Bokeh comparison between Sigma, Otus and Nikkor 58mm

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
HSway
Senior MemberPosts: 2,690
Like?
Re: OOF blur?
In reply to _sem_, 6 months ago

_sem_ wrote:

HSway wrote:

_sem_ wrote:

Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

Hi,

What do you guys think of below? Note that these are taken from lenstip.com and are actually meant to show longitudinal chromatic aberration.

I think that the Nikkor's rendition of background is particularly interesting.

Many comments on the nominal fuzziness, but not so much on the OOF blur. Both 10s on the scale (foreground and background) look less blurred with the 58mm than with the other two.

This is from Sato:

"Nikon calls a photographic lens that is superior for natural depth reproduction of three-dimensional subjects "a threedimensionally high-fidelity lens". To realize this, we are making every effort not only to improve resolution and contrast at the focused plane, but also to enhance depth reproduction utilizing natural transition of bokeh from a sharply focused point, to a slightly blurred point, then a fully blurred point. ...

Okay... but let's be careful with the marketing speech and try to figure out what this could mean in the images presented. Definitely Lensalign images are not one's idea of beauty, but I believe they are among best currently available to assess bokeh properties, considering that one rarely sees more relevant comparisons in controlled conditions. Eventhough such a test is more relevant to macro bokeh properties than portrait ones, where a range of longer bokeh distances (away from the plane of focus) is more relevant.

I wanted to comment that the OOF areas look less blurred with the 58mm. If I saw these images without annotations, I'd guess the 58mm was stopped down more than the other two!? Do you think the distance of 10s on the Lensalign falls into the "slightly blurred" region, while a "fully blurred" one falls outside the chart?

Yes I am sure we are looking at the result of the long consecutive transition phase of the blur, longer and more finely phased than usual thus projected over a longer distance in its effect. I see this in the pictures, I mean photographs, and recognize the specificity of this lens in that regard. Relation of this behaviour, okay feature, to various distances and its desirability will be open to experience, opinions and one’s own preference. More rapidly developing blur can be found more attractive and preferred in some instances or overall - and vice versa. I like it in the images but realize that first, there is many factors that make a particular image (let’s not reduce it suddenly to one property we just concentrate on), second, that it depends very much on a particular point of view. That’s why I talk about the differences and not about a superiority. Acknowledging the differences is sometimes more important and that’s, I reckon, the bottom line of things when it comes to 58/1.4G.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow