moony16
Forum Enthusiast
Please see my response to Lance B. Looking @ samples is the only way I know to ID bokeh. jt
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Anything special about 400/2.8 bokeh that 500/4 don't have?
- Thread starter jeminijoseph
- Start date
larrywilson
Veteran Member
Several people who have used the 500 and 400 have provided input. All I see in your comment is generalizations and really no real information. There are people who shoot with the lenses over 300mm so their expertise is valuable. I do agree a person has to know when the background is going to look ugly due to lighting, incorrect settings and other factors to come up with an excellent image. It takes time with long lenses and years of experience.
Larry
I am not disagreeing, but it is still background and lighting dependant. Yes, some will handle it better than others, but that's not what I am getting at or what I said, is it?
--
Lance B
Galleries by Lance B
www.pbase.com
The photo above was taken with the 400. I think the reeds are a bit busy, but it's probably more the background than the lens. I don't think the 500 would be better, but I would wait until the new 500 comes onto the marlet before making any pronouncements as to whether it's bokeh is better or not.
--
Lance B
Galleries by Lance B
www.pbase.com
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
I'm well satisfied by looking the pics I've taken that the 400Vr at f 2.8 can have really bad, shot-spoiling bokeh slightly in front or in back of the subject. The lens is extremely sharp but not perfect. It is what it is and the only cure is to stop it down when the bad bokeh manifests itself. Any questions?
larrywilson
Veteran Member
Reilly, hows the weather up there? Its drier than a bone and hotter than &^%$ here in western Oregon. I'm giving up on birding for a while until the weather cools and it rains, if ever.
All the Nikon long prime lenses are excellent, just need experience in running them to come up with excellent images with decent background.
By the way I like your Heron, need more complex background with a few light spots in it :-D
Larry
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Hi Larry,
I'm only thirty miles from downtown Portland on the Washington side, high up in the Cascade foothills. And yes it is dry!
I should probably sit this one out, because I've used all the big primes and with the advent of the 300PF plus 1.4 with its stellar image quality when clicked onto either my D800e or D7200, I no longer have any interest in lugging around the big guns. The 300PF rig is plenty sharp enough even for a fur and feather detail addict such as myself. Did I mention it's light as a feather? If I can't get close enough to get a decent shot with 420mm plus DX framing, the heck with it!
Rufous
The 300PF bokeh is superb except specular highlights when backlit. That I can live with :^)
Guidenet
Forum Pro
I agree. Also being a feather detail, skin texture and eye glint guy, that 300 pf with converter seems to be pretty good.
Some people have a peculiar talent for bringing out the worst in lenses. That would definitely qualify as magic.
Enjoy the overcorrected spherical aberration: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55022866
Enjoy the overcorrected spherical aberration: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55022866
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum