AlanU wrote in post #18483903
55-200 has nervous Bokeh when you have high contrast backgrounds.
It’s a very sharp lens but it’s not ideal in all circumstances. You get what you pay for and it’s great value for what you get. Variable aperture is not allowing you to have full creative control.
Even the $$$$ 50-140 is not known to be the best zooms in the world of photography for bokeh.
I've personally always thought "nervous" was a bit of a silly word to use to describe the characteristics of a lens' bokeh, but I get what you're referring to. My question to you would be, have you actual used the 55-200mm or are you just regurgitating things you've heard about the lens? I spent a long time (as I do with every lens I buy) looking at people's pictures from the 55-200mm as well as reading reviews/opinions of the lens from people who owned it before I bought one. Rarely do I see images that I would consider to have distracting OOF areas, especially for a 70-300mm equivalent lens.IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LNqivC DSCF0876.jpg
In the monkey picture I just posted above, that's a pretty contrasty background. It's plywood with a dark grain, just a few feet behind the subject. For f4.7, I'd say it looks pretty darn good.
, on Flickr
To my eyes there's little wrong with how this lens renders a background in the majority of scenarios.
Absolutely no lens is "ideal in all circumstances". Full creative control depends on the photographer, not the lens. Knowing your tools and how to get the best out of them is what matters. To some (like me) the added range of an extra 100mm of reach is more useful than 2/3 a stop of aperture (less than that if you compare equivalent ranges).
I haven't looked at nearly as many photos from the 50-140mm as I have from the 55-200mm, but from what I've seen the vast majority of it's shots have a very pleasing OOF area as well, so I'm again not seeing your point. What a lens is "known" for doesn't really mean jack to me if I consistently observe otherwise. One of my favorite lenses, the XF 18mm is "known" as a mediocre lens, why should that sway my own experiences with it (and clearly there are plenty of other shooters out there who agree with me given the 18mm's popularity)?