Distortion Issues

[480sparky]

I know what bokeh is. I am most definitely referring to distortion. Those trees are starting to bow ever so slightly.

We can't see that because we don't know what the trees really look like.

 

[Jeff15]

I am glad you guys have this one sorted, I could not see any problems...........

 

[The_Traveler]

Perhaps the appearance of trees bending is caused by the dark area at the left margin?

IMO, the latter two are quite lovely; the first less so because of the foreground covering their feet.
Also, IMO, the second one is best; a very, very nice shot. clean sharp well composed, showing a sweet moment.

I do think it is a bit cold, a small amount under-exposed and with a tiny green tinge. (on my monitor) and could also use a bit of red to give good skin tones and glow to hair
original on left

 

[dxqcanada]

I know what bokeh is. I am most definitely referring to distortion. Those trees are starting to bow ever so slightly.

Thom Hogan, in his review does mention:
"Linear distortion is low, less than 0.25%. I’d tend to ignore it. The distortion isn’t regular, by the way. It’s a very minor mustache (central barrel, corners pincushion)."

 

[JBPhotog]

This particular lens has less than ideal bokeh in my opinion.

This lens has what I would call "nervous" or "jittery" bokeh. Sounds like you just found that excuse you were looking for to buy new glass!

Huh? Um the Nikkor 105mm F1.4 E has probably the best bokeh of the entire lens lineup with close competition between the Nikkor 200mm F2.0 AF-S. There is no “nervous” bokeh in this lens, it is buttery smooth and razor sharp wide open across the frame.

Bokeh refers to the out of focus areas in front of and behind the point of focus, every lens has it, some render it better than others. The “cat eye” shaped bokeh highlights are a characteristic of lens design and relate to the incident angle of the highlight relative to the optical path.

 

[Solarflare]

Bokeh is of course decided primarily by the optics, and hardly by the aperture at all.

For example you cant get swirly Bokeh like that from a Petzval lens with using any kind of aperture.

Håkon
Bokeh Porno 1
Flying without wings

Especially the aperture only matters if you stop down. Wide open all apertures are perfectly round anyway. And if you stop down, yes then the aperture changes how the Bokeh looks like, but primarily this affects the look of the Bokeh balls. Catseye Bokeh as from the Nikkor 105/1.4E are however not caused by the aperture, but again by the optics.

The Nikkor 105/1.4E is possibly the only lens ever that can literally give me seasickness with its especially ugly variant of Bokeh. It has some swirlyness to it like a Petzval, but the effect is not clear enough to actually turn into a real effect, it just makes me uncomfortable. I also dont like anything else about the output of that lens either. No idea what the people who designed this lens though. "People only care about sharpness, lack of CAs, and autofocus speed, lets make a lens that does exactly that ... and absolutely nothing else" ? As lensrentals has shown, its also pretty cheaply made, too.

The best bokeh from a Nikkor, well, theres a TON of candidates for that, and ultimately Bokeh is about personal taste, subjective. And given the situation, a lens with a very unique Bokeh, like a Petzval, a mirror lens, a trioplan can be used for great effect. As a general rule of thumb, however, I prefer the painterly background you can get from something like an AF 105mm f2 DC.

 

[ORourkeK]

Thank you all for your wisdom. I will post a better example when I get one.

@The_Traveler - Nice edit. I haven't gotten around to doing a full session edit yet but that is spot on. Also, glad to see you back on the forum.

 

[Soocom1]

I know what bokeh is. I am most definitely referring to distortion. Those trees are starting to bow ever so slightly.

It took me a while to see what your seeing, but believe it or not, I actually see it now.
The consistency of the direction of the trees does not look natural.
The boke actually exaggerates it.

the only answer I could provide is to do a check with the same model but different lens.
Ergo, go find another copy of your lens and shoot side by side.

I had something similar many many years ago in the film days and thought I was nuts when I shot exactly the same picture as a guy standing next to me and when developed looked wired.
We were both shooting Minoltas, I had a Maxxum 3000, he had a Maxxum 500si and both of us had Quantarey 75-200 lenses. Both shooting balloons at the Abq. Int. Balloon Fiesta.

Mine were badly distorted and it turned out to be a faulty second optic. The internals of the lens were out of shape and caused a misalignment of the glass. We both had the photos process at the same place and laughed about it when we ran into each other at the Ritz shop.

When i took the lens to a shop to have checked out, we tested them and then compared. (It was a Saturday morning and they wanted to check to see if it was the optics.) We spent two hours shooting two rolls of film and developing them. the end result was that they took the lens apart and found the glass out of position. because I purchased the lens at that shop, they switched it out.

I wound up several years later spending the money on a highly used and very ugly 300mm G lens to replace it.

 

[ORourkeK]

@Soocom1 Thank you! I feel less crazy now. I will go to my local store and have them check it out. Hopefully, I have an easier time explaining the situation to them.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon 105mm f/1.4E AF-S ED | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

 

[JBPhotog]

I own this lens and find it simply amazing. If there is any interest in seeing exactly what this lens can do, check out this thread on FredMiranda, Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED Image Thread

Additionally for a details article on bokeh see this, Understanding Bokeh

 

[ORourkeK]

@JBPhotog I don't believe anyone is questioning the performance of the lens? And sorry if I have not made it clear yet, but Bokeh is not what I was referring to. Someone else mentioned it and I misunderstood what they were saying. Again, the issue is 100 percent with distortion. The article that Derrel linked, and that Dennis had quoted from, is a very good read about the issue I am discussing.

 

[ORourkeK]

Some incredible photos in that thread, by the way!

 

[JBPhotog]

@JBPhotog I don't believe anyone is questioning the performance of the lens? And sorry if I have not made it clear yet, but Bokeh is not what I was referring to. Someone else mentioned it and I misunderstood what they were saying. Again, the issue is 100 percent with distortion. The article that Derrel linked, and that Dennis had quoted from, is a very good read about the issue I am discussing.

The 105mm F1.4 E has very little distortion, by Thom's testing 0.25% other sites suggest pincushion distortion less than 1%. That being said the "distortion" you are seeing has more to due with bokeh than actual optical distortion. The term used is swirly bokeh as the circles of confusion get ovalized at the edges of the frame due to optical design, your image #1 shows this very clearly and may be mistaken for optical distortion. I might suggest you shoot a grid or a brick wall and see how much distortion you have.

 

[Braineack]

In the first one, I feel like the trees look like they are starting to spin. Particularly in the top left of the image.

the cat-eye bokeh balls are one of the characteristics of this lens...