, with a lot of round, bright/dark sharp-edged shapes, is definitely a problem.
The bokeh in the third image, especially in the bushes/hedges on the left, is nervous. It looks a lot like what you can get in similar situations with the Canon 70-200/4L IS + 1.4x Extender.
absolutic wrote:
So in terms of its use for portrait photography it is a big question mark. I m sure it is great for sports and other uses where creative and pleasing bokeh is not important.
Subject isolation and bokeh can matter a great deal in sports when trying to knock out busy backgrounds, like spectators in stands, out-of-bounds clutter, etc. Based just on these examples, this new Fuji zoom wouldn't be on my list as a sports or event lens.
My 55-200, kinda new to me, is much better than these examples.
jcolwell wrote:
The bokeh in the third image, especially in the bushes/hedges on the left, is nervous. It looks a lot like what you can get in similar situations with the Canon 70-200/4L IS + 1.4x Extender.
+1 Which is why I stretched to get the f/2.8 version despite the weight and cost penalty back in the day.
leo11877 wrote:
so fixing the bokeh is just a matter of changing the diaphragm design? or optical design?
Diaphragm design only matters when the lens is stopped down and even then doesn't have nearly as much effect as the optical design itself. There are a lot of factors affecting bokeh and often it is said that bokeh design is what distinguishes the great lens design companies from everyone else.
Yikes that does look very nervous and contrasty for oof areas. I don't think a change of aperture blades would matter as these are wide open. I think its tge over use of aspherical elements that makes the bokeh go nuts
? Background is not even close to being blurred. Not attractive at all. This below is at 2.8 at the tele end. 
I hope the coming 90mm has better rendering.