best 50mm bokeh lens suggestions please!

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Olivier beat me to it. It's been years since I shot with a 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor, and I'd be hard pressed to figure out which of my images from then were taken with it. You can save a little bit of money if you buy an old one. Like this:

Click here to see on Ebay

Still not cheap, though. Another option would be to buy a Canon 55mm f/1.2 -- either FD or FL and have it converted to Nikon mount. You probably won't save any money having that done, though. In fact, you won't, unless you fall into a good deal on one. I just took a look at eBay for Canon 55/1.2s and amazingly enough they are just as expensive, if not more so, than Nikkors. Man-o-man, I'm glad I bought my FL 55/1.2 before all this craziness set in.

I have a few Canon FD 50/1.4's and one Nikkor 50/1.4. I tend to like the bokeh the Canons provide better. But OOF highlights can often form rather hard rings. E.g.,

Canon EOS XS (1000D), FD 50/1.4 @ f/1.4, FD-EOS adapter, corrective element in place.

If you don't have bright highlights to deal with, then the lens is great.

Canon EOS XS (1000D), FD 50/1.4 @ f/1.4, FD-EOS adapter, corrective element removed.

By the way, I find that my FL 55/1.2 behaves similarly with respect to OOF highlights. Maybe not hard rings, but definitely hard luminous disks. Me, I just don't worry about them. If I'm really going for smooth bokeh, I make sure there are no bright light sources or reflections in the background. Problem solved.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

rawhead · Expire: 2014-04-29

stonedes · Joined: 25 Feb 2010 Posts: 27

If your looking for one of the classic mf Nikon 50s, you'd be hardpressed to do better than the old Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 from the original Nikon F. They're not cheap, usually over $200. They have really lovely smooth bokeh, typical of the period. After this point, Nikon standard 50s weren't known for their quality of bokeh.

Other than that, the 50/2 in AI is an ok and affordable choice. The Nikkor 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 quite subjectively had the worst bokeh of any of the manufacturers of the period. Also a quite interesting idea would be a Helios 81N, based on the Biotar I think, and in AI mount.

And the folks that recommended the 50/1.4 G are right. Nikon has figured out that people want good bokeh. Its a great lens, but doesn't have the patina and character of the older lenses, so can't be considered Laughing

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The Helios-81H is damn cheap, I don't think it's a Biotar copy like the Helios-44 as it's a 50mm f2.

Here is one on ebay:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RUSSIAN-USSR-Lens-HELIOS-81H-2-58-SLR-/280792558586?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item41608a6bfa#ht_4517wt_1163

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

The 50mm f2 Nikkor S wasn't particularly good - but the Nikkor-H which followed it certainly was okay. I had the S version on a Nikkorex F. I think it was replaced around 1965.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

It was the H I had I seem to remember, with a aluminium-coloured part with the aperture scale on.

Mos6502 · Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin

Well it is a discussion of bokeh, so other qualities don't really enter into it much (I think).

Some of the lenses with the absolute smoothest bokeh are really pretty mediocre in most other respects.

For smooth bokeh few things come close to the Kodak VPK achromat, or the Bausch and Lomb rapid rectilinears - but those are hardly excellent lenses in all other respects. Wink

Here's some Macro Switar 1.8 bokeh: http://www.flickr.com/photos/toby_shu/4954352617/

It is hardly anything special. Heck it's actually kind of clumpy compared to what some of the lenses listed here will produce.

Summicron 50mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doistrakh/4280740432/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/madamasu/4160658705/

The double lining is pretty distinct. I don't think anybody would call it a bad lens, but if you want smooth bokeh, you can find something better than this.

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

Mos6502 · Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin

They are looking for a lens that gives the smoothest out of focus areas. So that should be considered above all other qualities when making a recommendation I would guess.

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

Mos6502 · Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin

Well this should be a very interesting and informative read then: http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

stonedes · Joined: 25 Feb 2010 Posts: 27

Fluffpuppy, you won't find a better definition for bokeh than the one Ken Rockwell wrote:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

It really is a mixture of art and science. A technically perfect lens typically does not give good bokeh. That is why as lenses got better, bokeh got worse. However, there are lenses today, usually portrait lenses, that are designed for good bokeh.

For me astigmatism, spherical aberration, and flare can be the bread of life. It is why we cherish old lenses. They each have their own character. Some of their faults can be corrected in PP, some can't. And most importantly, some faults we would never want to change.

gmonkman1 · Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject:

Seems to me that all this bokeh stuff is highly personal as far as good and bad.
Any lens is never perfect and reminds me of the saying " a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. "

We all have our favorite lens and while using it we will always learn to dance around
its perceived weakness , bokeh is one of those factors.
A discussion like this reminded of another saying ....." do not confuse me with the facts , my mind is made up."
Happy Holidays to all

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Regarding the much maligned Nikkor 43-86, I must state for the record that it did indeed find a niche following. While it has pretty much always been known as a lens that was never sharp at any aperture setting, it was just the right sort of lens for many portrait photographers. On the long end of 86mm, it was just the right focal length, and its unsharp qualities made it ideal for portraiture. Many subjects do not like seeing every pore in their skin when they see photos of themselves. And the 43-86 was just unsharp enough to have their dreams come true. Ah, vanity!

Mos6502 · Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin

Don't forget the counter intuitive mirror lock up, the anti-ergonomic shutter release, and the impossibility of changing the film while the camera was on a tripod. Wink

(also the Nikon F looks unusually similar to the Miranda C, but I'm sure this is purely coincidental Laughing

)

RioRico · Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:34 am Post subject:

goombles · Joined: 08 Apr 2010 Posts: 136 Location: UK

I don't own many manual focus lenses but I find the S-M-C Takumar to be a well balanced lens with nice bokeh (when not used at f/1.4)

Thanks for providing that website on bokeh (Mos6502). An interesting read, especially this part:

AhamB · Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany

Zeiss has the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 and I believe that Voigtländer has a very similar lens. They can be used on a Sony NEX, but rangefinder lenses aren't usable on a DSLR so they are not useful for the original poster.

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Going through my saved links and there might be something interesting here:-

http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html