Fmeh. Bokeh-schmoke. I read this the other day and I have to say, agree wholeheartedly with it...
https://fstoppers.com/education/bokeh-and-portraits-why-i-just-dont-care-71102
It's a very odd comparison, between 2 really good lenses.
The biggest difference I can see (on my monitor anyway) is contrast. The Nikkor shots seem far "richer".
I would say that "Bokeh" is most definitely the most overused word in photography (where "blurry" stood me in good stead for 40 years). It's right up there with "juxtaposed".
Also, if you're doing a real test of a lenses ability to deal with blurry backgrounds (let's call them) it needs a point light source, like some candles, in the background.
Nothing reveals a low-budget, 5 blade diaphragm, lens better than background lights. I know I've got one.
What is obvious is that shallow depth of field helps salvage his photos. The same shots on a camera phone would have had a huge depth of field and rendered him invisible against his ornaments and furniture. In that respect my Canon "Plastic Fantastic" 50mm f1.8 would be perfectly adequate.
It's true that nobody is generally looking at "bokeh" in Helmut Newton photographs (I won't even tell you what I'm generally doing) but, if Newton ever did Kevin & Tracey's wedding, he'd probably ask for a Canon 85mm f1.2 so he could blur out the electricity substation in the background smoothly.
Let's all stop using the word "b***h".
What I definitely don't want though is great gobs of swirly blur going on. I'll press the "Swirly Blur" button in Photoshop if I need that (There's almost bound to be such a button).