50mm f/1.8 ugly brokeh

... very pleasing

ozziegrowl wrote in post #1221867
I took this using the 50m f/1.8

comments on the bokeh would be extremely welcome

Jman13 wrote in post #2789250
Why has this thread been resurrected 4 times? April 05 (orig)...then February 06, August 06, Dec 06 and Feb 07. ?

Why? Cause accusing the good old nifty is a sin!! hehehe. we all love it, for the price its the best glass out there.

Specially when the OP at that point of point spelt Bokeh as Brokeh!!

bokeh is down to the light sources and their intensities, you got ugly bokeh in the sun shot cos there was a load of small light sources there. also i think it depends on what your copies like.

asylumxl wrote in post #2790357
bokeh is down to the light sources and their intensities, you got ugly bokeh in the sun shot cos there was a load of small light sources there. also i think it depends on what your copies like.

That is certainly one of the reasons.
The other, however, is lens design (Re-read Rick Denneys very informative posts on the subject).

I have heard lots of people who said that their copy was good (sharp, precise AF) or bad (not-so-sharp, AF not spot-on), but a difference in bokeh was never mentioned.

Mind you ... I was certainly capable of getting very pleasant pictures out of my 50/1.8 MKI ... when I paid attention to backgrounds.
But I have a significantly higher 'keeper rate' with my 50/1.4, because I can forget about that one possible source of a flaw to an image.
(I have also got occasional images where the bokeh of the 50/1.4 was lacking, especially in backlit tree situations. But nowhere near the magnitude of the problem at the 50/1.8 )

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Somebody remind me to resurrect that thread in July 2007

people keep saying 50 1.4 is so much better than 50 1.8, but the same can be said of 50 1.2 L: 50 1.2 L is much better than 50 1.4; 50 1.4 just lacks that creamy bokeh L lenses have.

Andy_T wrote in post #2791319
PS: Somebody remind me to resurrect that thread in July 2007

someone did it for you...

tom s wrote in post #3607698
people keep saying 50 1.4 is so much better than 50 1.8, but the same can be said of 50 1.2 L: 50 1.2 L is much better than 50 1.4; 50 1.4 just lacks that creamy bokeh L lenses have.

The reason the 50/1.8 is said to have bad bokeh is because of the 5 blade aperture. I can't remember what the count on the 1.4 and 1.2 are... I think 8 blades? Anyways, a 5 blade aperture will make pentagons out of pin point light sources like street lights or reflections. Its not real flattering (on some photos).

As far as the 1.2L being better than the 50/1.4...IDK about that. For the enormous price jump, you probably are only getting marginially better corner brightness wide open, corner sharpness, and a better built body. The 50/1.4 is one hell of a lens, especially for what it costs.

asylumxl wrote in post #3607710
someone did it for you...

Leave it to the noobs.