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

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.

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

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?

"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

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

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.

"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

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.

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