50mm f/1.2 vs 85mm f/1.8

When it comes to capturing those picture-perfect moments with my trusty Nikon, I'm in a bit of a pickle. Do I play it safe (and wallet-friendly) with the 85mm 1.8 Nikkor, or do I leap for the 50mm 1.2, lured by its siren song of dreamy bokeh and artistic compression?

Now, here's the million-dollar question (or at least a few hundred bucks): can the 85mm 1.8, when wide open, mimic the bokeh magic of the 50mm 1.2? After all, they say longer lenses are the fairy godmothers of bokeh land.

If that's the case, I could just take a few steps back with the 85mm, save some cash, and not feel like I'm carrying a small boulder around. Practical and penny-wise – or is it? What do you think?

I have always been a Canon girl, so this Nikon camera is taking me a little time to get used too.  

Try renting them:

www.lensrentals.com/rent/photo/nikon/lenses/nikon-z

Paris Gal wrote: When it comes to capturing those picture-perfect moments with my trusty Nikon, I'm in a bit of a pickle. Do I play it safe (and wallet-friendly) with the 85mm 1.8 Nikkor, or do I leap for the 50mm 1.2, lured by its siren song of dreamy bokeh and artistic compression?
Now, here's the million-dollar question (or at least a few hundred bucks): can the 85mm 1.8, when wide open, mimic the bokeh magic of the 50mm 1.2? After all, they say longer lenses are the fairy godmothers of bokeh land.
If that's the case, I could just take a few steps back with the 85mm, save some cash, and not feel like I'm carrying a small boulder around. Practical and penny-wise – or is it? What do you think?
I have always been a Canon girl, so this Nikon camera is taking me a little time to get used too.

Neither lens focal length nor the aperture number have an effect upon bokeh.

Razky wrote:

Paris Gal wrote: When it comes to capturing those picture-perfect moments with my trusty Nikon, I'm in a bit of a pickle. Do I play it safe (and wallet-friendly) with the 85mm 1.8 Nikkor, or do I leap for the 50mm 1.2, lured by its siren song of dreamy bokeh and artistic compression?
Now, here's the million-dollar question (or at least a few hundred bucks): can the 85mm 1.8, when wide open, mimic the bokeh magic of the 50mm 1.2? After all, they say longer lenses are the fairy godmothers of bokeh land.
If that's the case, I could just take a few steps back with the 85mm, save some cash, and not feel like I'm carrying a small boulder around. Practical and penny-wise – or is it? What do you think?
I have always been a Canon girl, so this Nikon camera is taking me a little time to get used too.

Neither lens focal length nor the aperture number have an effect upon bokeh.

You mean the specification or actually adjusting to that aperture setting?

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Paris Gal wrote: When it comes to capturing those picture-perfect moments with my trusty Nikon, I'm in a bit of a pickle. Do I play it safe (and wallet-friendly) with the 85mm 1.8 Nikkor, or do I leap for the 50mm 1.2, lured by its siren song of dreamy bokeh and artistic compression?
Now, here's the million-dollar question (or at least a few hundred bucks): can the 85mm 1.8, when wide open, mimic the bokeh magic of the 50mm 1.2? After all, they say longer lenses are the fairy godmothers of bokeh land.
If that's the case, I could just take a few steps back with the 85mm, save some cash, and not feel like I'm carrying a small boulder around. Practical and penny-wise – or is it? What do you think?
I have always been a Canon girl, so this Nikon camera is taking me a little time to get used too.

Neither lens focal length nor the aperture number have an effect upon bokeh.

You mean the specification or actually adjusting to that aperture setting?

Both.

Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Let's try this - suppose you photograph a person a couple of feet in front of a lighted Christmas tree with 2 different 85mm lenses from the same distance at f/1.4. All else being equal, the amount of out-of-focus blur would be the same. However, it's entirely possible that the out-of-focus lights in one picture could look harsh and cold, while those in the other could look soft and cuddly. The former would generally be considered as bad bokeh, the latter, good bokeh. The difference is due to lens design, and has nothing to do with focal length or aperture number. For what it's worth, a lens with 12 curved diaphragm blades will exhibit smoother bokeh than a lens with 6 straight aperture blades. There are other design factors involved that I am not knowledgeable of. Nor is one always "better" than the other - my 100 f/4.0 Isco is well suited for Halloween and forensics, my 105 f/3.5 Schacht for Valentines and portraits. I think we call bokeh good or bad for lack of anything else to call it. Hopefully this has been helpful, as I'm not sure how else to explain it. Always willing to try, though.

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Let's try this - suppose you photograph a person a couple of feet in front of a lighted Christmas tree with 2 different 85mm lenses from the same distance at f/1.4. All else being equal, the amount of out-of-focus blur would be the same. However, it's entirely possible that the out-of-focus lights in one picture could look harsh and cold, while those in the other could look soft and cuddly. The former would generally be considered as bad bokeh, the latter, good bokeh. The difference is due to lens design, and has nothing to do with focal length or aperture number. For what it's worth, a lens with 12 curved diaphragm blades will exhibit smoother bokeh than a lens with 6 straight aperture blades. There are other design factors involved that I am not knowledgeable of. Nor is one always "better" than the other - my 100 f/4.0 Isco is well suited for Halloween and forensics, my 105 f/3.5 Schacht for Valentines and portraits. I think we call bokeh good or bad for lack of anything else to call it. Hopefully this has been helpful, as I'm not sure how else to explain it. Always willing to try, though.

Makes sense. I think we were looking at it differently.   I thought you mean going from f/8 to f/1.2 wouldn't affect bokeh. 

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Let's try this - suppose you photograph a person a couple of feet in front of a lighted Christmas tree with 2 different 85mm lenses from the same distance at f/1.4. All else being equal, the amount of out-of-focus blur would be the same. However, it's entirely possible that the out-of-focus lights in one picture could look harsh and cold, while those in the other could look soft and cuddly. The former would generally be considered as bad bokeh, the latter, good bokeh. The difference is due to lens design, and has nothing to do with focal length or aperture number. For what it's worth, a lens with 12 curved diaphragm blades will exhibit smoother bokeh than a lens with 6 straight aperture blades. There are other design factors involved that I am not knowledgeable of. Nor is one always "better" than the other - my 100 f/4.0 Isco is well suited for Halloween and forensics, my 105 f/3.5 Schacht for Valentines and portraits. I think we call bokeh good or bad for lack of anything else to call it. Hopefully this has been helpful, as I'm not sure how else to explain it. Always willing to try, though.

Makes sense. I think we were looking at it differently.   I thought you mean going from f/8 to f/1.2 wouldn't affect bokeh. 

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Let's try this - suppose you photograph a person a couple of feet in front of a lighted Christmas tree with 2 different 85mm lenses from the same distance at f/1.4. All else being equal, the amount of out-of-focus blur would be the same. However, it's entirely possible that the out-of-focus lights in one picture could look harsh and cold, while those in the other could look soft and cuddly. The former would generally be considered as bad bokeh, the latter, good bokeh. The difference is due to lens design, and has nothing to do with focal length or aperture number. For what it's worth, a lens with 12 curved diaphragm blades will exhibit smoother bokeh than a lens with 6 straight aperture blades. There are other design factors involved that I am not knowledgeable of. Nor is one always "better" than the other - my 100 f/4.0 Isco is well suited for Halloween and forensics, my 105 f/3.5 Schacht for Valentines and portraits. I think we call bokeh good or bad for lack of anything else to call it. Hopefully this has been helpful, as I'm not sure how else to explain it. Always willing to try, though.

Makes sense. I think we were looking at it differently.   I thought you mean going from f/8 to f/1.2 wouldn't affect bokeh. 

Well, going from f/8 to f/1.2 will affect the depth of field, but shouldn't affect bokeh.

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Let's try this - suppose you photograph a person a couple of feet in front of a lighted Christmas tree with 2 different 85mm lenses from the same distance at f/1.4. All else being equal, the amount of out-of-focus blur would be the same. However, it's entirely possible that the out-of-focus lights in one picture could look harsh and cold, while those in the other could look soft and cuddly. The former would generally be considered as bad bokeh, the latter, good bokeh. The difference is due to lens design, and has nothing to do with focal length or aperture number. For what it's worth, a lens with 12 curved diaphragm blades will exhibit smoother bokeh than a lens with 6 straight aperture blades. There are other design factors involved that I am not knowledgeable of. Nor is one always "better" than the other - my 100 f/4.0 Isco is well suited for Halloween and forensics, my 105 f/3.5 Schacht for Valentines and portraits. I think we call bokeh good or bad for lack of anything else to call it. Hopefully this has been helpful, as I'm not sure how else to explain it. Always willing to try, though.

Makes sense. I think we were looking at it differently.   I thought you mean going from f/8 to f/1.2 wouldn't affect bokeh. 

Well, going from f/8 to f/1.2 will affect the depth of field, but shouldn't affect bokeh.

It affects it, but it doesn't determine quality and think that's what you're getting at, which I agree.

How to Create Bokeh - Bokeh Photography Tips | Nikon | Nikon (nikonusa.com)

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Razky wrote:

Scotty wrote: Aperture has nothing to do with bokeh?

Can you explain?

Focal length and aperture can affect the amount of out-of-focus blur - bokeh describes the (highly subjective) "quality" of that out-of-focus blur. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of the word:  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh

You said it has nothing to do with it. I'm confused lol. 

Let's try this - suppose you photograph a person a couple of feet in front of a lighted Christmas tree with 2 different 85mm lenses from the same distance at f/1.4. All else being equal, the amount of out-of-focus blur would be the same. However, it's entirely possible that the out-of-focus lights in one picture could look harsh and cold, while those in the other could look soft and cuddly. The former would generally be considered as bad bokeh, the latter, good bokeh. The difference is due to lens design, and has nothing to do with focal length or aperture number. For what it's worth, a lens with 12 curved diaphragm blades will exhibit smoother bokeh than a lens with 6 straight aperture blades. There are other design factors involved that I am not knowledgeable of. Nor is one always "better" than the other - my 100 f/4.0 Isco is well suited for Halloween and forensics, my 105 f/3.5 Schacht for Valentines and portraits. I think we call bokeh good or bad for lack of anything else to call it. Hopefully this has been helpful, as I'm not sure how else to explain it. Always willing to try, though.

Makes sense. I think we were looking at it differently.   I thought you mean going from f/8 to f/1.2 wouldn't affect bokeh. 

Well, going from f/8 to f/1.2 will affect the depth of field, but shouldn't affect bokeh.

It affects it, but it doesn't determine quality and think that's what you're getting at, which I agree.

How to Create Bokeh - Bokeh Photography Tips | Nikon | Nikon (nikonusa.com)