My own little BOKEH test (large images)

[schmoelzel]

Keep in mind that this is a really really unscientific test.............I wanted to see what each of my lenses in my bag had to offer as far as melting away the background. I am a sucker for a sharp lens and I really like when you can isolate your subject smoothly from the background. I set this up in my dining area, natural light, and I used my DRebel on a tripod. I had to move a small amount with a couple of the lenses to keep the subject fully in the frame. (that was my main goal).........I used each lens at its fastest aperture and manually adjusted the shutter speed to get the exposure guide to be exactly in the middle. I shot in RAW and downsized the picture in PSCS to 533 X 800 pixels. I applied USM to each picture (same amount) 100/0.3/0........I really only wanted to see the bokeh from each lens that I own. I like all of these lenses and use them all (some way more than others!!). I focused on the top button on the figurine.............in your opinion, which do you think has the most 'buttery' bokeh?

note of interest.........in doing this I have really noticed how the contrast and colour differs with every lens and how each focal length plays such an important role in the perspective of each lens.


http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Julia-2005/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/18-55Kit.jpg

18-55 Kit lens

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Julia-2005/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/50F1.8II.jpg

EF 50f1.8 II

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Julia-2005/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/85F1.8.jpg

EF 85f1.8

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Julia-2005/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/100F2.8macro.jpg

EF 100f2.8 Macro USM

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Julia-2005/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/70-200F2.8.jpg

EF 70-200f2.8

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Julia-2005/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/135F2.jpg

EF 135f2

[friscomgm]

135 f/2 = lovely bokeh. best of the group IMO

[reggie]

The 70-200 doesn't look so bad either but I'd agree with the 135 being the "creamiest"


Greg

[jbradc]

Top 3 for me are...
1 - 135 F2
2 - 70-200 F2.8
3 - 85 F1.8

I would like to see the 50 F1.4 in your test, it should be very good as well.

[schmoelzel]

Top 3 for me are...
1 - 135 F2
2 - 70-200 F2.8
3 - 85 F1.8

I would like to see the 50 F1.4 in your test, it should be very good as well.

If you'd like to buy one for me, I'll gladly redo the test!!:lol: All kidding aside, I think the 135F2 has the nicest looking bokeh. I also think I have discovered that my 70-200 has a little back-focus problem..........could be an error on my part though.........I might not have been focusing at the right point. Thanks for your comments!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Remember,. what goes into the "Bokeh" receipe are the following in no particualr order of importance

1: Lens aperture; (larger the better)
2: # of Iris blades;
3: Distance from camera to subject; (effects dpth of feild)
4: Distance from subject to background; (ie, how far out of focus)

Ingredients 3&4 make up a huge part of the recipe and in a sense are more important than aperture alone. This is why telephotos, even with relatively small apertures like f/5.6, can give such amazing bokeh at times,. depending on the distance ingredients of 3&4

Great test ;)

[Persian-Rice]

Pretty much, the best to worse are respectively listed from last to first.

[drisley]

Yup, bokeh on the 135F2L is creamy.
Very small DOF too

[Adam Hicks]

Cyberdyne wouldn't shutter length factor in there as well? F1.8 at 1/4000 is going to give a lot nicer bokeh than f1.8 at 1/60. So it seems largest aperture + highest shutter speed = most bokeh (with focal length thrown in there somewhere along the way!)

BUT as far as Bokeh goes, the best I've seen is that darned 200 1.8 - here's an example taken yesterday of my daughter. The thing is ridiculous!

http://www.golilm.com/images/RileyandAidan/Riley_tree_1.8.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

Adam,. I have no idea if shutter speed would effect bokeh?

My brain is currently trying to wrap around the concept... :rolleyes:

Other than higher sppeds helping to eliminate motion blur.. I don't see the connection.

The distance info is part of what goes into the math that gives you depth of feild... DOF being the large factor in Bokeh...

Shutter speed does not effect DOF... aperure, distance.. these do.

hmmmm

[Adam Hicks]

I was just thinking along the lines of the longer shutter times allowing more information to reach the sensor, but i guess that might not be the case? I just noticed that there was far less 'bokeh' in my rodeo shots in low light than there were in bright sunlight at the same f-stop.

So my initial thought was that longer shutter times at the same aperture would allow more light to reach the sensor and therefore produce more detail. Maybe someone can set me straight either way...

[roanjohn]

Gotta love that 85!!!

Can't comment on the 135 (As I dont have IT!!!) BOOOO!!!

Ro1

[CyberDyneSystems]

....I just noticed that there was far less 'bokeh' in my rodeo shots in low light than there were in bright sunlight at the same f-stop.

So my initial thought was that longer shutter times at the same aperture would allow more light to reach the sensor and therefore produce more detail. Maybe someone can set me straight either way...

This is two things combining to make less back ground blur,. (well one really,. ie DOF but two things effecting DOF)

One,. you are much much farther from the subject in the rodeo shots.. as you move further away,. the DOF increases... allowing more to be in focus. This is an advantage too as it means you can shoot the events wide open and still get most, if not all of the subject in focus.

If you were 12 feet away instead of 100... then your DOF would be fractions of an inch.. small fractions.

Two,. your subject was much closer to the background than it was to your camera,. again.. this means that the background was closer to your now longer depth of feild. More in focus,. less blur.

This is what I was getting at with my first post in this thread,. yes the 135mm f/2 does offer the best Bokeh,. the question is how much of this is lens specific,. and how much is the shooting set up?

With a telephoto it is often easier to get "smooth" bokeh than it is with a wider lens because of the distances invloved.

[schmoelzel]

This is two things combining to make less back ground blur,. (well one really,. ie DOF but two things effecting DOF)

One,. you are much much farther from the subject in the rodeo shots.. as you move further away,. the DOF increases... allowing more to be in focus. This is an advantage too as it means you can shoot the events wide open and still get most, if not all of the subject in focus.

If you were 12 feet away instead of 100... then your DOF would be fractions of an inch.. small fractions.

Two,. your subject was much closer to the background than it was to your camera,. again.. this means that the background was closer to your now longer depth of feild. More in focus,. less blur.

This is what I was getting at with my first post in this thread,. yes the 135mm f/2 does offer the best Bokeh,. the question is how much of this is lens specific,. and how much is the shooting set up?

With a telephoto it is often easier to get "smooth" bokeh than it is with a wider lens ...


I think you are correct.......I took these shots about 1.5 metres from the figurine..........what I have noticed is that if you are close to your subject, the perspective of what is behind the subject changes relative to the camera distance.......does this make sense?? I tried to keep the camera at roughly the same distance with each lens (but it is hard to when trying to fill the frame with the figurine). Thanks for all the discussion..........this is how we all learn.........:D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes,. distance from camera is exactly what changes perspective ;)

[wibbly]

For me the 135 is best becuase the blur doesn't have any 'edges' to the blured objects. Look at the chair, and if the verticals are blured...

John

[ron chappel]

This might be a simpler way of explaining and quantifying bokeh -

The two main factors are:

1)Magnification
(a very simple and correct way of explaining it-it's easy to compare pics at the same magnification-as schmoezel has done in this thread-you just have to move back or forward further to get the same cropping)

2)Aperture
Remember how they say aperture x magnification = depth of feild?
Now that we have a constant it's easier understanding the other factors!!

This next one *generally* has much less effect than the first two -mostly because there's not alot one can do about it (?)

3) distance from the subject to the background


The next one has some moderate ,though usefull, effect

4) focal length
A longer focal length 'stretches' the background more.Ok it sounds silly saying it like that but it's easy to understand in those terms

And these last two have some effect

5) optical formula
Remember how everyone says nikon lenses can have crosseyed bokeh?

6) number and roundness of aperture blades

[Andy_T]

Some thoughts ...

I was just thinking along the lines of the longer shutter times allowing more information to reach the sensor, but i guess that might not be the case?

Adam... shutter speed should have no influence on the bokeh. If you get 'more information' to a certain photosite because of the longer aperture, then this would be called 'motion blur' :lol:

I think you are correct.......I took these shots about 1.5 metres from the figurine..........

As the figure is about the same size in each picture, I assume that you changed your position (at least between the 50/1.8 and the 135/2 :lol: )

For me the 135 is best becuase the blur doesn't have any 'edges' to the blured objects. Look at the chair, and if the verticals are blured...


The 135/2.0 does not have 'sharp vertical edges', because due to the shallow DOF the vertical edge of the figurine is not any longer in focus.

And yes, I absolutely love the bokeh of the 135/2.0. It's unreal.

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

This might be a simpler way of explaining and quantifying bokeh -

The two main factors are:

1)Magnification
(a very simple and correct way of explaining it-it's easy to compare pics at the same magnification-as schmoezel has done in this thread-you just have to move back or forward further to get the same cropping)

2)Aperture
Remember how they say aperture x magnification = depth of feild?
Now that we have a constant it's easier understanding the other factors!!

This next one *generally* has much less effect than the first two -mostly because there's not alot one can do about it (?)

3) distance from the subject to the background


The next one has some moderate ,though usefull, effect

4) focal length
A longer focal length 'stretches' the background more.Ok it sounds silly saying it like that but it's easy to understand in those terms

And these last two have some effect

5) optical formula
Remember how everyone says nikon lenses can have crosseyed bokeh?

6) number and roundness of aperture blades

Thanks for making things so easy to understand!! Especially the part about focal length stretching the background........that's exactly what it looks like!! Of course I love my 135F2 (who wouldn't!!:D ), but I also appreciate the larger DOF that you get from the lowly kit lens!! I guess my next step is to try this with various apertures..........nah, too much time doing tests and it is much more fun going out in the real world and shooting real subjects. This does make me realize more and more which tool is best for which job though.............

[schmoelzel]

Cyberdyne wouldn't shutter length factor in there as well? F1.8 at 1/4000 is going to give a lot nicer bokeh than f1.8 at 1/60. So it seems largest aperture + highest shutter speed = most bokeh (with focal length thrown in there somewhere along the way!)

BUT as far as Bokeh goes, the best I've seen is that darned 200 1.8 - here's an example taken yesterday of my daughter. The thing is ridiculous!

http://www.golilm.com/images/RileyandAidan/Riley_tree_1.8.jpg

Wow!!! Nice picture Adam; and a beautiful kid...........you are right, that lens makes the subject really pop.......gorgeous bokeh!!

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks for the compliments... she's a good kid and loves to have her picture taken which is good for me :)

[ron chappel]

That won't last long.Make the most of it!

[EXA1a]

IMHO "bokeh" is the QUALITY of the OOF area (="beautiful" or "ugly"), therefore you can't QUANTIFY it ("more bokeh" or "less bokeh"). The comparison in the original post does not even demonstrate different bokeh qualities because the OOF area does not exhibit a big enough dynamic range of light, e.g. highlights. The grade or fuzzyness itself is not what I'd call bokeh.
Here you can find reasonable explanations of this optical phenomenon:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

--Jens--

[schmoelzel]

IMHO "bokeh" is the QUALITY of the OOF area (="beautiful" or "ugly"), therefore you can't QUANTIFY it ("more bokeh" or "less bokeh"). The comparison in the original post does not even demonstrate different bokeh qualities because the OOF area does not exhibit a big enough dynamic range of light, e.g. highlights. The grade or fuzzyness itself is not what I'd call bokeh.
Here you can find reasonable explanations of this optical phenomenon:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

--Jens--

Hello Jens:

I have to disagree with some of your statement. You are right about not being able quantify bokeh but both the links you provide discuss the quality of the OOF background, and that is exactly what my 'non-scientific' comparison does......the word itself means 'fuzziness or dizziness' so I would imagine that the blurred background in comparison to the main subject is exactly what bokeh is.........essentially a real scientific measurement of differing lenses would come up with hard numbers and figures as to amount of light diffraction etc., but bokeh to most people (ken rockwell discusses this) is subjective and is more of a 'feel' to every photograph. Thanks for the interesting links...............

[Jussuff]

Top 3 for me are...
1 - 135 F2
2 - 70-200 F2.8
3 - 85 F1.8

Thank you for sharing!
J.

[schmoelzel]

Top 3 for me are...
1 - 135 F2
2 - 70-200 F2.8
3 - 85 F1.8

Thank you for sharing!
J.

I'm inclined to agree with your choices.......the 135F2 has amazing bokeh and is an awesome lens!! Thanks for looking............

[phili1]

Wow unless my screen went haywire and I have it calibrated, the best of the lot is the 100 macro. Look at it again it jumps of the page with the 85 and 70-200 takeing a very close second. Hey that is what makes this fun we all have different ideas.

[Vega$50]

The 135 F2L...oohhh I think I peed a little....It also shows you need to dust those figurines off....;)

[schmoelzel]

Wow unless my screen went haywire and I have it calibrated, the best of the lot is the 100 macro. Look at it again it jumps of the page with the 85 and 70-200 takeing a very close second. Hey that is what makes this fun we all have different ideas.

I really like the 100 Macro but to my eyes the bokeh from the 135F2 is much fuzzier and smoother. However, perspective of the background is again different with the macro lens........it seems to pull everything in the background even closer!

[schmoelzel]

The 135 F2L...oohhh I think I peed a little....It also shows you need to dust those figurines off....;)

Well, I hope you didn't........:D and yes, I was hoping no one would notice the dust-bunnies on these figurines!!