Your number 1 bokeh prime lens??
- Thread starter wud
- Start date
Aroy - I made the same mistake in the beginning but the subject is about a "prime" lens and not a zoom lens.
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
For me, it has to be this one, the 50mm ƒ1.4 lens that I originally got with my F2.
Aside from the 18-55mm “kit lens” that came with my D3200, the only other lenses I have to use with it are this 50mm, a 28mm ƒ3.5 Nikkor, and an 85-205mm ƒ3.8 Vivitar zoom lens, all about equally ancient (c. late 1960s to early 1970s), all originally purchased to go with my F2. All of them are non-AI lenses. Nikon claims that non-AI lenses cannot be used with the D3200, but my three non-AI lenses, my D3200, and I, disagree with Nikon on this point.
I've made a couple of stencil disks to go on the front of this lens, to mess with the bokeh. One has a flower-shaped cutout, that makes flower-shaped bokeh…
The other has a heart-shaped cutout, to make heart-shaped bokeh…
I'll probably make other disks, to give other shapes to this lens' bokeh, as the mood takes me. So far, just the two.
I may have to do some experimenting with the 85-205 beyond what I have already done, to see if I can get some decent bokeh with it.
An interesting feature, with this lens, is how extremely-shallow I can get the depth of field. Here's a picture of my wife, giving me a “Don't you dare take my picture!” expression, taken from somewhere between six and ten feet away, with this lens at 205mm and ƒ3.8. Note that the tip of her nose in is sharp focus, and nothing else. I think I have less than an inch of depth of field in this shot.
From slightly farther away, same lens, same settings, this candy jar on a bookshelf. A few of the candies in the jar are in sharp focus, and again, nothing else. Still less than an inch of depth of field.
wud
Senior Member
Wow!? That's ... What? It looks like the dof are round instead of a straight line?? I love it! Show us more
Sent from Tapatalk
I totally agree with you on the topic, but cannot resist the temptation of posting good bokeh with the zoom. After all we who always associate good bokeh with prime lenses, should not forget that properly used the zooms can also give good bokeh. Any way the point is noted, amd I think we should start a new thread with "Bokeh with Zooms".
Englischdude
Senior Member
thats what I was thinking also, however, think my hands would also be shaking taking pics of panties hanging on the door
thats what I was thinking also, however, think my hands would also be shaking taking pics of panties hanging on the door
Same in my case - I would never be able to make money in porno busyness as a photographer (though I could give a quite nice performance as an actor, I believe
)...Englischdude
Senior Member
Haha, gives me an idea for a new "post your best" thread .......... dont think it will fly with admin though
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
The focus in all of my pictures posted above is exactly as I intended it to be. Note that the topic is bokeh, with some extension to depth of field. And bokeh is all about the parts of a picture that are outside the depth of field, and not in focus.
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
Wow!? That's ... What? It looks like the dof are round instead of a straight line?? I love it! Show us more
RE: My 85-205mm ƒ3.8 Vivitar…
I'm not sure this lens has a very flat plane of focus. I know that there are also some distortions that creep in, toward the edges of the image, at larger apertures.
Anyway, prompted by your “Show us more…” request, I just took this lens out and took a bunch of pictures, with an emphasis mostly on bokeh. With one exception, all of the pictures below were taken at ƒ3.8. With one, different exception (the side view of my car) all were taken at 205mm.
These two pictures were taken aƒ3.8 and ƒ22, to show the difference that the aperture makes…
Some other assorted images:
Judging on the extreme peripheral softness/fuzziness, I'd say something is wrong either with the lens or with the camera. Are you sure there isn't any oil on the aperture blades or some moisture on peripheral areas of the front/rear glass(es)? The photos of the cars reminded me of the so-called "vaseline" effect I used long ago (vaseline would have been applied to peripheral parts of a skylight or uv filter, with the center of it being kept clean)...
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
I don't know. Alas, I no longer have any of the picture that I took many, many years ago, with this lens on my F2. It sat idle for many years, until I got my D3200. Shortly thereafter, I did discover that there was a nasty smudge of something on one of the internal elements. I have no idea what it was, or how it got there, or how I ever took any decent pictures through it, many years ago, with my F2. I did figure out taking the lens apart enough to get at the affected element, to clean it. Whatever it was was very sticky, and amazingly difficult to clean off of the glass surface.
I took great care, when I disassembled this lens, to make sure every part was put back in exactly the same way that it came out. I did, however, encounter evidence that a previous owner had also disassembled this lens, and it's possible that that previous owner put something in backward.
Anyway, looking now through the lens, I don't see any sign of any smudges or other contamination consistent with what you speak of. A few specks of dust, but nothing more.
I did mention, above, that this lens produces some odd distortions toward the edges, at larger apertures. I can't say for sure if this was true back when I used it with my F2; but I would expect that it would have been more noticeable then, given the F2's full 35mm frame compare to my D3200's smaller DX-sized frame.
See the bright speck, toward the upper right in the pictures below. At ƒ3.8, it gets distorted into a sort of a “comet” shape, pointing toward the center.
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
I guess I might as well chime in with my remaining ancient lens:
I don't use this lens very much, and when I do, I'm not usually thinking much about bokeh. When I use this lens, I expect a lot of depth of field, and I expect most that is in the picture to be in focus.
Just now, I used it to take a picture specifically for the sake of bokeh. ƒ3.5, at a distance of slightly over a foot.
I do, of course, also have the stock 18-55mm lens that came with my D3200. I use it the vast majority of the time. I've actually had some pretty good bokeh shots using it.
I don't use this lens very much, and when I do, I'm not usually thinking much about bokeh. When I use this lens, I expect a lot of depth of field, and I expect most that is in the picture to be in focus.
Just now, I used it to take a picture specifically for the sake of bokeh. ƒ3.5, at a distance of slightly over a foot.
I do, of course, also have the stock 18-55mm lens that came with my D3200. I use it the vast majority of the time. I've actually had some pretty good bokeh shots using it.
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
Yes. Morning dew. I was arriving at school, just as the sun was about to rise. This was a narrow grass median strip in the parking lot, with the dew on the grass. I crouched down low to get this shot, just as the sun peeked over the horizon in the background of this shot.
The image makes you think you're looking across a vast field of grass. Actually, the camera is looking across a narrow strip of grass, about three feet wide.
Last edited:
