Zoom v. prime?

[o hey tyler]

Yeah. I am not sure I'd ever choose anything in the 17-35mm range for it's Bokeh.

35 f/1.4L has some pretty nice OOF areas.

 

[unpopular]

well, yeah. A lot of 35's do. But what about 20's?

 

[baturn]

This entire thread can be summed up as "buy what works for you"

 

[kundalini]

well, yeah. A lot of 35's do. But what about 20's?

I can only speak for the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, but IMO it's up to snuff for rendering OOF backgrounds. It has a 7 bladed diaphram and only weighs 9.5oz.

Examples: Both shot at f/2.8 and at minimum focusing distance (26cm)

#1 - The Dwarf Spruce Pine in the background is only 8" behind the flower.

~100% crop

#2 - There is another small statue in the background (indistinguishable really) and the distance from nose to nose is 28".

~100% crop

I haven't slapped on the 20mm for a while, so thanks for the nudge.


EDIT:
For comparison's sake, I suppose I should mount the 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 20mm. Maybe later today, but the lighting won't be the same and it's getting awfully damn hot outside now.

 

[unpopular]

^^ I think many would disagree, even at close distance. Though, Bokeh is a subjective quality.

 

[Joshonator]

The bokeh seems pretty rough and distracting to me tbh except the really close stuff.

The 17-35 2.8-4 D seems like its capable of pretty good output.