If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0800, M-M wrote
(in article ): A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100. Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed? Am I missing something? One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens; much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh.. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:06:09 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0800, M-M wrote (in article ): A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100. Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed? Am I missing something? One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens; much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh.. I am a newbie here. What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
Bill wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:06:09 -0800, C J Campbell wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0800, M-M wrote (in article ): A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100. Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed? Am I missing something? One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens; much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh.. I am a newbie here. What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. Thanks. It's a term that refers to the quality and characteristics of background (or foreground) blur in an image with limited depth of field. When you intentionally blur the background of a close-up, for example, you usually want blurred elements to render smoothly, and without strangely shaped highlights--which can show up as oddly shaped blobs, or even rings (with mirror lenses). -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Jan 30, 4:06 pm, C J Campbell wrote:
One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens; much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh.. -- Nikon's web page on the 85mm f/1.8 http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ.../af_85mmf_18d/ index.htm says "Number of Diaphragm Blades: 9 (rounded)" Many posts that compare the two Nikon 85mm lenses refer to the rounded blades of the f/1.4 as an advantage over the f/1.8. Is Nikon's web site in error? Do both lenses have rounded blades but the f/1.4's are somehow more rounded? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
... Bill wrote: What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior, and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use Nikkors. Well, Rita is right that Canon lenses aren't known for their bokeh. But neither are Nikkors: there are a few Nikkors with very good bokeh - the 105mm and (for a zoom) the 75-150mm E, for example - but in general Nikon doesn't optimise designs for bokeh either, and some Nikkors have terrible bokeh. Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
In article , M-M
wrote: In article . com, "pixel_a_ted" wrote: Nikon's web page on the 85mm f/1.8 http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ.../af_85mmf_18d/ index.htm says "Number of Diaphragm Blades: 9 (rounded)" Many posts that compare the two Nikon 85mm lenses refer to the rounded blades of the f/1.4 as an advantage over the f/1.8. Is Nikon's web site in error? Do both lenses have rounded blades but the f/1.4's are somehow more rounded? How many blades in the 1.4? It seems the # of blades, not the fact they are rounded makes the expense. Seems to me with fewer blades, you get a polygon shaped pupil; more blades makes a more rounded pupil. Which is actually the point of rounding them - thus, even though they create a polygon, the edges of said polygon is not made up of straight lines, but rather, curves, so the entire circumference is therefore more rounded for the same number of blades than it would be with straight blades. Increasing the number of blades to "round" the polygon down is its own can o' worms. -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:56:01 -0500, Bill wrote:
Am I missing something? One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens; much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh.. I am a newbie here. What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. Thanks. It is what used to be called (30/40 years ago) the 'drawing' of the lens. -- Neil Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
... Bill wrote: What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior, and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use Nikkors. Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and a couple of the limited series for bokeh and overall quality before I'd consider Nikon and even Canon. Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication. -S |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Jan 30, 8:32 pm, M-M wrote:
In article . com, "pixel_a_ted" wrote: Nikon's web page on the 85mm f/1.8 http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ.../af_85mmf_18d/ index.htm says "Number of Diaphragm Blades: 9 (rounded)" Many posts that compare the two Nikon 85mm lenses refer to the rounded blades of the f/1.4 as an advantage over the f/1.8. Is Nikon's web site in error? Do both lenses have rounded blades but the f/1.4's are somehow more rounded? How many blades in the 1.4? It seems the # of blades, not the fact they are rounded makes the expense. Seems to me with fewer blades, you get a polygon shaped pupil; more blades makes a more rounded pupil. -- m-m Nikon's web site shows the exact same blade description for the f/1.4 and f/1.8: nine and rounded. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:56:01 -0800, Bill wrote
(in article ): On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:06:09 -0800, C J Campbell wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0800, M-M wrote (in article ): A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100. Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed? Am I missing something? One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens; much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh.. I am a newbie here. What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. Thanks. It is difficult to quantify, but it refers to the smoothness with which out of focus parts of the picture are rendered. Lenses with more blades in the diaphragm or rounded blades will tend to have better bokeh. Your main subject stands out better against a plain background. Blobs of light, dots, rings, polygons, etc., in your out of focus areas are distracting at best. The first time I heard of bokeh was on this group. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
About expensive lenses | David Dyer-Bennet | Digital Photography | 30 | February 4th 07 07:55 PM |
About expensive lenses | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | January 30th 07 10:01 PM |
About expensive lenses | Mark² | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 07 08:50 PM |
About expensive lenses | Ernie Willson | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 07 07:52 PM |
Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 97 | March 1st 05 11:17 AM |