How good is the bokeh on Nikkor Series E pancake lenses

S

Steve M.

Veteran
Local time
5:44 PM
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,378
I bought a little Nikon FG SLR and need a lens for it. My usual route w/ the FG and EM's is to go w/ the early non AI H 50 2 lenses (which need to be ai'd for the later cameras), but the 50 1.8 pancake lenses are so much more compact.

Has anyone here used the 50 pancake lens? Normal Nikon bokeh can be a little nervous/edgy, while the H 50 lenses give buttery smooth backgrounds.
 
The 50/1.8 E has more of that edgy Nikon look.

It’s more or less the same as the 50/1.8 AI.

The 50/2.0 H is the buttery best of the slow 50’s

I have all three. I prefer the H. The size of the E is great.

Get a 50/1.8 E MKII with the rubber focus ring if you decide to try it.
 
A long way back a friend of mine had an EM with the full line of of lens, E series, 28, 35, 50 and 100, all were very sharp and the 100 2.8 was especially fine, the E series glass is very fine indeed
 
People like me P00-pooed the series E glass when it came out. It was plastic, never last, questionable optics.

Can't speak for the others, but I was wrong.

Don't forget the 70-150/3.5, just a touch slower than the 100/2.8 and only slightly bigger.

Boy was I wrong.

B2 (;->
 
Thank for the feedback. As convenient as the small size of the pancake lens would be, I don't think I can live w/ "normal" bokeh, as I like to take the occasional B&W flower pic. There's no scanner here anymore and no way to print digitized images anyway, so it's wet prints or nothing. I'll get another H 50 2.
 
I didn't find anything wrong with 50 E bokeh. But it was kind of not something I liked on prints. Kiev SLR f mount 50/2 lens was superior to it and to many RF 50mm lenses I owned.
 
50E version II (silver ring)
tumblr_ppzk9iQeEX1tum3hno6_500.jpg


Pictures from all my Nikon 50mm lenses.
 
Nobody cares about "bokeh" except wonks. This is especially true of focal lengths 50mm and shorter. "Bokeh" is simply used to draw attention to the subject. Only amateur photographers concern themselves with bokeh in this range. Normal -- wide focal lengths aren't about that. If you want to blow out the background into a painterly abstract mess of colors, close focus at 85mm+ and don't worry about how fast the lens is. Nearly any aperture will suffice and any lens in that range will do. Get a cheap off-brand 135/2.8. Sears, JC Penny, "Imado", Spiraton, Vivitar, Tokina -- whatever, off the auction site. Nobody bids on them. Bokeh city, all.
 
Nikon Series E

Nikon Series E

When they were introduced, the "E" lenses got a bad rap, primarily because Nikon went out of its way to label them as economy lenses not worthy of the Nikkor name. The all plastic build in an age where men were men and Nikkors were brass didn't improve their image any. They are not mulricoated, so contrast may take a hit. Some are good (the 50mm and 35mm), a few are great 100mm 70-150 zoom), and some should have been delivered from the factory to the dump (28mm, truly the worst). Looking at some of the dross Nikon as since sold, Most of them look pretty good now.
 
NickTrop said:
Nobody cares about "bokeh" except wonks. This is especially true of focal lengths 50mm and shorter. "Bokeh" is simply used to draw attention to the subject. Only amateur photographers concern themselves with bokeh in this range. Normal -- wide focal lengths aren't about that. If you want to blow out the background into a painterly abstract mess of colors, close focus at 85mm+ and don't worry about how fast the lens is. Nearly any aperture will suffice and any lens in that range will do. Get a cheap off-brand 135/2.8. Sears, JC Penny, "Imado", Spiraton, Vivitar, Tokina -- whatever, off the auction site. Nobody bids on them. Bokeh city, all.
Click to expand...


Well, the background in the picture above your post, by Petronius, looks odd to me. But that may be mostly due to the stripes and/or an unluck distance. I think that most lenses can deliver good-looking oof backgrounds and worse ones, depending on distance, background, lighting, aperture etc. and in the big picture it doesn't matter much, it hardly makes or breaks an image.
However if one has the choice between similar lenses, all sharp and affordable, it's a criterion as good as any.
 
retinax said:
Well, the background in the picture above your post, by Petronius, looks odd to me. But that may be mostly due to the stripes and/or an unluck distance. I think that most lenses can deliver good-looking oof backgrounds and worse ones, depending on distance, background, lighting, aperture etc. and in the big picture it doesn't matter much, it hardly makes or breaks an image.
However if one has the choice between similar lenses, all sharp and affordable, it's a criterion as good as any.
Click to expand...

Partially agree, partially disagree. "Bokeh" is an overblown "photographic internet" thing hyped up by the numerous photo sites, blogs etc. Nobody cared about this years ago -- maybe portrait photographers. If shooting hand-held candids and grab shots having nice "bokeh" has more to do with what's being thrown out of focus as the lens. Traditional primes have similar optical formulas. The bokeh will be the same.

And again, "creamy bokeh" has more to do with focal lengths (longer) and subject distance (closer).

To the OP -- if you want the 50 E, just get it. It will have the same bokeh as any other 50. If you like it, keep it. If you don't like it, sell it for probably around the same price you bought it. No loss save a little hassle if you resell. I never owned this particular lens but it has its little following. All 50's have their little following. Hardly ever heard of a bad one and they're all effectively the same lens.
 
NickTrop said:
And again, "creamy bokeh" has more to do with focal lengths (longer) and subject distance (closer).
Click to expand...


That would be the degree of blurring or defocusing or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read anyone on this well-educated forum refer to that as "bokeh". Bokeh is the quality of the defocused areas or, some people say, the quality of the the transition.
 
I have had the E-Series lenses 50 and 100 mm and I have had the AI 50 mm and the 105 2.5... In comparing them the E lenses are very slightly muddier colors and not quite as clear or bright as the Nikkors... it's just as cheap to go with the Nikkors and it really is the better path. My opinion

Bokeh is about the same amongst them all... The 105 being the best. Well known for it too
 
retinax said:
That would be the degree of blurring or defocusing or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read anyone on this well-educated forum refer to that as "bokeh". Bokeh is the quality of the defocused areas or, some people say, the quality of the the transition.
Click to expand...

I have never read any professionaly written photography book, professionally produced photographic website, or other media that makes the distinction you describe. They all call it bokeh.

Example:
https://photographylife.com/how-to-obtain-maximum-bokeh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom