Purpose behind cheap lenses?

That said, sharpness isn't everything and a 50 1.8 will have worse bokeh than a 50 1.4 (usually). There is a place for everything.

Scott is 100% on target.

I use all kinds of manual focus glass from the 50's through the 80's. This glass works extremely well if you know how to use your camera properly.  The photo below is from a Fujinon EBC lens circa 1970's ish. I Picked the lens up for 40.00 USD about 5 years ago.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: That said, sharpness isn't everything and a 50 1.8 will have worse bokeh than a 50 1.4 (usually). There is a place for everything.

No, bokeh doesn't quite work like that. The quality of the bokeh depends on the optical design of the lens and the number of diaphragm blades. More blades give a rounder and more pleasing shape to out-of-focus highlights.

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: That said, sharpness isn't everything and a 50 1.8 will have worse bokeh than a 50 1.4 (usually). There is a place for everything.

No, bokeh doesn't quite work like that. The quality of the bokeh depends on the optical design of the lens and the number of diaphragm blades. More blades give a rounder and more pleasing shape to out-of-focus highlights.

Bokeh isn't just highlights bro.

Also, I am well aware how bokeh works and what it's all about.  A cheaply designed 50 1.8's bokeh looks worse than a well designed 50 1.4.  That's what I was getting at.

A good example is the difference between the Canon 50 1.8 and the Canon 50 1.4.  Heck the bokeh on the Nikon equivilant is also not so good.  They're "sharp" for their price, but the bokeh isn't great.

Same with the voigtlander 35 1.2 and their 35 1.4 as was the consensus here: 
www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...p-me-choose?start=15

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: That said, sharpness isn't everything and a 50 1.8 will have worse bokeh than a 50 1.4 (usually). There is a place for everything.

No, bokeh doesn't quite work like that. The quality of the bokeh depends on the optical design of the lens and the number of diaphragm blades. More blades give a rounder and more pleasing shape to out-of-focus highlights.

Bokeh isn't just highlights bro.

Also, I am well aware how bokeh works and what it's all about.  A cheaply designed 50 1.8's bokeh looks worse than a well designed 50 1.4.  That's what I was getting at.

A good example is the difference between the Canon 50 1.8 and the Canon 50 1.4.  Heck the bokeh on the Nikon equivilant is also not so good.  They're "sharp" for their price, but the bokeh isn't great.

Same with the voigtlander 35 1.2 and their 35 1.4 as was the consensus here: 
www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...p-me-choose?start=15

Well for simplicity sake bokeh is more or less the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light.

What are you referring to when stating good and bad bokeh? I think when it comes down to bokeh it's a matter of taste, some people prefer smooth, creamy bokeh, while others like a busy, bubbly, ringed looking bokeh. wouldn't that be a subjective matter? I would guess many photographers could use unusual bokeh to great effect. I have seen some pretty wild artistic photos with some very strange looking wild bokeh. On the other hand, if you prefer only smooth, creamy bokeh, I guess any other type of bokeh may be perceived as bad. Just a thought.

I do know the point your making, and I see where your coming from. I for one only like a nice smooth bokeh.

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: That said, sharpness isn't everything and a 50 1.8 will have worse bokeh than a 50 1.4 (usually). There is a place for everything.

No, bokeh doesn't quite work like that. The quality of the bokeh depends on the optical design of the lens and the number of diaphragm blades. More blades give a rounder and more pleasing shape to out-of-focus highlights.

Bokeh isn't just highlights bro.

Also, I am well aware how bokeh works and what it's all about.  A cheaply designed 50 1.8's bokeh looks worse than a well designed 50 1.4.  That's what I was getting at.

A good example is the difference between the Canon 50 1.8 and the Canon 50 1.4.  Heck the bokeh on the Nikon equivilant is also not so good.  They're "sharp" for their price, but the bokeh isn't great.

Same with the voigtlander 35 1.2 and their 35 1.4 as was the consensus here: 
www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...p-me-choose?start=15

Well for simplicity sake bokeh is more or less the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light.

What are you referring to when stating good and bad bokeh? I think when it comes down to bokeh it's a matter of taste, some people prefer smooth, creamy bokeh, while others like a busy, bubbly, ringed looking bokeh. wouldn't that be a subjective matter? I would guess many photographers could use unusual bokeh to great effect. I have seen some pretty wild artistic photos with some very strange looking wild bokeh. On the other hand, if you prefer only smooth, creamy bokeh, I guess any other type of bokeh may be perceived as bad. Just a thought.

I do know the point your making, and I see where your coming from. I for one only like a nice smooth bokeh.

Busy bokeh is considered bad by pretty much the whole industry because it does the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.  The point is the isolate without distraction.

Scotty wrote:

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Kevin W. E. wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: That said, sharpness isn't everything and a 50 1.8 will have worse bokeh than a 50 1.4 (usually). There is a place for everything.

No, bokeh doesn't quite work like that. The quality of the bokeh depends on the optical design of the lens and the number of diaphragm blades. More blades give a rounder and more pleasing shape to out-of-focus highlights.

Bokeh isn't just highlights bro.

Also, I am well aware how bokeh works and what it's all about.  A cheaply designed 50 1.8's bokeh looks worse than a well designed 50 1.4.  That's what I was getting at.

A good example is the difference between the Canon 50 1.8 and the Canon 50 1.4.  Heck the bokeh on the Nikon equivilant is also not so good.  They're "sharp" for their price, but the bokeh isn't great.

Same with the voigtlander 35 1.2 and their 35 1.4 as was the consensus here: 
www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...p-me-choose?start=15

Well for simplicity sake bokeh is more or less the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light.

What are you referring to when stating good and bad bokeh? I think when it comes down to bokeh it's a matter of taste, some people prefer smooth, creamy bokeh, while others like a busy, bubbly, ringed looking bokeh. wouldn't that be a subjective matter? I would guess many photographers could use unusual bokeh to great effect. I have seen some pretty wild artistic photos with some very strange looking wild bokeh. On the other hand, if you prefer only smooth, creamy bokeh, I guess any other type of bokeh may be perceived as bad. Just a thought.

I do know the point your making, and I see where your coming from. I for one only like a nice smooth bokeh.

Busy bokeh is considered bad by pretty much the whole industry because it does the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.  The point is the isolate without distraction.

Bokeh can be less creamy, and still work as long as it does not distract from the subject. Good bokeh is really only noticed after the main subject. If it is too busy, and competes with the main point of the image, it ain't good.

I'm going to sum it up in 3 words:  to save money

To save money.  Generic answer, but it's the truth