Archive 2014 · Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
p.4 #1Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf50_140mmf28_r_lm_ois_wr/specifications/img/pic_01.gif
No mention of what elements are asphericals
Also here is some nice marketing copy
"An optical design has been used to produce beautiful bokeh at both front and back."
Mmmmhmmmmmm
No mention of what elements are asphericals
Also here is some nice marketing copy
"An optical design has been used to produce beautiful bokeh at both front and back."
Mmmmhmmmmmm
Dec 02, 2014 at 10:46 AM
p.4 #2Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Ian Boys wrote:
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.
I would be all over 55-200, had I not already had 18-135, and I never found the difference between 135 and 200 to be critical in real life.... and F4.8 vs 5.6... is not that critical of a difference either, both are slow and dark at tele end, however 18-135 I like for its versatility:
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-XncW5Ks/0/XL/DSCF4746-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-WFqFvvQ/0/XL/DSCF8854-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-7DXkJMb/0/XL/DSCF8863-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-vSx9zsH/0/XL/DSCF3480-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-SKTmR5k/0/XL/DSCF3436-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-MB59jj5/0/XL/DSCF3207-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-wf9DCSG/0/XL/DSCF3193-XL.jpg
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.
I would be all over 55-200, had I not already had 18-135, and I never found the difference between 135 and 200 to be critical in real life.... and F4.8 vs 5.6... is not that critical of a difference either, both are slow and dark at tele end, however 18-135 I like for its versatility:
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-XncW5Ks/0/XL/DSCF4746-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-WFqFvvQ/0/XL/DSCF8854-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-7DXkJMb/0/XL/DSCF8863-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-vSx9zsH/0/XL/DSCF3480-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-SKTmR5k/0/XL/DSCF3436-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-MB59jj5/0/XL/DSCF3207-XL.jpg
http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Photography/Fuji-XT1-1/i-wf9DCSG/0/XL/DSCF3193-XL.jpg
Dec 02, 2014 at 10:50 AM
p.4 #3Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Naah..
..my Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 RS beats it easily. Worse bokeh was never seen.
Otherwise, that Fuji bokeh is a bit meh, but not that tragic. Just bellow average, thats all. Plenty of such lens.
..my Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 RS beats it easily. Worse bokeh was never seen.
Otherwise, that Fuji bokeh is a bit meh, but not that tragic. Just bellow average, thats all. Plenty of such lens.
Dec 02, 2014 at 11:00 AM
p.4 #4Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Absolutic, those are lovely, esp the blue dragonfly!
Dec 02, 2014 at 11:03 AM
p.4 #5Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Ian Boys wrote:
Absolutic, those are lovely, esp the blue dragonfly!
thanks, I think what works for 18-135 is its close focusing distance which is somewhat macro-ish.....
Absolutic, those are lovely, esp the blue dragonfly!
thanks, I think what works for 18-135 is its close focusing distance which is somewhat macro-ish.....
Dec 02, 2014 at 11:17 AM
p.4 #6Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Anyone tried the Canon 135 f2 with converter at f2.8?
Dec 02, 2014 at 12:07 PM
p.4 #7Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
BrundinPhoto wrote:
Anyone tried the Canon 135 f2 with converter at f2.8?
I've used it wide open only on XT1.
Anyone tried the Canon 135 f2 with converter at f2.8?
I've used it wide open only on XT1.
Dec 02, 2014 at 12:39 PM
p.4 #8Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
absolutic wrote:
BrundinPhoto wrote
Anyone tried the Canon 135 f2 with converter at f2.8?Did the bokeh hold up well?
Dec 02, 2014 at 01:39 PM
p.4 #9Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Yes, in response to the comment above, when a lens is two pounds (Fuji), adding another pound (Canikon) is very unwelcome if not physically harmful. The main point of a lens like this is speed and getting the shot, not bokeh.
Also, the bokeh on some of the 55-200 shots above is kind of busy too in high contrast situations.
Also, the bokeh on some of the 55-200 shots above is kind of busy too in high contrast situations.
Dec 02, 2014 at 02:13 PM
p.4 #10Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Here's a Flickr library I found where the bokeh does not took nearly as harsh.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
Similar scene, just oof foilage, sunlight. Looks ok to me, not perfect but not ugly either.
Image by ricopress
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
Similar scene, just oof foilage, sunlight. Looks ok to me, not perfect but not ugly either.
Image by ricopress
Dec 02, 2014 at 04:34 PM
p.4 #11Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Not too bad in some of the pictures on this one from Fuji X forum
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
Dec 02, 2014 at 05:53 PM
p.4 #12Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
fsiagian wrote:
Not too bad in some of the pictures on this one from Fuji X forum
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
I referenced his review above.... his are carefully picked shots, but overall, some of the better ones
Not too bad in some of the pictures on this one from Fuji X forum
http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2014/11/fujifilm-xf-50-140-f28-ois-wr-fujinon.html
I referenced his review above.... his are carefully picked shots, but overall, some of the better ones
Dec 02, 2014 at 05:55 PM
p.4 #13Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
absolutic wrote:
.... his are carefully picked shots, but overall, some of the better ones
Seriously everyone picks the photos, I do. Even the wedding guy with the foliage shots did.
.... his are carefully picked shots, but overall, some of the better ones
Seriously everyone picks the photos, I do. Even the wedding guy with the foliage shots did.
Dec 02, 2014 at 06:08 PM
p.4 #14Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
hauxon wrote:
Here's a Flickr library I found where the bokeh does not took nearly as harsh.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
Similar scene, just oof foilage, sunlight. Looks ok to me, not perfect but not ugly either.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7554/15688652102_4a96ddea65_b_d.jpg
Image by ricopress
am I the only one bothered by the swirlyness? I find it way more distracting than the nervous bokeh
Here's a Flickr library I found where the bokeh does not took nearly as harsh.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157647318200338/
Similar scene, just oof foilage, sunlight. Looks ok to me, not perfect but not ugly either.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7554/15688652102_4a96ddea65_b_d.jpg
Image by ricopress
am I the only one bothered by the swirlyness? I find it way more distracting than the nervous bokeh
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:35 PM
p.4 #15Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
Spyro P. wrote:
am I the only one bothered by the swirlyness? I find it way more distracting than the nervous bokeh
That's the part that I like!
am I the only one bothered by the swirlyness? I find it way more distracting than the nervous bokeh
That's the part that I like!
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:48 PM
p.4 #16Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
οh ok 
maybe that's why fuji chooses to "sacrifice" some rendering characteristics, because they are subjective and no matter what you do some people will hate it anyway.
(as opposed to sharpness, which everybody likes)
maybe that's why fuji chooses to "sacrifice" some rendering characteristics, because they are subjective and no matter what you do some people will hate it anyway.
(as opposed to sharpness, which everybody likes)
Dec 02, 2014 at 09:23 PM
p.4 #17Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
cope07 wrote:
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.
jcolwell wrote:
...No.
VR does screw up the bokeh in the Nikon 70-200. I only used VR on that lens when I actually needed it. The VR in the Fuji lenses is much more effective than in my old 70-200, my guess is that it has a greater impact on bokeh too.
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.
jcolwell wrote:
...No.
VR does screw up the bokeh in the Nikon 70-200. I only used VR on that lens when I actually needed it. The VR in the Fuji lenses is much more effective than in my old 70-200, my guess is that it has a greater impact on bokeh too.
Dec 02, 2014 at 10:41 PM
p.4 #18Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
I will take your experience but honestly how, logically, could vr affect bokeh?
wcowan wrote:
VR does screw up the bokeh in the Nikon 70-200. I only used VR on that lens when I actually needed it. The VR in the Fuji lenses is much more effective than in my old 70-200, my guess is that it has a greater impact on bokeh too.
wcowan wrote:
cope07 wrote
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.jcolwell wrote
...No.Dec 02, 2014 at 11:59 PM
p.4 #19Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
wcowan wrote:
VR does screw up the bokeh in the Nikon 70-200. I only used VR on that lens when I actually needed it. The VR in the Fuji lenses is much more effective than in my old 70-200, my guess is that it has a greater impact on bokeh too.
Wow, that's the first time I have heard of that. Could you provide some evidence?
cope07 wrote
... Also doesn't VR kind of screw with bokeh too?.jcolwell wrote
...No.Wow, that's the first time I have heard of that. Could you provide some evidence?
Dec 03, 2014 at 12:15 AM
p.4 #20Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever?
killersnowman wrote:
I will take your experience but honestly how, logically, could vr affect bokeh?
wcowan wrote:
Here is a good read on the problem.
http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm
and
http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html
I have noticed this problem in a few of my images using Nikon VR lenses, so kept VR off unless needed. Some lenses suffered more than others. My guess is that under some conditions, the stabilisation in the Fuji lens is quite destructive to the background.
That said, I have one on preorder and am not too concerned by what I see here. I will learn the lens to get the best out of it though.
Edited on Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27 AM · View previous versions
I will take your experience but honestly how, logically, could vr affect bokeh?
wcowan wrote:
Here is a good read on the problem.
http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm
and
http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html
I have noticed this problem in a few of my images using Nikon VR lenses, so kept VR off unless needed. Some lenses suffered more than others. My guess is that under some conditions, the stabilisation in the Fuji lens is quite destructive to the background.
That said, I have one on preorder and am not too concerned by what I see here. I will learn the lens to get the best out of it though.
Edited on Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27 AM · View previous versions
Dec 03, 2014 at 12:18 AM