It should be and easy experiment. Shoot a scene with VR/IS/OS "on" then shoot it with stabilization "off". See if there is a difference in bokeh. My bet is that there will not be or this would have been a well recognized phenomena by now. But, I have not looked so I cannot be sure.
The effect might depend on how much shake is being corrected so it's probably not as simple as shooting with and then without OS.
I will probably test the 50-140/2.8 tomorrow. Don't how long I will have the lens but I'll do some tests. Try reproduce the bokeh nervousness and try shooting the same scene with OS turned off. If I have time I will compare it to my 55-200.
Rico's images look pretty good to me. Not amazing, but way better than the first set posted in this thread. I should get a copy for review early next week, so I'll have lots of samples to post.
Basically, if you are careful with the background, this lens seems to do a fine job. It is not going to "melt away" a busy background like some other lenses might, though.
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.
Jman13 wrote:
Rico's images look pretty good to me. Not amazing, but way better than the first set posted in this thread. I should get a copy for review early next week, so I'll have lots of samples to post.
Basically, if you are careful with the background, this lens seems to do a fine job. It is not going to "melt away" a busy background like some other lenses might, though.
Do you have the 55-250 to compare it to?
That's what I currently have, the 55-250.
I wanted to get this 2.8 for indoor rodeos.
The 55-250 was not so great, but then to be fair, I only have an X-E1 body, so that made it REAL slow.
Shrug, still got some good shots, but missed a LOT of opportunity ones.
Maybe one day I'll get to update my Fuji body, but the X-PRO2 is sadly looking to be to little and too late to compete with the Sony gear.
Jman13 wrote:
Rico's images look pretty good to me. Not amazing, but way better than the first set posted in this thread. I should get a copy for review early next week, so I'll have lots of samples to post.
55-200? Yes. Mine is brilliantly sharp, so the 50-140 will need to be pretty exceptional. The 55-200 focuses pretty quickly on the X-T1, and even tracks pretty well in good light.
Steve - in that set, I don't see any shots with terrible bokeh. That set looks quite good to me. Like several other lenses, it seems this lens isn't a cream machine, but will really depend on focal length and subject distance as to some sweet spots vs some really bad spots.
Jman13 wrote:
Steve - in that set, I don't see any shots with terrible bokeh. That set looks quite good to me. Like several other lenses, it seems this lens isn't a cream machine, but will really depend on focal length and subject distance as to some sweet spots vs some really bad spots.
Exactly.
Dec 04, 2014 at 09:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Jman13 wrote:
Steve - in that set, I don't see any shots with terrible bokeh. That set looks quite good to me. Like several other lenses, it seems this lens isn't a cream machine, but will really depend on focal length and subject distance as to some sweet spots vs some really bad spots.
I agree that focal length and subject distance are certainly going to matter and of course bokeh is always a matter of preference. The one's I don't like in that set are the second one particularly over her shoulder to our left, the Vancouver Christmas Market sign that is quite edgy to my eye, and the shot after that in which she is holding the cup. (Particularly to our left of the Pom-Pom on her hat), but these things might not bother others or hit their eye in the same way.
Looking through the various examples posted/linked here, my feeling is that processing will have a significant influence on the perception of background rendering. While the lens is not a 'buttery smooth' one, it also doesn't benefit from high contrast scenes processed with high contrast enhancing PP settings.
The processing of the first image in the first post is very strong/harsh, which just makes the background that much more pronounced. The kids/Christmas scenes are handled much better and in fact are just SOOC according to the photographer. Olaf's also don't look over processed.
The rendering of the Vancouver Christmas Market sign, as well as the electrical poles in the one OOF street photo could also be influenced by PP... Enough highlight recovery slider use, as well as playing around with the colour hue/saturation/luminance sliders in LR (or equivalent) can exaggerate these kinds of transitions. This is also where Fuji's in-camera processing might come into play. In other Fuji images I've seen, colours can sometimes look heavily applied with strange transitions due to enhancement/exaggeration by the chosen film profile. Fuji's in-camera processing also seems to like enhancing local contrast transitions to imply greater sharpness, which can bleed over into areas where things are somewhat out of focus, but not blown out of focus, lending to a harder edge to an otherwise out of focus area.
The quality of the OOF specular light sources in the later review images don't show much, if any, bright ring effect that implies overcorrection in the optical design. But something that bugs me is the apparently massive degree of mechanical vignetting causing 'cats eyes' far into the central region of the frame.
I had the lens for during lunch earlier today and will post some images when I'm back from work. I took some test shots of tree branches and did not notice anything distracting to my eye. First impression of the lens is great, both handling and look of the images.
My copy arrived yesterday.
Did a few test shots in the kitchen this morning to get a feel for auto focus and handling.
Here is a shot of my cat. He is about 4 feet from the the front of the lens. Coffee mug is about 6 inches in front of him and the chair is about 4 feet behind him.
Handheld, 1/60, ISO 800 wide open. (OIS works)
Camera JPG, resized using Mac Preview.
My take, the lens is sharp, OIS is good, and Bohek is far from "ugly".
I'll have my review copy tomorrow. Of course will be shooting a lot with it and will definitely examine bokeh and I'll also do a head to head against the 55-200.
I can't do a direct comparison, but I will try and get some similar shots. I just finished reviewing the Oly and have the Fuji coming today, so I can certainly give my impressions on that front.
you2 wrote:
I wonder how this lens compares aginst the olympus 40-150f2.8. Not quite a fair comparison because one is designed for a smaller sensor but still....
