Archive 2014 · Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
p.3 #1Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
absolutic wrote:
jcolwell wrote
cope07 wrote
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.IS can compromise sharpness. I can't imagine how it'd effect bokeh, though.
Dec 01, 2014 at 10:34 PM
p.3 #2Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
jcolwell wrote:
...No.
Actually for long lenses VR can affect bokeh:
http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html
But for this lens of moderate telephoto I doubt that is the cause.
As to aspheres screwing up the bokeh besides onion rings I'm guessing there isn't anything about aspheres themselves that would cause bad bokeh. Rather the issue is more probably giving a computer optimization algorithm a whole bunch of degrees of freedom including aspheric surfaces and then letting it run with cost functions only for aberrations in the plane of focus with no or poor parameter bounds to control bokeh. Give any optimization routine enough degrees of freedom and you'll find uncontrolled parameters quickly get places you'd never think possible.
cope07 wrote
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.Actually for long lenses VR can affect bokeh:
http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html
But for this lens of moderate telephoto I doubt that is the cause.
As to aspheres screwing up the bokeh besides onion rings I'm guessing there isn't anything about aspheres themselves that would cause bad bokeh. Rather the issue is more probably giving a computer optimization algorithm a whole bunch of degrees of freedom including aspheric surfaces and then letting it run with cost functions only for aberrations in the plane of focus with no or poor parameter bounds to control bokeh. Give any optimization routine enough degrees of freedom and you'll find uncontrolled parameters quickly get places you'd never think possible.
Dec 01, 2014 at 10:54 PM
p.3 #3Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Undercorrected spherical aberration gives smooth background bokeh, neutral or a bit over corrected spherical aberration gives better sharpness.
Aspheres are good to correct spherical aberration - so they could be used to achieve the correction one wants - for one distance (but with the risk of onion bokeh). Floating elements are used to get a more or less stable spherical aberration correction over the focussing range.
I think they sacrified smooth background bokeh for sharpness in this lens.
Probably they want to have not only smooth background bokeh in their lens lineup, but also the "soap bubble" effect like the Meyer Trioplan - probably this zoom lens has enough overcorrection of spherical aberration (I doubt)?
Aspheres are good to correct spherical aberration - so they could be used to achieve the correction one wants - for one distance (but with the risk of onion bokeh). Floating elements are used to get a more or less stable spherical aberration correction over the focussing range.
I think they sacrified smooth background bokeh for sharpness in this lens.
Probably they want to have not only smooth background bokeh in their lens lineup, but also the "soap bubble" effect like the Meyer Trioplan - probably this zoom lens has enough overcorrection of spherical aberration (I doubt)?
Dec 02, 2014 at 01:10 AM
p.3 #4Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Here is another 'glorious' review of that lens.
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
now this review is somewhat misleading. If you look carefully, the author shot most portraits with any sort of background at F/5.6 to F/4 to F/3.6. Nothing wide open, absolutely nothing.
Then at the end he attached a few carefully selected headshots at F/2.8 where there is no background to judge bokeh with).
In any case, maybe this guy is a better photographer than the first 3 guys, but overall his shots look more pleasing.
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
now this review is somewhat misleading. If you look carefully, the author shot most portraits with any sort of background at F/5.6 to F/4 to F/3.6. Nothing wide open, absolutely nothing.
Then at the end he attached a few carefully selected headshots at F/2.8 where there is no background to judge bokeh with).
In any case, maybe this guy is a better photographer than the first 3 guys, but overall his shots look more pleasing.
Dec 02, 2014 at 01:15 AM
p.3 #5Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
absolutic wrote:
If you look carefully, the author shot most portraits with any sort of background at F/5.6 to F/4 to F/3.6. Nothing wide open, absolutely nothing.
refreshing.
If you look carefully, the author shot most portraits with any sort of background at F/5.6 to F/4 to F/3.6. Nothing wide open, absolutely nothing.
refreshing.
Dec 02, 2014 at 01:18 AM
p.3 #6Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
The lens' bokeh reminds me of the 35/2 IS; very sharp, but capable of producing overly noisy shots with just the right apertures and subject to background spacing. The Canon lens is one that I'd like to pick up eventually but also one that I realize that I'd have to be careful with around noisy backgrounds with just the right amount of 'blur'.
Dec 02, 2014 at 01:47 AM
p.3 #7Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
absolutic wrote:
Here is another 'glorious' review of that lens.
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
now this review is somewhat misleading. If you look carefully, the author shot most portraits with any sort of background at F/5.6 to F/4 to F/3.6. Nothing wide open, absolutely nothing.
Then at the end he attached a few carefully selected headshots at F/2.8 where there is no background to judge bokeh with).
In any case, maybe this guy is a better photographer than the first 3 guys, but overall his shots look more pleasing.
Actually if you look at the extra sample pict posted in a link at the end of the review you can see some truly awful bokeh. For example here is a link to one that made me dizzy:
http://www.bjornmoerman.com/Galleries/Travel/Myanmar-Burma/i-VKwbq3R/A
So far I have not seen a shot with diffuse blur with any structure in the background in which I like the bokeh. It seems bad very much of the time. It would be a deal breaker for me, but obviously people have their own preferences.
Here is another 'glorious' review of that lens.
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
now this review is somewhat misleading. If you look carefully, the author shot most portraits with any sort of background at F/5.6 to F/4 to F/3.6. Nothing wide open, absolutely nothing.
Then at the end he attached a few carefully selected headshots at F/2.8 where there is no background to judge bokeh with).
In any case, maybe this guy is a better photographer than the first 3 guys, but overall his shots look more pleasing.
Actually if you look at the extra sample pict posted in a link at the end of the review you can see some truly awful bokeh. For example here is a link to one that made me dizzy:
http://www.bjornmoerman.com/Galleries/Travel/Myanmar-Burma/i-VKwbq3R/A
So far I have not seen a shot with diffuse blur with any structure in the background in which I like the bokeh. It seems bad very much of the time. It would be a deal breaker for me, but obviously people have their own preferences.
Dec 02, 2014 at 02:09 AM
p.3 #8Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Here's another first impressions blog.
http://olafphotoblog.com/2014/12/01/ho-ho-ho-with-the-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr
Does not look as bad as some of the others but you can still find nervousness if you look for it. This lens is probably great for landscapes where you want ultimate sharpness but don't care too much for bokeh. Bokeh seems fine for tighter shots where structure is not on the verge of being oof.
http://olafphotoblog.com/2014/12/01/ho-ho-ho-with-the-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr
Does not look as bad as some of the others but you can still find nervousness if you look for it. This lens is probably great for landscapes where you want ultimate sharpness but don't care too much for bokeh. Bokeh seems fine for tighter shots where structure is not on the verge of being oof.
Dec 02, 2014 at 04:17 AM
p.3 #9Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
kwalsh wrote:
Actually for long lenses VR can affect bokeh:
http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html
I've never noticed it, and I use my 500/4L IS a lot, with and without IS, depending on the situation.
Actually for long lenses VR can affect bokeh:
http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html
I've never noticed it, and I use my 500/4L IS a lot, with and without IS, depending on the situation.
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:14 AM
p.3 #10Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Lots of samples at https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
These don't look nearly as bad - the ugly bokeh seems most pronounced at certain (long) distance/background combinations
These don't look nearly as bad - the ugly bokeh seems most pronounced at certain (long) distance/background combinations
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:36 AM
p.3 #11Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
benee wrote:
Lots of samples at https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
These don't look nearly as bad - the ugly bokeh seems most pronounced at certain (long) distance/background combinations
Here are for example bad bokeh ones from that photographer:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/15065138894/sizes/k/in/set-72157647318200338/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/15067685103/sizes/k/in/set-72157647318200338/
Lots of samples at https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
These don't look nearly as bad - the ugly bokeh seems most pronounced at certain (long) distance/background combinations
Here are for example bad bokeh ones from that photographer:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/15065138894/sizes/k/in/set-72157647318200338/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/15067685103/sizes/k/in/set-72157647318200338/
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:48 AM
p.3 #12Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
hauxon wrote:
Here's another first impressions blog.
http://olafphotoblog.com/2014/12/01/ho-ho-ho-with-the-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr
Does not look as bad as some of the others but you can still find nervousness if you look for it. This lens is probably great for landscapes where you want ultimate sharpness but don't care too much for bokeh. Bokeh seems fine for tighter shots where structure is not on the verge of being oof.
I think the photographer seems to have worked around the bokeh in a number of shots, but if you look down at the ones which are shots of the road, the bokeh is strikingly bad to my eye. Specifically the one where the focus plane is parallel to the road and there are grape vines in the background and the one just a bit further down where the focus plane in perpendicular to the road with trees in the background are pretty terrible to my eye. Bad examples like that and a paucity of examples in which there is bokeh that works certainly turn me off on this lens, and that is especially so as the FF 70-200 lenses typically have decent to quite nice bokeh.
Here's another first impressions blog.
http://olafphotoblog.com/2014/12/01/ho-ho-ho-with-the-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr
Does not look as bad as some of the others but you can still find nervousness if you look for it. This lens is probably great for landscapes where you want ultimate sharpness but don't care too much for bokeh. Bokeh seems fine for tighter shots where structure is not on the verge of being oof.
I think the photographer seems to have worked around the bokeh in a number of shots, but if you look down at the ones which are shots of the road, the bokeh is strikingly bad to my eye. Specifically the one where the focus plane is parallel to the road and there are grape vines in the background and the one just a bit further down where the focus plane in perpendicular to the road with trees in the background are pretty terrible to my eye. Bad examples like that and a paucity of examples in which there is bokeh that works certainly turn me off on this lens, and that is especially so as the FF 70-200 lenses typically have decent to quite nice bokeh.
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:48 AM
p.3 #13Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Love my fuji body and lenses, the 50-140mm looks like an awesome lens. I wasn't ready to ditch my 6D - 70-200mm 2.8 II combo until I was sure this lens would deliver similar quality/bokeh/DOF as my 6D combo. I guess it won't because of APS-C vs Full frame. But LOVE what the 6D @ 200mm @ 2.8 can do with the background. Will be keeping on eye on see what this lens can do in the future. For now 6D- 70-200mm 2.8 II will still be my go to combo for smooth bokeh and DOF.
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:57 AM
p.3 #14Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
My light weight kit is an X-E2 for XF lenses from 14mm to 60mm (incl. 18-55 OIS), and a Canon SL1 (100D) with EF 70-200/4L IS. Based on what I'm seeing from the XF 50-140/2.8, I don't plan to change that mix.
Dec 02, 2014 at 09:02 AM
p.3 #15Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
esanchez wrote:
70-200mm 2.8 II combo until I was sure this lens would deliver similar quality/bokeh/DOF as my 6D combo. I guess it won't because of APS-C vs Full frame.
The APS-C vs FF bokeh difference is just a modest difference in the amount of bokeh. The problem here is with this particular lens the quality of the bokeh sucks. And that has nothing to do with APS-C vs FF.
But yes, for the same amount of bokeh you'll need to get an F/2 zoom for an APS-C camera to match the F/2.8 on your 6D.
70-200mm 2.8 II combo until I was sure this lens would deliver similar quality/bokeh/DOF as my 6D combo. I guess it won't because of APS-C vs Full frame.
The APS-C vs FF bokeh difference is just a modest difference in the amount of bokeh. The problem here is with this particular lens the quality of the bokeh sucks. And that has nothing to do with APS-C vs FF.
But yes, for the same amount of bokeh you'll need to get an F/2 zoom for an APS-C camera to match the F/2.8 on your 6D.
Dec 02, 2014 at 09:19 AM
p.3 #16Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
kwalsh wrote:
And that has nothing to do with APS-C vs FF.
Maybe it does. If you want the best possible sharpness, you can't have the creamiest bokeh unless the lens is gonna be huge and very expensive. So, using a smaller format needs a sharper lens, which makes it harder to produce smooth bokeh.
Just look at the Nikon 85/1.4 AF-D shot earlier in this thread. It's really dull and lacking contrast. But the bokeh is beatutiful.
And that has nothing to do with APS-C vs FF.
Maybe it does. If you want the best possible sharpness, you can't have the creamiest bokeh unless the lens is gonna be huge and very expensive. So, using a smaller format needs a sharper lens, which makes it harder to produce smooth bokeh.
Just look at the Nikon 85/1.4 AF-D shot earlier in this thread. It's really dull and lacking contrast. But the bokeh is beatutiful.
Dec 02, 2014 at 09:34 AM
p.3 #17Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
I said "overuse" does anyone know how many Asphericals are used in this zoom?
rattymouse wrote:
you might hit the nail on its head there.Yeah but Fuji always uses aspherics and for the most part, their bokeh is not all that bad. Certainly not as bad what we see with this new lens. I quite like the bokeh from the 23, 35m and 56mm lenses.
rattymouse wrote:
absolutic wrote
killersnowman wrote
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 nutsDec 02, 2014 at 09:51 AM
p.3 #18Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Personally I'll take the smaller size of the Fuji over the arm breaking Canon and Nikon versions, and the sharpness of the Fuji. I don't like soft subjects. The photos at olafphotoblog (link above) look great including bokeh that is fine. That's how I'll use this lens (I mostly take photos of people).
Dec 02, 2014 at 09:57 AM
p.3 #19Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Cliff Stevens wrote:
Personally I'll take the smaller size of the Fuji over the arm breaking Canon and Nikon versions
you are talking about the relative lens weight difference, or combination of bodies and lenses? It is true that this Fuji lens is 1 kilo vs 1.5 kilo for Canon version. 1 kilo is still not small especially on a lighter body such as XT1. In fact, you probably would want to add a 'large' grip to XT1 to comfortably handhold this lens.
But yes, I carried Canon 5DM3 and 70-200L IS II around and that combination gets really heavy really fast.
Personally I'll take the smaller size of the Fuji over the arm breaking Canon and Nikon versions
you are talking about the relative lens weight difference, or combination of bodies and lenses? It is true that this Fuji lens is 1 kilo vs 1.5 kilo for Canon version. 1 kilo is still not small especially on a lighter body such as XT1. In fact, you probably would want to add a 'large' grip to XT1 to comfortably handhold this lens.
But yes, I carried Canon 5DM3 and 70-200L IS II around and that combination gets really heavy really fast.
Dec 02, 2014 at 10:25 AM
p.3 #20Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
I really wanted to like this as I am after something longer than my 56 but it just looks too big and heavy. I think I'll give the 55-200 a try.
Dec 02, 2014 at 10:34 AM