Bokeh

1.2 and 1.4 lenses could be easily stepped down to 4.5 or 5.6, doesn't work opposite way.

A large aperture allows a smaller depth of field, but this has little to do with the quality of out-of-focus areas, and often the contrary.

 

Photozone traditionally included examples of OOF performance. While other sites have examples too, Photozone has been consistent in this regard, making A/B comparisons easier, even if on the subjective side. Hopefully they will continue after their reorganization.

Here's an example with soft bokeh. Compare it with the trees in Timo's shot. Neither right, but different. 135 2.0 shot at 2.0 with no CA correction. Those are trees down both sides of the pond and behind him. It's what I saw as potential shots the first time I saw the backyard. I still intend to keep my resolution to hand paint a canvas background. Edited January 12, 2018 by bob_bill

Compare it with the trees in Timo's shot. Neither right, but different.

Absolutely. The point being, IMO, that for me to ignore the quality of blur would be to ignore the extreme difference in how each of these photos works. I would be choosing to willfully not see. To choose not to see seems counter to how I think about photography. To see we’ll and in detail doesn’t seem obsessive to me. It seems photographic.

Fred, when I saw Timos image, I thought I couldn't have had a more different oof quality. I see it as painterly but in a more geometric manner. Totally different feel. Each appropriate for certain images. However, my subjects and style of shooting lean to the softer oof. For a baby or woman, in most cases, i would lean towards a softer oof. For harder light, more contrasty and perhaps a face with character, the harsher oof. Neither is perfect for all. As I mention, the oof occupies more than half of my image and is certainly an important part of the image. Now, If I desired to show the double arched bridge at the end of the pond, I could have stopped down a bit and pulled in more detail in trees and bridge. But this was a test shot to see how much I could throw the bg oof. I matched the aperture with the dc ring at 2.0. It's an extra ring on this lens that you will only see on one other lens I know of, the 105 2.0 dc.

When I was a kid in Hopkins, MN, USA, there was a hardware store named Bokeh. No, wait, it was Kokesh. Or was it? That was a long time ago.

When I was a kid in Hopkins, MN, USA, there was a hardware store named Bokeh. No, wait, it was Kokesh. Or was it? That was a long time ago.

You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!

Oh dear. I am beginning to see it now.

You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!

 

I thought Bokeh was the name of the family style Italian place. ;) One it St. Paul and Minneapolis (didn't realize there that many Minnesotans in this thread).

You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!

 

OMG - another Hopkins boy???? (and yes - way too old)

"You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!"

 

Jeez, you dudes are older than dirt. Hey, with age comes wisdom so it is told;))

 

Bokeh a matter of taste or fashion....sort of like the Leica red dot.

A large aperture allows a smaller depth of field, but this has little to do with the quality of out-of-focus areas, and often the contrary.

 

Photozone traditionally included examples of OOF performance. While other sites have examples too, Photozone has been consistent in this regard, making A/B comparisons easier, even if on the subjective side. Hopefully they will continue after their reorganization.

Name those 4.5 or 5.6 lenses which can beat Canon 50/1.2, 85/1.4 or 135/2.

Gerry, as Jelly said in Analyze This, some roughage should help with that. In the days when we had paper clip holders on our desks, I would turn over the clear plastic bottom one to divine the future whenever asked a question that required clairvoyance. You know, like, how long will this take. Count me in with the old geezers, I remember paper clips and 3 colored memo forms. Have one on my wall, the forerunner of email. Nick, add a 35 2 and you have my favorite things. I don't think Ed is saying there isn't a correlation between wide aperture lenses and good oof, I think he is saying a wide aperture isn't necessarily a guarantee of soft bokeh. Timo shot at 1,8 wider than mine at 2.0. Since I am usually shooting 4.0 and below, I shoot differently than architecture or landscape folks who want everything in focus. I hadn't had my sensor cleaned in a couple of year and then tested all my jells from f4 to f16 and when I put them on the screen, there was tons of dust on the sensor. How much, the guy cleaning it said it would take longer because he had to bring in a backhoe.

Name those 4.5 or 5.6 lenses which can beat Canon 50/1.2, 85/1.4 or 135/2.

The Canon 50/1.2 L looks very good from examples I've seen in reviews. That's because it is a Canon 50/1.2 L, not f/1.2. I see similar results in reviews of all the Zeiss Otus, Milvus and Batis lenses. For f/4 or f/5.6, the Schneider technical lenses for MF rank very well. I'm not displeased with my relatively inexpensive (~ same as Canon 50/1.2 L) Sony 70-200/4 either.

 

Gerry, as Jelly said in Analyze This, some roughage should help with that. In the days when we had paper clip holders on our desks, I would turn over the clear plastic bottom one to divine the future whenever asked a question that required clairvoyance. You know, like, how long will this take. Count me in with the old geezers, I remember paper clips and 3 colored memo forms. Have one on my wall, the forerunner of email. Nick, add a 35 2 and you have my favorite things. I don't think Ed is saying there isn't a correlation between wide aperture lenses and good oof, I think he is saying a wide aperture isn't necessarily a guarantee of soft bokeh. Timo shot at 1,8 wider than mine at 2.0. Since I am usually shooting 4.0 and below, I shoot differently than architecture or landscape folks who want everything in focus. I hadn't had my sensor cleaned in a couple of year and then tested all my jells from f4 to f16 and when I put them on the screen, there was tons of dust on the sensor. How much, the guy cleaning it said it would take longer because he had to bring in a backhoe.

Agreed, with some cheapo fast lenses OOF looks rough. I think Sigma realized that there's good market for soft bokeh lenses with releasing Art series.

The Canon 50/1.2 L looks very good from examples I've seen in reviews. That's because it is a Canon 50/1.2 L, not f/1.2. I see similar results in reviews of all the Zeiss Otus, Milvus and Batis lenses. For f/4 or f/5.6, the Schneider technical lenses for MF rank very well. I'm not displeased with my relatively inexpensive (~ same as Canon 50/1.2 L) Sony 70-200/4 either.

 

[ATTACH=full]1227701[/ATTACH]

Why " relatively" inexpensive system chose to focus on mic instead of singer. (Please don't tell me it was artistic choice) :)

Why " relatively" inexpensive system chose to focus on mic instead of singer. (Please don't tell me it was artistic choice) :)

Do all critics us a dead cat for their logo? The focus is correct, but the singer moved a little. The microphone is definitely NOT in focus. I have a over a dozen so I know what they look like. I could have tilted the camera for "artistic" effect ;)

 

My purpose was to illustrate smooth bokeh, not win the Nick D. photography prize. Nor do I consider $1350 for a lens "inexpensive." That was joke.

there was tons of dust on the sensor.

 

That's why it's good to shoot with f2 or so :) sometimes when I need more depth of field, I'm horrified about dark spots here and there. I sometimes shoot a white wall with f16 to see my all dust specs. And sometimes I'm trying to clean the sensor and when I shoot again to see if the cleaning was ok, usually there is still always a couple of spots...and then I have to think that usually I can't see those spots if I'm not using f8 or so.

I thought Bokeh was the name of the family style Italian place. ;) One it St. Paul and Minneapolis (didn't realize there that many Minnesotans in this thread).

Buca's is the name of the

OMG - another Hopkins boy???? (and yes - way too old)

I grew up in Eden Prairie before it became the yuppie capitol of Minnesota.

Do all critics us a dead cat for their logo? The focus is correct, but the singer moved a little. The microphone is definitely NOT in focus. I have a over a dozen so I know what they look like. I could have tilted the camera for "artistic" effect ;)

 

My purpose was to illustrate smooth bokeh, not win the Nick D. photography prize. Nor do I consider $1350 for a lens "inexpensive." That was joke.

It was joke from my side too, next time ask singer to stay still :)

It was joke from my side too, next time ask singer to stay still :)

Thanks. I'm slow to catch a joke when my ego is in the way. I like this picture for the mood it captures - people really enjoying what they're doing.