I Need some bokeh :)

[kellmeister]

Hi all,

I just bought a 20D which is my first digital camera. I currently use it with a 50mm f1.8 lens. I mainly shoot artistic style shots (no weddings or sports) and am contemplating on getting some primes.

It seems most L lenses range from several hundred to $1000. Since my main criteria in a lens is bokeh and resolution, I was wondering how alternative lenses such as a mounted leica or contax lens would compare to the more expensive L line. AF is not really a concern as I'm use to shooting with mechanical cameras anyway.

Has anyone been able to do a direct comparison with some of these alternative lenses versus Canon L on a 20D? I could rack up some credit and buy the 85mm f1.2 which seems to offer what I'm looking for, but I was wondering if there were any other alternatives that would be cheaper and provide me with just as good or better bokeh.

[sixshot]

I don't know about non-Canon, but have seen some impressive Bokeh on this forum from the 85mm f1.2. I'd also like to see the reponse to this for future reference.

[roanjohn]

how about the 85 f1.8??

It's very bokeh friendly :D

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/40972456.jpg

[schmoelzel]

Longer focal length lenses seem to have smoother bokeh. 135F2 is awesome.....just found one that is equal to that lens......300F4 L........creamy and dreamy bokeh!

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/300F4-1D-M.jpg

[kellmeister]

Thanks for posting your pics, very nice.

Schmoelzel, the pic you have with the 135F2 is really what I'm looking for. The image pops out with an almost 3d effect :cool: The bokeh is creamy too. So what your saying is that the wider primes would not have this effect?

Roanjoh: I noticed you have a 85mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.8. I saw your pics in another thread done with the 85mm 1.2 that had the same pop and 3d like effect as well. How does it compare with the 85mm f1.8? Unfortunatetly the 85mm f1.2 is soooo expensive.

[schmoelzel]

The pic I posted was actually taken with the 300F4 L......sorry for the confusion; I no longer have the 135F2 but was comparing the two lenses. Longer focal lengths seem to have nicer bokeh because of the perspective and compression factors. Take the 300F4.......the further away the background is from the subject, the smoother and more OOF the background becomes........I also began using a 16-35 ultra-wide lens recently and with proper compostion, the bokeh is also pleasent and the subject can have the 3D pop that youget from longer lenses........here's a shot taken with the 16-35f2.8 L at it's wide end.....35mm..........http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/16-35L-1D-E.jpg

[roanjohn]

Roanjoh: I noticed you have a 85mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.8. I saw your pics in another thread done with the 85mm 1.2 that had the same pop and 3d like effect as well. How does it compare with the 85mm f1.8? Unfortunatetly the 85mm f1.2 is soooo expensive.

Now that I've had these two lenses for a while, I realize that the only similarity they share is the focal length.........otherwise, they are two entirely different beasts!!!

The 1.8 version is FAST. It really is. I use it when I take indoor dance/sports photos where super fast focusing is KEY. IN terms of the bokeh, it is pretty much on par with the 1.2 version..........you'll have to be an expert to really tell one from the other.

The 1.2 version is SHARP!!! ANd it absords even the tiniest of light available. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 is HUGE when it comes to low light photography. However, the downside is its focusing speed and weight...and of course, its price :-( In terms of sharpness, I'll even go as far to say that this lens is sharper at 1.2 then the other at 1.8.

Ro1

[rdenney]

Remember that depth of field is less with shorter focal lengths. The arguments rage, but we went right through the math a few weeks ago and proved it, even when comparing at the same size print from the smaller format.

Thus, I've changed my position concerning focal length for portraiture. I used to say that 50 on a 20D would be as useful as an 80 on a full-frame camera. It would indeed allow the same field of view from the same camera position (and thus have the same perspective), but the depth of field at the same f-stop will be less. Thus, I'm using longer lenses than the strict equivalent despite the longer working distances, simply to get more blur in the background.

I performed a test of bokeh of various lenses, here:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

I didn't have either of the Canon 85's to test, nor did I have the 135/2L. But I did find that the 70-200/4L was surprisingly good in the bokeh department, especially at the longer focal lengths.

I expect that the 300/4L is so good mostly because at such working distances the depth of field is razor thin and the background grossly blurred. I also suspect that they are designed for corrected bokeh as opposed to specifically smooth bokeh (which requires a bit of undercorrected spherical aberration), but this is far better than many shorter lenses. But you'll need walkie-talkies between the photographer and the subject, especially on the 20D.

From what I have seen, the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2 have similar bokeh at similar apertures, but, of course, the 1.2 goes wider and creates more blur. The 135/2 images also look gorgeous to me, and they are very much better than the 135/2.8 "soft-focus" lens that I have and now don't use.

There are some off-the-wall alternatives, too. The Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 is quite good, as are the 180/2.8 and the 300/4 from the same manufacturer. They come in some other mount (usually M42 in the case of the 135, and Pentacon Six in the case of the two longer lenses), but can be adapted to the Canon. They are much cheaper than Canon L-series lenses, but provide image quality in the same ballpark. You give up autofocus, of course, and also the automatic diaphragm, though the auto exposure will still work fine. The bokeh of these Sonnars is world-renowned. Two of them are represented in my bokeh test linked above.

Rick "who thinks the Canon zoom does surprisingly well" Denney

[tommykjensen]

Many users have referenced this photo of mine to illustrate the bokeh of the 70-200 mm f/4L

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=HarrisHawk1.jpg

[roanjohn]

WOW!!!! Thanks Rick "Who does the best bokeh test EVER" Denney!!!!

Ro1

[formula4speed]

Background? We don't need no stinking background.

200mm 2.8L

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/punkmuzikboy/gosling2.jpg

[Andy_T]

Check out this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785)!

In the last posts there are also some collected links...

Best regards,
Andy

[kellmeister]

Check out this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785)!

In the last posts there are also some collected links...

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks for the link and info. The ugly bokeh shots by the 50mm f1.8 is what I'm talking about. I'll have to do further research and maybe pick up one of the cheap sonnar's to play around with.

[rdenney]

A general thought occurs to me, and it has been mentioned before but now I think it needs to be said again: Bokeh is not the degree of blur of the background. It is the quality of that blur.

If you want more blur, use a longer lens and a wider aperture. If you are happy with the amount of blur but don't like it's appearance, than choose a different lens design of the same focal length.

I mention it now because the 3D quality you mentioned for the image of the child made with the 300mm lens has that quality because the background is extremely blurred, not because the blur has any particular qualities. When the background is that blurred, the differences in bokeh are not as noticeable.

I'm using longer lenses (with respect to normal) with the smaller sensor because I want MORE blur.

I bet that the image of the girl made with the 85 would have more that 3D effect, too, if the fence wasn't there to tie the subject plane and the background together. (Don't get me wrong, it's a better image with the fence there--I'm just talking about the 3D effect.) So, how you compose the shot and point the lens will also affect your results.

Rick "who thinks a 500mm mirror lens could produce that 3D effect with the right choice of background, despite horrible bokeh" Denney

[schmoelzel]

rick is correct.....bokeh refers to quality. And that can sometimes be subjective. I like shots where the subject pops out of the background (3D effect) but you have to make sure the background is appropriate........the shot I took of Julia at the park I actually knew beforehand what type of shot I would get......I wanted the green background but it had to be far away to appear that blurry..........there is something to be said for planning the shot! Now that being said, the lens does make all the difference. As you can see with the shot I posted using the 16-35.....the bokeh is very nice (quality-wise) but not nearly as blurred as the 300 F4 shot. That is to be expected. Longer focal lengths tend to push the background away more than shorter focal lengths. This is just my supposition.....I welcome an 'expert' here to give the real answer!!:)

[kellmeister]

Thanks guys for the clarification.The thread about ugly bokeh from the 50mm f1.8 reaffirmed my beliefs that it doesn't have a great "signature" like some of the other canon lenses. I'm still not happy with the blur from this lense but its still a decent performer.