Bokeh of the 17-55mm f/2.8

[chanjyj]

Would like to know how you all find the bokeh of this lens based on the below shot and not it's reputation ! (take note of the mirror and bumper area of the 3 Tonner)?
I am no bokeh expert, and would like to see what you experts think (especially psycho who plays with carl zeiss everyday )

[The Dry Box]

It looks great imo. There is no harshness in the background and the subject stands out very well.

[edited] OOPS, didn't see the word expert there =D

[Goondoo]

Is that color noise on the tyre?

[chanjyj]

Originally Posted by Goondoo Is that color noise on the tyre?

Do not think so.

[iamblurblur]

frankly the bokeh does look a bit like what 16-85 will produce which i did not expect it to happen on the "pro grade" 17-55.

[0200903C]

From your EXIF, u were shooting at 17mm, can't really expect much from bokeh at that focal length. How about shooting at 55mm at f2.8.

[iamblurblur]

Originally Posted by iamblurblur frankly the bokeh does look a bit like what 16-85 will produce which i did not expect it to happen on the "pro grade" 17-55.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-n...3556vr?start=1

does this bokeh looks familiar? IMHO think 17-55 looks better but still... like i've said... never expected to see this in a pro grade glass lens...

[chanjyj]

Was shot at 17mm on purpose - the reason? I see one of the lens diaphragm blades slightly "out" at 17mm and was wondering if the bokeh I see here is due to that.

However, I still see circles in the highlight areas (3 Tonner mirror and bumper), no sign of the odd blade.

Wanted to see if anyone could spot anything; and wondering if it was worth bringing to Nikon to repair (I mean, if it doesn't affect anything serious, who cares about the odd blade? The cost may not be worth the benefit) Thought maybe my eyes just not so sharp after shooting for a few continous days.

Seems like nobody saw anything either. Weird. *scratch head*

[scaredcloud]

Originally Posted by chanjyj Was shot at 17mm on purpose - the reason? I see one of the lens diaphragm blades slightly "out" at 17mm and was wondering if the bokeh I see here is due to that. However, I still see circles in the highlight areas (3 Tonner mirror and bumper), no sign of the odd blade. Wanted to see if anyone could spot anything; and wondering if it was worth bringing to Nikon to repair (I mean, if it doesn't affect anything serious, who cares about the odd blade? The cost may not be worth the benefit) Thought maybe my eyes just not so sharp after shooting for a few continous days. Seems like nobody saw anything either. Weird. *scratch head*

But the odd blade u saw should be at stopped down instead of 2.8?
Maybe at 2.8 it is rounder?
or u r actually refering to blade shape at 2.8?
I know mine is similiar
and even my 85 1.4 also got odd blade when stopped down.
Never bother, thought it's a norm...

[chanjyj]

Originally Posted by scaredcloud But the odd blade u saw should be at stopped down instead of 2.8? Maybe at 2.8 it is rounder? or u r actually refering to blade shape at 2.8? I know mine is similiar and even my 85 1.4 also got odd blade when stopped down. Never bother, thought it's a norm...

Odd blade when at f/2.8, not stopped down.

It may be normal for the cheaper lenses to have a slight variation, but for more expensive lenses it is abit weird to see this.

Anyway how do you find the bokeh here?

[chanjyj]

Nobody has any comments? To OT abit, anyone in the same situation as me before?

[giantcanopy]

U saying one of the blades is stuck and doesn move with changes in aperture ?
You can use the dof preview button to check at different aperture if that blade does not move.

If it is really stuck, might be because of some leakin grease though it is the first time i heard of a G lens with this issue. A CLA by Nikon should fix it with a price.

Ryan

[chanjyj]

This is the blade out of shape. Strangely, it is not 1 blade in particular. as you turn the lens 360 degrees around, the each of the blades will fall into this position. I wonder what is the problem.

Manufacturing defect?
When I free I will bring down to NPS.

[chanjyj]

Nobody has had this issue before?

I must be one unlucky person to get this
Maybe I wack my lens around too much.

[alant]

Is that shot of the lens wide open at f/2.8? Any shots of it step down to f/22?

[mogwai]

Originally Posted by alant Is that shot of the lens wide open at f/2.8? Any shots of it step down to f/22?

to save TS answering this sort of questions

-> EXIF Summary: 1/500s f/2.8 ISO100 17mm (35mm eq:25mm)


to ts:

i honestly thought the bokeh was fine until you revealed the 'fallen out' diaphragm blade.

perhaps better seen with a shot against the sun through some branches (leafy ones) at max focal length - trying to force many many ball-balls of light

however, i predict most of us won't be able to spot the blade in the bokeh. i could be wrong though.

your choice, do more test or go to nsc.

[fatigue]

Looks fine to me. I have seen lenses that does not perfectly open at max aperture.

It would be difficult to see the effect of this blade out of shape just by looking at the bokeh.

[chanjyj]

Originally Posted by alant Is that shot of the lens wide open at f/2.8? Any shots of it step down to f/22?

The picture of the diaphragm is when the lens is at f/2.8.

However, if you are asking about the lens that I used to take the picture of the open diaphragm, no, it is not wide open.

[chanjyj]

Originally Posted by mogwai to save TS answering this sort of questions -> EXIF Summary: 1/500s f/2.8 ISO100 17mm (35mm eq:25mm) to ts: i honestly thought the bokeh was fine until you revealed the 'fallen out' diaphragm blade. perhaps better seen with a shot against the sun through some branches (leafy ones) at max focal length - trying to force many many ball-balls of light however, i predict most of us won't be able to spot the blade in the bokeh. i could be wrong though. your choice, do more test or go to nsc.

I have done that before. I still cannot spot the difference. Furthurmore. light sources themselves are never perfectly round, so it is hard to judge anything.

Then for the first picture, if the bokeh of the MID MB 290 and 3 Tonner is considered bad, and it is not because of the diagphram, then.. are you telling me that the 17-55mm has bad bokeh? Scary for a pro lens.

Personally, I find it acceptable though. However, people with more discerning eyes may not agree. And clients, may not agree though I have yet to encounter a client who talks about "bad bokeh in your photos"

[LazerLordz]

I've a 50mm F1.4 AIS that's got a similar bokeh as your image.

Now, I'm no technical person when it comes to these things, but I do know that the blades do not always form a perfect circle when you look at them closed.