50mm f/1.8 ugly brokeh

[booggerg]

What the heck?? Does anyone have any example of a 50mm 1.4 lens wide open? I heard that has better brokeh

http://www.pbase.com/booggerg/image/42536833.jpg

[cactusclay]

50/1.4@1.4. Sort of short notice and it's dark outside, but this is 3ft from subject and subject is about five feet from the TV. :D

[tim]

You're right, that is pretty ugly. Try searching by lens type on pbase.com

[Dante King]

Must be due to the light coming thru the tree. I had great results with my 1.8

[booggerg]

Or does the bokeh progressively get worse of objects further from the lens? those trees were perhaps 10-12 feet away from the camera lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

We don't know what aperture you were shooting.. with the sun in the image I would asume you were stopped down a bit.. which would totally change the bokeh..

Also,. you may not have enough distance to the trees relative to your distance from the focus subject. ie: that your too far from the railing (the focus subject) ... try doing it where you are closer to the railing... and/or make sure you are shooting at f/1.8

[CyberDyneSystems]

Or does the bokeh progressively get worse of objects further from the lens? those trees were perhaps 10-12 feet away from the camera lens.


The further you are from subject focus,. the larger the depth of feild.. so yes in a sense,. this could have something to do with it.

[cmM]

it's not as smooth indeed, due to the 5 blade diaphragm... you can do *a lot* better than that though (as far as bokeh).... that looks pretty ugly

[Olegis]

The 50mm f/1.8 sometimes does produce some pretty ugly bokeh - here's a picture shot at 1.8 :

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/image/30873404.jpg

[Andy_T]

You are right, the 50/1.4 is generally known to produce better bokeh.

Still, I think the main problem with your pictures is the harsh lighting conditions (light coming through tree). I've seen pictures from other lenses like this where I did not like the (otherwise nice) bokeh.

Y'know, when you think you know it all, there's another thing left to consider :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[roanjohn]

Blame it on the blades...........less blades = less rounded bokeh leading to the choppiness you see on your image.............I don't know how much better the f1.4 version would do though......but probably a tad better.

Ro1

[bauerman]

Was this shot with the 1.8 or the 1.4 - title of the post and body of the post are not in agreement there.....??

[Andy_T]

Take a look here (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/) for examples of the bokeh of the 2 lenses.

Best regards,
Andy

[booggerg]

My original image was shot at 1.8. .I wouldn't put up a picture of any other aperature..

[mr.photoguy]

heh.. this is at f3.2, or 3.5 I forgot the Av already.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41829971/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41829971/original

This is why I have the Tamron 28-75, and contemplating a 85 1.8 (used or new)

[DocFrankenstein]

Tis true my friends
This crappy bokeh is the cause of constant eternal struggle. Can't live with it, can't live without it. I just can't part with 300 bucks for 50/1.4 and at the same time I hate it when a picture gets ruined because of the bokeh...

So, I constantly change them... This friday I received my FOURTH 50/1.8 from Dante

It's only a matter of time before it hits the marketplace again. :lol:

I think one needs to learn when to use it. IE: whenever there's contrast in the scene, don't use it :evil:

Cheers

[mr.photoguy]

yeah, your right Doc,
I had those nasty looking circles in a few shots, but I just put them in photoshop, and used the swirl and blur tools to round them out a bit.
A little photoshop work doesn't really hurt, but it still can't replace the effect of more blades, but it's a 80 dollar lens, so I don't even bother to complain about it.

For 80 bucks.... blah, it's not worth me complaining about.

[Niall]

http://www.elduderino.nildram.co.uk/Random%20photos/waterstat.jpg

Just a random shot that I've got using that lens.

[DocFrankenstein]

For 80 bucks.... blah, it's not worth me complaining about.
Noink has 50/1.8 with 7 blades and an actual distance scale.

Pisses me off so much

[rdenney]

Blame it on the blades...........less blades = less rounded bokeh leading to the choppiness you see on your image.............I don't know how much better the f1.4 version would do though......but probably a tad better.

Ro1

It ain't the blades. It's the double-gauss lens formula, which is to corrected for spherical aberration. Leave a bit (just a bit) of uncorrected SA on top of a sharp image, and the image will still be sharp though it will lose a little MTF performance, but the out-of-focus highlights, instead of having ugly bright edges, will have faded edges. You can't fix the bright-edge problem with aperture blades, only the shape of those spots. Lenses that provide bright-edge bokeh usually also suffer from double-line bokeh.

It's pretty typical for double-gauss designs typical of normal lenses.

Here's a shot made with a Ukrainian 120mm lens in medium format--a short telephoto. It's also a double-gauss design. It's the reason I no use Sonnars for images that will have significant out of focus areas.

The 50/1.4 ought to be better just because it's faster. And Canon may have changed the formula a bit--it does have an additional element over the 1.8. The answer is to use a wider aperture and go softer, or a narrower aperture and pull it into the depth of field. Or, fix it in Photoshop, heh, heh.

http://www.rickdenney.com/scratch/irises_in_side_yard.jpg

Rick "who hates bright-edge bokeh" Denney

[rdenney]

Take a look here (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/) for examples of the bokeh of the 2 lenses.


They both show bright-edge bokeh typical of double-gauss lens designs. The only difference is that the 1.8 has polygonal spots intead of round spots. This would not be a problem wide open, of course. And in my view, it ain't much of a problem anyway. Take away the bright edge (which has nothing to do with the aperture blades), and the shape of the spot won't be so obvious.

Rick "who has lenses with excellent bokeh that also have relatively few blades" Denney

[Adam Hicks]

I have both lenses... I'll have to do some comparisons... I will say though, in the picture with the lady's face, you can pretty well see pentagonal shapes in the bright areas...

Adam

[DocFrankenstein]

Rick... but then my russian helios 58/2 is also a gaussian design, but the bokeh is WAY better in it.

What gives?

[rdenney]

Rick... but then my russian helios 58/2 is also a gaussian design, but the bokeh is WAY better in it.


I'll check into that. But I'll bet the Helios is not a double-gauss design, but rather a Tessar or modified Tessar design. I know just who to ask...

Rick "who bets that it is not as well correct against spherical aberration in any case" Denney

[Kennymc]

Blame it on the blades...........less blades = less rounded bokeh leading to the choppiness you see on your image.............I don't know how much better the f1.4 version would do though......but probably a tad better.

Ro1

The above statement is correct...
The nearer the blades are to a circle (more blades the nearer it is to a circle) the rounder and better the bokeh... Another thing that helps bokeh is the use of wide apertures... Strong front light and small apertures show the blades shape more predominantly than normal light and wide apertures... I have both lenses and the f/1.4 shows better bokeh at f/1.8 than the f/1.8 does wide open but a touch more distortion at the minimum focusing distance... What you gain on the roundabout you lose on the swig...

[mr.photoguy]

Not trying to throw stones, but I am much more impressed with my Tamron's bokeh.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41851498.jpg
Is the bokeh on the 85 1.8 good also.

[Kennymc]

I've got one of those too, the 7 blade diaphragm does give good bokeh... The 8 blades of the EF f/1.4 gives better bokeh than the 5 blades of the f/1.8 MKII though and slightly better than the Tamron at 50mm because it has 1 more blade and a wider aperture...

Both the EF85 F/1.8 and the EF85 F/1.2 have 8 blades and produce great bokeh, of all the lenses I have had the opportunity to use the EF85 F/1.2 is the king... IMHO the best boke'd lens in the world...

[mr.photoguy]

Maybe next year around tax time I will spring for a 85 1.2.. depending on where I am financially.

[Adam Hicks]

I've never in my life seen bokeh like the 200mm 1.8. It was just ridiculous. But then again for the price and weight, it oughta be a Bokeh making machine!

:)

Adam

Check THIS bokeh out (of my goofy dog in the yard...) (http://www.golilm.com/images/200_1.8/zoe_200_1.8.jpg)

[mr.photoguy]

I've never in my life seen bokeh like the 200mm 1.8. It was just ridiculous. But then again for the price and weight, it oughta be a Bokeh making machine!

:)

Adam

Check THIS bokeh out (of my goofy dog in the yard...) (http://www.golilm.com/images/200_1.8/zoe_200_1.8.jpg)


Now that is silky smooth..
I would love to have that for some bokeh Candids..
lol..

[Kennymc]

Didn't even know these had hit the shops yet but the bokeh looks absolutely great... The wider aperture of the f/1.2 wide open still has the edge IMHO...

[roanjohn]

.........Is the bokeh on the 85 1.8 good also............

YES!!! Buttery smooth.........and a definite improvement from the 50 primes.

Ro1

[COKE CAN]

Here are 2 I shot this morning with my Rebel & 50mm/1.8:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70071

[mr.photoguy]

YES!!! Buttery smooth.........and a definite improvement from the 50 primes.

Ro1
thanks Roanjohn...
I will be looking into one of these.

[Andy_T]

Take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57113&highlight=bokeh)!

Psst ... DO NOT look at the picture from the 135/2.0 L :lol:

I warned you.

Best regards,
Andy

[mr.photoguy]

Take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57113&highlight=bokeh)!

Psst ... DO NOT look at the picture from the 135/2.0 L :lol:

I warned you.

Best regards,
Andy
My gosh Andy..
I remember reading that post, That 135 is indeed freaking awesome..

looking up price on B~n~H.

[rdenney]

Take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57113&highlight=bokeh)!

Psst ... DO NOT look at the picture from the 135/2.0 L :lol:

I warned you.

Best regards,
Andy

ARGH! Yes, THAT is good bokeh. Notice that there is no double-line effect, no bright edges on out-of-focus highlights, and everything looks like it was painted with a broad, smooth brush.

The others are not on the same planet.

But I do wish he'd conducted the experiment adjusting the f/stop to provide the same apparent blur on the background for each lens. People sometimes confuse more blur with better bokeh, but even though more blur is aesthetically usually better, it's not the same thing as better bokeh. Differences in bokeh should be different even at the same apparent blur.

Rick "who thinks the 100/2.8 Macro came in second in that comparison" Denney

[rdenney]

The above statement is correct...
The nearer the blades are to a circle (more blades the nearer it is to a circle) the rounder and better the bokeh...

With respect, the shape of the aperture affects the shape of the bokeh, not the quality.

Let's take a fixed highlight that is a point source of light against a dark background. The sky shining through leaves on a distant tree is an example. The perfect lens would render this out of focus highlight as a round disk that is evenly illuminated across its diameter. This is the bokeh provided by most of Canon's best lenses.

Some lens designs that are optimized for contrast, however, create a disk that is brighter on the edges than in the middle. I call this "bright-edge" bokeh. Other lenses create a disk with an edge that fades into the background. That is not a perfect lens for resolution and contrast, but it has good bokeh.

The number of blades only affects the shape of the disk, not the relative brightness of its edge. Yes, a round shape is better, but it's not the most important aspect of bokeh. Those shapes are quite apparent in lenses with bright-edge bokeh, but are not at all apparent in lenses that produced soft-edge bokeh. Thus, a round aperture in a lens with bright-edge bokeh just makes bad bokeh look better, but it's not better bokeh.

I have some lenses for rangefinders and large-format cameras that have perfectly round apertures at all settings that still have terrible bokeh. And even the five-bladed 50/1.8 lens has a perfectly round aperture when used wide open. But the out-of-focus highlights will still have bright edges.

The quality of the bokeh depends in large measure on the character of the background, too. Backgrounds with bright spots against a dark field will reveal bad bokeh in a hurry.

On a medium-format forum, a fellow posted a series of portraits, half of which were made with an excellent Hartblei 150mm/2.8 lens, and half of which were made with a Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8 lens. The apparent blur was the same for both. He invited us to offer our opinions on which was which, thinking we would not be able to. Several of us who had experience with Sonnars got six out of six, though we all thought the 150 was excellent (and it is a modified Sonnar design). A lens with good bokeh glows in the dark, but it is a subtle glow. It's the reason experienced art directors can identify the lenses on photos they see by their look.

A lens is a broad, smooth brush.

Rick "gestating his own comparison test" Denney

[cmM]

a great deal of it depends on the geometrical characteristics of the diaphragm, but I agree, not all of it. There are certain characteristics of the lens optics that change the appearance of the circles of confusion, thus different OOF.

[dharris]

Not trying to throw stones, but I am much more impressed with my Tamron's bokeh.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41851498.jpg
Is the bokeh on the 85 1.8 good also.

The 85mm f/1.8 has the best bokeh without being L glass IHMO.

[021411]

I think it's nice..

http://htt.smugmug.com/photos/20588838-L.jpg

[rdenney]

Rick... but then my russian helios 58/2 is also a gaussian design, but the bokeh is WAY better in it.


Okay, I've done a little research (this forum is going to get me fired, heh, heh). The Helios is a classic, highly symmetrical double-gauss lens with six elements in four groups, similar to the early Planar. It has better bokeh that the Canon double-gauss lenses because it has a slight amount of uniformly undercorrected spherical aberration, which is the secret to producing out-of-focus highlights with a soft, fading edge. Double-gauss lenses that are highly optimized for MTF performance (which includes most Japanese lenses) typically are, if anything, overcorrected for spherical aberration, which produces bright-edge and double-line bokeh. This is true for all highly MTF-optimized double-gauss designs, including Planars, Xenotars (which have a particular terrible reputation for bokeh along with their particularly stunning reputation for sharpness), Takumars, Summicrons, and Canon's 50mm lenses. Those that are more symmetrical and are not computer-optimized include the Helios, Volna and Biometar lenses from the old Second World.

The Sonnar is thought to be more highly corrected than the double-gauss designs, but it is not practical for SLR in normal focal lengths. The rear element would not clear the mirror. But the Sonnar is more fully corrected than the Planar double-gauss design, and has fewer air surfaces to cause flare, and it can be made to have a wider aperture (the first f/1.5 lenses were Sonnar designs). It will produce extremely sharp images at the plane of sharp focus while still providing overall uniform undercorrection of spherical aberration, and this is why the Sonnars are famous for their soft rendering of backgrounds. The good news is that Sonnars produced in East Germany are still available in M42 mount and are easily adaptable to the Canon, with the 135/3.5 being perhaps the most useful. Russian Jupiters are also Sonnar designs, but with more recent corrections and also poor quality control, such that they are generally underwhelming, which dilutes the Sonnar experience.

The Tessar was a four-element improvement on the triplets of the day. Tessars were very good at close focus (double-gauss lenses have to be specially corrected for it), but were limited in their speed and field of view. They make good enlarger lenses. But their bokeh is thought to be "clumpy", and I've seen that adjective from too many disparate groups of people to think it too far off the mark. Tessars including, well, Tessars, in addition to Xenars and Industars.

Thus, it would seem that highly optimized double-gauss lenses have the worst bokeh, followed by double-gauss designs are more symmetrical and not computer-optimized. The lenses with the best bokeh seem to be Sonnars, followed by double-gauss designs that are specifically optimized for good bokeh. Uniform undercorrection for spherical aberration seems to be the key. It's important to note that good bokeh results from poor performance--perfect rendering of out-of-focus highlights wold be a uniform disk with a sharp edge. I think that's why the Japanese lenses never really glow in the dark here (with the apparent exception of that 135 f/2, which was probably optimized for bokeh), because their designers are so interested in MTF performance.

Rick "who knows bad bokeh when he sees it" Denney

[Tom W]

Rick - you raise some very interesting issues, most of which I had never thought about. I'm going to compare a couple of lenses at 50 mm to see just how their bokeh compares - the 50/1.4, the 24-70L, and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. I'm very curious as to how they compare. Obviously, the 50/1.4 will perform well at f/1.4 in comparison to the other two, but I'll try to set the test up to show the quality of the blurred circles - soft-vs-hard edges and such. People sometimes complain that the 50/1.4 is soft wide open (aren't they all?), but that is probably helpful in smoothing the bokeh as well.

I'm also going to google Tessar and Sonnar as I'm not familiar with all the various lens design names/categories. The Gaussian design is about the only one I can identify with some regularity.

[DocFrankenstein]

I am seriously thinking about acquireing a couple of those lenses and a praktica camera.

Also, extremely sharp lenses actually produce less sharp images on the digital sensors... Has something to do with the minimal resolvable detail and the size of the sensor... And to think I only wrote an exam on that stuff 4 months ago :o

I would rather have a pleasant bokeh and slight softness, rather than extreme sharpness and distracting ghosting in the background.

Do you have any good links or suggested reading on those designs you describe?

[DocFrankenstein]

I think it's nice..
It's nice cause the fence is linear already... it's really hard to screw up that.

But the branch in the upper left corner is all circly and distracting...

[Andy_T]

With all that talk about the bokeh of SONNAR lenses, maybe you'd like to look at a thread with example pictures from the Zeiss 135/3.5 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=518569). Schmoelzel, again.

Take a look at that cup of milk tea :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[roanjohn]

The 85mm f/1.8 has the best bokeh without being L glass IHMO.

I agree!!!

Ro1

[rdenney]

I would rather have a pleasant bokeh and slight softness, rather than extreme sharpness and distracting ghosting in the background.

Do you have any good links or suggested reading on those designs you describe?

Amen! There is no need for a portrait lens to be glaringly sharp. In fact, it's probably a disadvantage with most subjects. Sharpness, as I wrote in another thread, is a state of mind. If the eyes are obviously sharper than everything else in the image, they will appear sharp even if they are not in absolute terms. Pictures look fuzzy when we have fuzzy concepts.

I've already closed those other windows and didn't save much. There is a lot of just plain wrong information. Some of it I got from the discussion of lenses for large format on Robert Monaghan's Medium Format site, some I got from a conversation I had yesterday with a few folks on the Kiev Report, and some from what I remember of previous conversations. There was a page that showed the optical cross-section of Russian lenses, including the Helios 58/2. Nathan Dayton's Commie Cameras site shows the optical cross section of medium-format Sonnars made by Zeiss Jena.

Rick "who didn't keep good notes" Denney

[rdenney]

With all that talk about the bokeh of SONNAR lenses, maybe you'd like to look at a thread with example pictures from the Zeiss 135/3.5 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=518569). Schmoelzel, again.

Take a look at that cup of milk tea :wink:


Yup. I saw that and immediately went to ebay and bought one.

It's amusing that the lens used to take pictures of the Sonnar doesn't have as good bokeh as the Sonnar. In the second picture in Schmoelzel's initial post, look at the pink specular highlight from the back edge of the lens. It's an out-of-focus disk, with a bright edge. The focus is so close and the aperture so wide that the background is extremely blurred, and that looks like good bokeh. But that bright-edge disk tells the real story. In conditions where those disks covered much of the background (such as the sky through a tree in the background of a portrait), that lens would not fare so well.

Rick "who doesn't need all his lenses to have good bokeh, but who would like a few that do" Denney

[Andy_T]

Take a look at
http://www.davidde.com/articles/zeisscopies.html
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/8D6D4E3758C9413D41256A530037FA76
http://www.baierfoto.de/russobj/objektive.html

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

Take a look at
http://www.davidde.com/articles/zeisscopies.html
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/8D6D4E3758C9413D41256A530037FA76
http://www.baierfoto.de/russobj/objektive.html


Thanks. Your third link is the one I saw that confirmed for me the Helios had a symmetrical double-gauss design. It also shows that the Jupiters are modified Sonnars, with their very thick cemented groups.

The Zeiss site only shows the Oberkochen revisions, of course. The diagram for the 150 is more like the Sonnars of old (also as built by the Jena factory) than the 180 for the Contax.

The first site nailed it with its statement that Sonnars were known for to be "pleasant center-emphasized wide open". That pleasant center emphasis describes perfectly a soft-edge bokeh.

Rick "who had not seen that link before, nor the reason why Leica lenses never used the Sonnar concept" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm pissed. I won't give my rebel to anybody anymore. My girlfriend took my rebel with the kit lens and made some shots I was jelous of. Green box!

She doesn't know what aperture is, and we're talking about the "right bokeh". Wrong tree?

[rdenney]

I'm pissed. I won't give my rebel to anybody anymore. My girlfriend took my rebel with the kit lens and made some shots I was jelous of. Green box!

She doesn't know what aperture is, and we're talking about the "right bokeh". Wrong tree?

Been there, done that.

I talk about bokeh as a defense mechanism. I still have my private domain of geekness that she cannot penetrate.

But she can tell the difference between Sonnar bokeh and all other lenses, just by the look. She could tell before even I knew what too look for.

Go figure.

Rick "who must be around to deal with technical problems, however" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

Tis true... a mechanism of deferral:

I can't take pictures with 50/1.8 because they bokeh looks distracting. Must have the Sonnar. Now I need a 1Ds with it's split circle focusing screen, to be able to use the sonnar. :cool:

But come to think of it, you do need the sonnar for something like this:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69949

[rdenney]

Tis true... a mechanism of deferral:

I can't take pictures with 50/1.8 because they bokeh looks distracting. Must have the Sonnar. Now I need a 1Ds with it's split circle focusing screen, to be able to use the sonnar. :cool:

But come to think of it, you do need the sonnar for something like this:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69949

Yeah, and preferably an something with an maximum aperture of about f/0.8 to get a realistic lack of depth of field. And uncoated.

Rick "amazed at how much money we will spend to match the look of a $100 Mockba 6x9 folder" Denney

[Andy_T]

Doc,

also take a look at the Jupiter 9 85/2.0 lens.
It is still in production (Russia or Ukraine) and also a Sonnar design.

I have one, but I haven't used it much because it is pretty hard to focus wide open. Still, with all the added knowledge I now have about the advantages of the Sonnar design :wink: I can hardly wait to get home on the weekend to get another try at taking some portraits with it.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Here's one of the images I took with the Jupiter 9 where I managed to get acceptable focus (for this lens! Not according to my normal standard :confused: ).
Think it was taken at 1/400, ISO 800, f/2.8 or f/4.0.

The image loses because of JPG conversion to get below 100 KB. Looks better with USM applied in the large version, but with JPG compression this showed really nasty sharpening artifacts, so I went with the unsharpened version.

[Andy_T]

New try with the Jupiter 9.

This lens is rising in my appreciation.
It's sharpened a bit too much in the hairline, but it was a quick&dirty job. Hope you like it nevertheless.

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

We don't know what aperture you were shooting.. with the sun in the image I would asume you were stopped down a bit.. which would totally change the bokeh..

Also,. you may not have enough distance to the trees relative to your distance from the focus subject. ie: that your too far from the railing (the focus subject) ... try doing it where you are closer to the railing... and/or make sure you are shooting at f/1.8
If you look at the Exif, he was shooting at F1.8

BTW, here is a picture taken with the 135/2L taken at F4.0. Wide open the results are even better!

http://images2.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/MG_3911.jpg

[dkord]

I'm not too up on the tech for good bokeh, but I sure love the 50 1.4's

http://www.sparksonline.org/asm/dkord/4Lisa.jpg

[Andy_T]

Other noteworthy additions to this thread:
Tom W's 50 bokeh test (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70330&highlight=bokeh)
Tom W's 85 bokeh test (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70572&highlight=bokeh)
RDenney's bokeh test (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70691&highlight=bokeh)
Roanjohn's rave about the 85/1.2 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69022&highlight=bokeh)
Roanjohn's comparison of the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70983)
Review of some popular third-party lenses in the 24-70/2.8 range that also includes bokeh (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/shootout)

My take after all this is that bokeh-wise, the best bang for the buck are the M42 Sonnar lenses if you don't mind manual focus, and the 85/1.8 if you need AF. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR is not bad, either.

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

My take after all this is that bokeh-wise, the best bang for the buck are the M42 Sonnar lenses if you don't mind manual focus, and the 85/1.8 if you need AF. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR is not bad, either.

I would only add that the 70-200/4L did remarkably well in my tests, and was superior to anything but the Sonnar. Nobody should be worried that the 70-200/4L will produce unacceptable bokeh.

Rick "surprised the zoom did so well" Denney

[ozziegrowl]

I took this using the 50m f/1.8

comments on the bokeh would be extremely welcome :)

http://static.flickr.com/26/103700705_bf63c4eaab.jpg?v=0

[Andy_T]

Ozzie,

very nice image.
Most people here did not say that it is impossible to get good bokeh with the lens, but rather sometimes a bit hard.

Now, while I find the bokeh in your shot a bit distracting from the main subject, the contours are not too hard and the pattern is not too small to truly take away from the image.

Best regards,
Andy

[rklepper]

What the heck?? Does anyone have any example of a 50mm 1.4 lens wide open? I heard that has better brokeh

http://www.pbase.com/booggerg/image/42536833.jpg

I think it is because you are shooting into the sun.

[rklepper]

You are right, the 50/1.4 is generally known to produce better bokeh.

Still, I think the main problem with your pictures is the harsh lighting conditions (light coming through tree). I've seen pictures from other lenses like this where I did not like the (otherwise nice) bokeh.

Y'know, when you think you know it all, there's another thing left to consider :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

I think the OP wanted to see if the 1.4 had better bokeh than the 1.8.

[cdifoto]

If it hasn't been posted here already, member aparmley compared his 1.8 with his 1.4:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17480

[Saturation]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/952/700kt3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
I like my 1.4

[Tim S]

Take a look here (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/) for examples of the bokeh of the 2 lenses.

Best regards,
Andy
The examples list the 50mm f/1.8 MKII, is there a difference in bokeh for the original 50/1.8?

[Jim G]

The examples list the 50mm f/1.8 MKII, is there a difference in bokeh for the original 50/1.8?

No.. optically they are precisely the same.

[Tim S]

Thanks,I wasn't sure if the mount material was the only difference or not.

[Andy_T]

The difference is the material of the mount and the distance scale on the MKI (not that I had actually ever met anybody who really used the distance scale :wink:)

Best regards,
Andy

[Collin85]

One of the reasons why I regret getting the 1.8 over the 1.4.

[Andy_T]

Collin,

again, no problem at all.
Put your 50/1.8 here on the forum or on eBay and then get the 50/1.4.
Unless you've bought it too expensive in the first place, you will maybe lose some 10$.
Chalk it up to 'learning experience'...

Plus, you're right. It will definitely fit better between your 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[krazziecliff]

For 1/3rd the price there has got to be some difference in IQ dont you think?

[Jman13]

Why has this thread been resurrected 4 times? April 05 (orig)...then February 06, August 06, Dec 06 and Feb 07. ?

[imranr]

... very pleasing
I took this using the 50m f/1.8

comments on the bokeh would be extremely welcome :)

http://static.flickr.com/26/103700705_bf63c4eaab.jpg?v=0

[krazziecliff]

Why has this thread been resurrected 4 times? April 05 (orig)...then February 06, August 06, Dec 06 and Feb 07. ?

Why? Cause accusing the good old nifty is a sin!! hehehe. we all love it, for the price its the best glass out there.

[krazziecliff]

Specially when the OP at that point of point spelt Bokeh as Brokeh!!

[asylumxl]

bokeh is down to the light sources and their intensities, you got ugly bokeh in the sun shot cos there was a load of small light sources there. also i think it depends on what your copies like.

[Andy_T]

bokeh is down to the light sources and their intensities, you got ugly bokeh in the sun shot cos there was a load of small light sources there. also i think it depends on what your copies like.

That is certainly one of the reasons.
The other, however, is lens design (Re-read Rick Denneys very informative posts on the subject).

I have heard lots of people who said that their copy was good (sharp, precise AF) or bad (not-so-sharp, AF not spot-on), but a difference in bokeh was never mentioned.

Mind you ... I was certainly capable of getting very pleasant pictures out of my 50/1.8 MKI ... when I paid attention to backgrounds.
But I have a significantly higher 'keeper rate' with my 50/1.4, because I can forget about that one possible source of a flaw to an image.
(I have also got occasional images where the bokeh of the 50/1.4 was lacking, especially in backlit tree situations. But nowhere near the magnitude of the problem at the 50/1.8 )

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Somebody remind me to resurrect that thread in July 2007 :wink:

[tom s]

people keep saying 50 1.4 is so much better than 50 1.8, but the same can be said of 50 1.2 L: 50 1.2 L is much better than 50 1.4; 50 1.4 just lacks that creamy bokeh L lenses have.

[asylumxl]

PS: Somebody remind me to resurrect that thread in July 2007 :wink:

someone did it for you...

[sirsloop]

people keep saying 50 1.4 is so much better than 50 1.8, but the same can be said of 50 1.2 L: 50 1.2 L is much better than 50 1.4; 50 1.4 just lacks that creamy bokeh L lenses have.

The reason the 50/1.8 is said to have bad bokeh is because of the 5 blade aperture. I can't remember what the count on the 1.4 and 1.2 are... I think 8 blades? Anyways, a 5 blade aperture will make pentagons out of pin point light sources like street lights or reflections. Its not real flattering (on some photos).

As far as the 1.2L being better than the 50/1.4...IDK about that. For the enormous price jump, you probably are only getting marginially better corner brightness wide open, corner sharpness, and a better built body. The 50/1.4 is one hell of a lens, especially for what it costs.

[angryhampster]

someone did it for you...



Leave it to the noobs.