What is your favorite lens for good bokeh?

[John Crowe]

Most of the bokeh here does not seem all that impressive. With the 18-200, 70-200 VR, and 50mm being the worst. The Zeiss 85/1.4 that I had was good, the Nikon 400/2.8 is also good, but the best I have is the Nikon 200/2 AI. I will try to follow up with an image post.

[rarmstrong]

This is not my image but I think that is is a good example of excellent bokeh. I was taken with a 200mm f1.8 Canon

telephoto...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/790059

 

What do you think?

[rarmstrong]

Try this link instead...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7900591

[User_502260]

The shot of the puppy with the 200/1.8 Canon lens is very nice. Of my Nikkors my favorites for bokeh are my pre-AI 105/2.5s and my pre-AI 135/2.8s. Of the 135s the f/2.8 QC is in the best condition and has never given me bad bokeh. The Canon 135/2.5 FD lens is also very nice and the older 100/3.5 Canon FL also has very smooth bokeh.

[mirceaciuca]

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di macro my fav for portrait and nature. Creamy butter bokeh. Lovely. Same Nikkor 200mm f/4 IF ED. Beautiful bokeh. I could like to say I like the Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC because I see many photos with this lens. Maybe will be the next portrait lens. I have also 85mm f/1.8 AF-D but I dont like it, I will sell and keep the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, more versatile lens, nice boken, easy to use, enough fast for

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is a nice one too. Short but nice on Dx bodys (~ 75mm crop factor).

[francois1]

Most of these photos are not good example of Bokeh as most do not have Bokeh in them. Bokeh is the 'Shape' that

a small bright spot in an image will take that matches the shape of the lenses 'iris' when it is closed down. Bokeh

(good or bad) will not be seen usually unless there is a bright spot in the background. A very small spot that is

smaller than the 'Aperture' will create exaggerated Bokeh.

 

The top photo of the dog (good shot by the way) does not have Bokeh in it. So we can't use that photo to describe

whether the lens produces good or bad Bokeh. The pigeon is another bad example as again there is no Bokeh in the

image.

 

Two examples that do show Bokeh are the 'Two Champaign Glasses' and the 'Purple Iris'. The Bokeh in the 'Two

Champaign Glasses' is very good in that the Bokeh spots are very round and distinct. In the Iris, you can see that

the spots are clearly not round but rather shaped by the shape of the Iris.

 

Bokeh is a natural phenomenon that will always happen, whether it is round or odd shaped will depend not on the

quality of the lens or glass, but on the quality and number of blades in the iris. Some lens designs may create more

or less Bokeh and may exaggerate the Bokeh, but the Iris is responsible for whether it is good or bad.

 

The amount and size of Bokeh will change based on the aperture you use.

 

Lens manufactures will use irises with six, seven or eight blades (sometimes more or less). Usually, a well

manufactured 8 blade iris will look great. When choosing a lens where 'good' Bokeh is wanted, choose more blades

in the iris. These specs are available at manufactures web sites.

 

Playing with custom shaped Bokeh can give a better understanding of what Bokeh is and how it works. Check out

this link at http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh.

[robert_campbell8]

I really really like my 50/1.8 (even though it's a canon! shhh)<div></div>

[george_lowrey]

Here is an old photo.net article that discusses the origin of the term: http://www.photo.net/columns/mjohnston/column49/index.html.

You can download Mike Johnston's lens bokeh ratings here: http://www.lulu.com/content/129691.

[John Crowe]

Yes the 200/1.8 shot has excellent bokeh similar to what I am used to from the Nikon 200/2.

 

 

Francois, bokeh does not only refer to how out of focus highlights are rendered. It refers to how ALL out of focus areas are rendered. Out of focus highlights simply present the most extreme effect by which performance can be more easily observed.

[francois1]

Yes the true definition of the term Bokeh refers to the "Blurry" parts of the photo. But my point is that it is next to impossible to judge the quality of the blur when the blurry parts are made up only of mid tones with little or no contrast.

 

By far the easiest way to judge the quality, is by having a small pin point light source as stated in the examples I gave.

 

A blurry out of focus gray card will look like a gray area on a cheap bad Bokeh lens and it will look the same on an excellent good Bokeh lens. It is only by viewing higher contrast areas that will you notice the differences.

 

And, although the definition is strictly speaking all the blurry parts, most photographers commonly refer to the 'noticeable' parts. I may be wrong here but that is my experience in dealing with other photographers amateur and professional alike.

[rarmstrong]

Francois, thank you very much! This is the kind of information that I was hoping to get from this post and more. We speak of this subject as if we know what it is that we are discussing. I thought that I knew a bit about it, but admit that I am woefully ignorant. I know that I like the Two Champagne Glasses image, for more than just the bokeh. But, it has been my understanding that bokeh referred to how a lens renders the out of focus areas of the image. I know that I like the out of focus areas to add to the beauty of the image and not detract from the object in focus. My intent here is to learn more about how to produce it...artistically and what hardware(lenses) seem to be the best equipment to help get the job done. I'd also like to know just how this works, technically...the optics and physics involved in what we see that we like. I truly believe that the more that a photographer understands about how the image ends up looking the way it does when completed, the better at reproducing these circumstances a photographer will become. Of course, there is the "eye". That hard to define sense that there is a beautiful image in something we observe...how best to capture it is the challenge, and the fun!

[francois1]

So here is an interesting question then, if all the blurry areas are the Bokeh, what are the badly distorted parts caused by the iris called?? Should the Photography community come up with a word to describe that?

[robert_campbell8]

What do you mean by badly distorted parts?

[User_502260]

There are many different types of undesirable out of focus rendition. The number of aperture blades can affect bokeh but the roundness of the blades is also important. My Bronica SLR lenses have 5 blades but the blades are rounded in a way that makes the images look like the lens has more blades. Twinninng is a particluarly bad kind of out of focus rendition. It doesn't seem to be directly related to the number of blades either. The donut shape of the out of focus highlights you get with a mirror lens is something most people don't like. The first time you see it the effect is interesting but you don't want it in every shot. Some backgrounds can be distracting if they are as sharply in focus as the main subject. In other cases there isn't enough depth of field to even cover the main subject. This can cause part of the subject to merge into the background. There are so many different lens designs and focal lengths and background types that it's hard to name every kind of bad bokeh.

[bob_bill]

70-200- the bokeh was worth the weight and wait on B&H backorder.<div></div>

[berg_na]

Francois - The "circle of confusion" describes the image formed by the shape of the lens diaphragm (<a

href="http://www.summilux.net/aide/index.php?mot=bokeh">explication avancée ici</a>).

[jose_angel]

what are the badly distorted parts caused by the iris called??

 

Highlight bokeh, highlight spot shape, light distribution shape on highlights spots... ?

[jose_angel]

Berg`s link doesn`t explain that any corrected or uncorrected lens could give what is called good (smooth spot) or

bad (ring, doughnut) bokeh depending of the focus plane distance and position(foreground or background) of the

highlight spot. I`m in the believing that modern hipercorrected lenses ---usually--- are bad background bokeh

performers.

 

I really hate double shaped out of focus objects, and always try to avoid strong highlight spots when looking for

(beatiful) bokeh.

[jose_angel]

Sadly, I cannot have my image bank here but I have found something that could be a bit illustrative. This is a test

shot I did time ago (BTW to check how big the focus error was with my 50/1.8AFD), where you can see how the

background of the focus plane runs fast to made that ugly doughtnuts and how the foreground blur shape is a bit

more soft, with not so definite rings... another uncorrected lens design could perform in the opposite way. Not shown

here, background highlight spots and blur are doubled type, but this is not an impediment to have with this lens

many of my very sucessful, shallow DoF portraits wide open.<div></div>

[jose_angel]

And now, the foreground. Both are 100% crops.<div></div>

[jose_angel]

Both images are crops from the same shot, don`t know why show different colors (?):>(

[Matt Laur]

I'm reminded of a somewhat recent thread that sort of turned into a little <a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00QpGt"><b>bokeh laboratory</b></a>.

<br><Br>

Like many others here, in general use I think the 70-200/2.8 VR is great in terms of how it treats OoF areas and shiny bits. I've also become quite enamored of the Sigma 30/1.4's pleasantly dreamy qualities when it's wide open (see below).<div></div>

[rarmstrong]

Matt, nice shot...I'm starting to think that the 70-200 f2.8 is worth a look. I too like the Sigma 30mm f1.4. This is from this past spring at f1.4....<div></div>

[giidii]

an example for "dynamic" bokeh<div></div>

[paradoxbox]

>Most of these photos are not good example of Bokeh as most do not have Bokeh in them. Bokeh is the 'Shape' that a small bright spot in an image will take that matches the shape of the lenses 'iris' when it is closed down. Bokeh (good or bad) will not be seen usually unless there is a bright spot in the background. A very small spot that is smaller than the 'Aperture' will create exaggerated Bokeh. <

 

I don't agree with this. Bokeh is blur, pure and simple, the blurrier the background the better. Bokeh means Blurry, out of focus, or hazy. That's a direct translation from Japanese..

 

Anyway my favorite choices for best bokeh producing lenes..... the 85mm 1.4 and 1.8 nikons, the 50mm f1.8 (prefer it over the 1.4), the 105mm micro (vr or non vr both are great), the 70-200 and 80-200 nikons, and here's a weird one.. the 70-300 AF-G and AF ED. Super cheapo lenses that in the right circumstances produce unbelievable bokeh rivaling the king of bokeh lenses... which of course is...

 

the Nikon 200mm F2.0. This lens has unbeatable bokeh. Try one out sometime. It's a monster. You could buy a decent old sports car for how much it costs. But the bokeh produced is unbelievable.