Bokeh -post your best pls

[rfreschner]

However, to be open about the background

Excellent shots nonetheless!!!

[grumpyhaggis]

Taken using 50mm 1.8 @F1.8

[ranchonodinero]

Taken using 50mm 1.8 @F1.8

No doubt the best Bokeh for the buck!

[Ballen Photo]

Taken using 50mm 1.8 @F1.8That's actually nicer than I would have expected. :D Was this the MK I or MK II ?
-Bruce

[grumpyhaggis]

It's the Mk II (and I've since sold it for the 1.4).

[shutupandbuy]

here'e one from christmas day with the 50mm f/1.4

[Liquid_Squelch]

I had to hand-hold this shot, so it a bit soft.. but its a branch off of this year's Christmas tree... lights a twinkling in the background!!
Shifted the white balance in the camera to give it a bit more green.. This is how it looked out of the camera....

http://www.photograph-ny.com/misc%20files/Oh%20Christmast%20Tree.jpg

[Belade]

The DOF has no photoshop, was done with a 50mm 1.8

http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/3736/floresfera5ex.jpg

[Mizaki]

All taken with my 50mm 1.4 wide open

[/URL]

[URL="http://static.flickr.com/40/77480332_8b5711843f_b.jpg"] (http://static.flickr.com/37/78799484_0cd6717bcc_b.jpg)

http://static.flickr.com/40/77480330_5799c5724c.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/40/77480330_5799c5724c_b.jpg)

This one is really, really nice with capital N. Good work. I would gladly hang a big print of this shot to my wall.

[Mizaki]

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/6239/img037a15ig.jpg

Pitbull... To get such a shot without DSLR is nothing less than excellent work.

[noname]

This one is really, really nice with capital N. Good work. I would gladly hang a big print of this shot to my wall.

I really wish I took that picture but it was my brother. I set up the camera for him, wide open shooting in BW and set the ISO. The large version can be found here (http://flickr.com/photos/noname/77480330/). (Direct link) (http://static.flickr.com/40/77480330_5799c5724c_o.jpg)

feel free to do whatever with that picture :)

[Mizaki]

I really wish I took that picture but it was my brother. I set up the camera for him, wide open shooting in BW and set the ISO. The large version can be found here (http://flickr.com/photos/noname/77480330/). (Direct link) (http://static.flickr.com/40/77480330_5799c5724c_o.jpg)

feel free to do whatever with that picture :)

Thank you noname. That was very kind of you.

[HKFEVER]

I have another one, but the style is copy cat:o .

[maceo920]

This was done by accident... However, I like the picture...

[EOSAddict]

Here's mine - with the Sigma 100-300 handheld

[Mike6158]

http://images1.fotki.com/v6/photos/4/42560/132364/Bluebonnets2-vi.jpg

http://images14.fotki.com/v258/photos/4/42560/132364/Berries-vi.jpg

[JohnCollins]

Now that top flower shot is just outstanding! Wow!

[Mizaki]

Flowers can be a real challange - and not my cup of tea. Anyhow, perhaps this one belongs here. One rainy day I tried to do some still life with controlled DOF as theme, so that just the lighted part of flower is in focus. Always good to train to control the DOF... This one is with 70-200/2.8 (lightning is normal domestic halogen spot, background an army surplus blanket, nothing fancier here). Bokeh just doesn't come too apparent whit such subject, although I think I managed to get some.

[samwise gamgee]

http://static.flickr.com/43/83554353_0f1bf90f32.jpg?v=1 Canon 300D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at 200mm and f/2.8

[kwsanders]

http://static.flickr.com/43/83554353_0f1bf90f32.jpg?v=1 Canon 300D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at 200mm and f/2.8


Beautiful shot!

[hemuni]

here's one from today, playing with my new 28-70L - call it a minimalistic approach...

http://www.hemuni.dk/files/potn/bokeh.jpg

this thread is amazing!

[SYS]

A male olympian statue.
48575

[kwsanders]

I shot these two last night. The first one is using my 70-200mm f/4L for really the first time. The second shot was taken using my 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. Both were taken from a tripod setup.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirgon/84268793/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirgon/84269011/

[Kennymc]

A male olympian statue.


Just burn in that hot spot on the neck and you will have a very good, almost monochromatic image... I like the angle of view...

[goatee]

One of the first shots I took with my 85mm f/1.8

[Mike6158]

One of the first shots I took with my 85mm f/1.8

What a great idea... Nice photo... very nice.

[goatee]

Thanks Mike :) If you make it over to the UK, I can highly recommend visiting the incredibly picturesque Lake District (where the shot was taken) - great hiking, and landscape photography opportunities!

[Mike6158]

Thanks Mike :) If you make it over to the UK, I can highly recommend visiting the incredibly picturesque Lake District (where the shot was taken) - great hiking, and landscape photography opportunities!

Someday... I will make it there. My international travels have been limited to Paris, Cairo, and Alexandria... and I took far too few photographs back then.

Thanks for the recomendation... I hope to be able to make use of it.

[Neilyb]

If you do visit the Lakes drive a bit further east and visit the Yorkshire Dales.... :)

[goatee]

Someday... I will make it there. My international travels have been limited to Paris, Cairo, and Alexandria... and I took far too few photographs back then.

Thanks for the recomendation... I hope to be able to make use of it.

Wow - you say limited, but they're pretty exotic distant destinations!

In fact to add to what Neilyb said - much of the UK is very picturesque :) There's the Dales, the Peak District, the Lake District, Scotland (in particular the islands), Wales, not forgetting Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall :) And across the water in Northern Ireland, there's the giants causeway, which I haven't had the chance to visit, and the Republic of Ireland which has some amazing scenery.

For a couple of small islands, we're blessed with some outstanding scenery!

[SQUAREROOT]

2nd day of our baby boy. Coming out of the Hospital.

Cheers!
Square

[volleybrad]

My first contribution to this thread. Taken with the 85 f/1.8
http://chanwahyaoh.smugmug.com/photos/51895228-L.jpg

[Mike6158]

Morning Coffee...

http://images15.fotki.com/v266/photos/4/42560/3078788/WethePeople_P-vi.jpg

[Carzee]

Fantastic collection on this thread . . 20pages! (My best thread to date!)

[stevieboy378]

In fact to add to what Neilyb said - much of the UK is very picturesque :) There's the Dales, the Peak District, the Lake District, Scotland (in particular the islands), Wales, not forgetting Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall :) And across the water in Northern Ireland, there's the giants causeway, which I haven't had the chance to visit, and the Republic of Ireland which has some amazing scenery.

For a couple of small islands, we're blessed with some outstanding scenery!

Its just a great pity that a majority of the population don't appreciate all that wonderful scenery on their doorsteps . . .
Still, it leaves more space for those of us that do to wander around in . . . .

[Calzinger]

the paw of my dog's foot is on the bottom with its face in the background.
kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 of the ultimate crappy'ness)
55mm, 1/200", f/8.0, iso1600

[GeneMan88]

Is this ever gonna end?!?! Just to keep things going, here are a couple of photos of my bro-in-law's dog... taken with my EF 85 f/1.8, the 1st photo was at f/1.8, the second photo was @ f/2.5

[Carzee]

Those eyes are classic "What ya doing?"

[lilmill]

meet STORM

[JMAS]

So from what we can see in this thread, the "bokehiness" is more or less ranked like this:

1. 85mm f/1.2L
2. 85mm f/1.8
3. 50mm f/1.4

Many others can join below these positions, among them certainly the 70-200mm f/2.8L and f/4.0L as zooms.

Seems also even the kit lens and other non L or usualy not so highly considered lenses can produce good bokeh.

Right? ;)

[tiefelj]

http://images1.fotki.com/v6/photos/4/42560/132364/Bluebonnets2-vi.jpg


Love those bluebonnets. Texas state flower!


Jake

[grego]

My first day out with my sigma 120-300. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/Sigma%20120-300/IMG_1462-nocrop.jpg

[JohnCollins]

So from what we can see in this thread, the "bokehiness" is more or less ranked like this:

1. 85mm f/1.2L
2. 85mm f/1.8
3. 50mm f/1.4

Many others can join below these positions, among them certainly the 70-200mm f/2.8L and f/4.0L as zooms.

Seems also even the kit lens and other non L or usualy not so highly considered lenses can produce good bokeh.

Right? ;)

I'd agree with that ranking. I am impressed with the bokeh on my 17-85 IS USM kit lens (flower shot way earlier), but the 3 you ranked above really provide that buttery-smooth look.

John

[Calzinger]

So from what we can see in this thread, the "bokehiness" is more or less ranked like this:

1. 85mm f/1.2L
2. 85mm f/1.8
3. 50mm f/1.4

Many others can join below these positions, among them certainly the 70-200mm f/2.8L and f/4.0L as zooms.

Seems also even the kit lens and other non L or usualy not so highly considered lenses can produce good bokeh.

Right? ;)
While I can't agree with the ranking because I have never used those lenses (but from the shots, it looks true), I'd have to agree that the not-so-high-quality lenses really can bring pretty good bokeh. I was very impressed when I took that dog shot (the one with the focused paw and blurred face), especially since it was shot at iso1600. The difference I see between my shot and the others is the clarity on the focused part. For some reason, I can never get the kit lens to produce a sharp image.

[Calzinger]

Here's another one with the kit lens. It's a bit hard to tell of the blurred background, but the lights give it away.
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_4883.jpg

[adam*]

Some great shots here.

[Calzinger]

it was shot at iso1600 which is why the background seems a bit noisy, but i don't think it's too bad considering it was iso1600.
does it look fake though? i got the impression that it doesn't even look like a real picture.

the background is my computer with the green cold cathodes on.
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5667.jpg

[stupot]

someone posted a photo up of some barbed wire earlier, reminded me of a photo i took this summer, travelling across eastern europe. was taken with an ixus 40, before i got my slr:)

in case your wondering this was taken at auschwitz, it was an incredibly sad place, but i'm glad i went. dont feel it's something that can be ignored.

[Calzinger]

It seems a bit noisy. What's iso were you shooting at? You probably could've shot pretty low since it was sunny that day.

[DavidEB]

Originally Posted by JMAS
So from what we can see in this thread, the "bokehiness" is more or less ranked like this:


doubt you can really rank bokeh of lenses, as it's not just the degree of blur but also the quality of the blur. The two canon 50's are not tops in this regard.

if what you're after is ability to blur background, you want a lens with large aperature (narrower DOF) and long focal length (separates foreground from background).

Of the currently available lenses. I vote for the 135 f2,

http://www.pbase.com/davideb/image/51371553.jpg

[Kennymc]

The only true way to check one lenses bokeh against another is to shoot the same subject, at the same aperture, trying to keep the subject the same size in the frame (if the focal length is different)... Most lenses will give good bokeh if the background is far enough away from the subject... The lens with the best bokeh will render high contrast better than the one with lesser bokeh... Calzingers image, if it had been taken with a lens with good bokeh, those out of focus lights would have been completely circular...

[Calzinger]

Would I be correct in saying that the reason that the out of focus lights were not completely circular was because the lens only has a 6 blade aperture? Or do the blades make a difference on the other end when you shoot slower (ie. f/16, f/32, etc.)?

What specification in a lens determines "good bokeh"? If I wanted a lens that would make those lights in my picture complete circles, what spec lens would I need?

[mrmacca]

this one i took with my new canon 70-300mm is usm50213

[Jon]

it was shot at iso1600 which is why the background seems a bit noisy, but i don't think it's too bad considering it was iso1600.
does it look fake though? i got the impression that it doesn't even look like a real picture.

the background is my computer with the green cold cathodes on.
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5667.jpg
That was the KIT lens? If it was, we should be hearing a lot less about how crappy it is.

[Calzinger]

That was the KIT lens? If it was, we should be hearing a lot less about how crappy it is.
Hah, I even quote its "crapiness" in my sig.
It was edited a pretty good deal though which is why I mentioned that it looked a bit "fake". So in reality, it isn't straight from the kit lens.

But I have to agree, even I was pretty shocked! It was handheld @ 55mm 1/30" iso1600.

[Kennymc]

Would I be correct in saying that the reason that the out of focus lights were not completely circular was because the lens only has a 6 blade aperture? Or do the blades make a difference on the other end when you shoot slower (ie. f/16, f/32, etc.)?

What specification in a lens determines "good bokeh"? If I wanted a lens that would make those lights in my picture complete circles, what spec lens would I need?

Take for example the 50mm f/1.4 v's f/1.8...
The f/1.4 has a shallower depth of field wide open because of its larger aperture, it also has 8 blades which form more of a circle...
The f/1.8 slightly smaller aperture wide open gives a little more DOF and the 5 blades forming less of a circle stand out more...

Now the 85mm f/1.2 v's the f/1.8...
Both these have 8 blades and the bokeh is extremely similar when stopped down but the f/1.2, having a wider aperture, produces, reputably, one of the best, if not the best, bokeh in any lens when shot wide open...

Conclusion... Bokeh is a combination of maximum aperture, when shot wide open, and amount of diaphragm blades... Lenses with more diaphragm blades produce better bokeh, all else being equal...

Shooting street lights in low light will turn the diaphragm blades overlap/angles into stars, the more blades, the greater the amount of points to those stars and the sweeter the centre of light source...

[Calzinger]

I see. I was wondering why when I shot a christmas light bulb at f/36, it looked like a star.

[mdmedicgod]

My submission.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/Skydogs/ginogq.jpg

[Calzinger]

iso1600 with flash...doesn't make much sense :|
but again, with the kit lens
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5707.jpg

[goatee]

Calzinger - that's a great shot! Also, it demonstrates just how good the 350D is with regards to low noise on high ISOs.

[Kennymc]

Has this been post processed?.. Is there an Exif attached?..

[goatee]

EXIF information is attached to the image - a great image viewer which can handle EXIF (and much more) info, is Irfanview - I'm sure it's in the freeware sticky, but it's highly recommended!

[Kennymc]

I can no longer see the image... What's happened to it?..

[goatee]

Just to check, are you referring to Calzinger's shot of his dog's nose?

[Kennymc]

Yes... It's back again so it must have been a technical hitch... This must be some lens as the Exif says it was taken at f/5.6 now that is an extremely shallow DOF for f/5.6 especially for an 18-55mm lens...

[Calzinger]

It was post processed like there is no tomorrow.
I did a good deal of noise reduction with noise ninja in photoshop, but that was about it to be honest. It's not like the original looked completely horrible compared to this one. The only things that needed tweaking were the noise (which would've been virtually invisible after the crop) and the saturation which is an easy photoshop change.

I have to agree; it is a bit shallow for f/5.6, but I was at the minimum focus distance so that made even out of focus area.

To be honest, I used to get really pissed off with this lens. I used to wonder what I would ever do in low-light without a tripod. Thanks to some post-processing (ie. noise ninja) and some better technique, I have to say that I am REALLY satisfied with the 350D/kit lens combination. Of course it could be better, but I do think some shots I have come out great after a little bit of work.

Check out some of my other posts in this thread. You may even question whether they were taken with the kit lens or not.

[Calzinger]

here's another one. i think iso100, f/5.6, 1/250". again it is the kit lens.
if only the grill wasn't dusty, this could've been a good shot.
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5719.jpg

[Kennymc]

There is lens bokeh and there is photoshop bokeh... :lol:

[G19]

Is this good bokeh in this picture?

http://home.comcast.net/~g19/images/FtSnelling800x600.JPG

[Mike6158]

I borrowed an idea from an earlier post-

http://images15.fotki.com/v263/photos/4/42560/3078790/BarbedWire_001p-vi.jpg

[incendy]

Is this good bokeh in this picture?

http://home.comcast.net/~g19/images/FtSnelling800x600.JPG

I think so:) Very nice shot too! I like it very much so

[FOTO4YA]

First post here. Total newbie thats hooked. GREAT site.
http://foto4ya.smugmug.com/photos/52735619-M.jpg

[JohnCollins]

Welcome aboard! Found three other threads you liked already, I see.

John

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

Thought I'd post this one :D
Exciting subject, I know .... those white blobs at the top are birds.

400 f5.6L @ f5.6

http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/_MG_0464_web800_1.jpg

[goatee]

I borrowed an idea from an earlier post-



Hehe, that would be mine :)

[G19]

Good Bokeh or bad Bokeh you be the judge. :)

[2005GLI]

Had a staredown with a seagull outside of my truck today.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/2005GLI/Canon%20pics/Seagullstaredown.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/2005GLI/Canon%20pics/Seagullstaredown2.jpg

[In2Photos]

Thought I'd post this one :D
Exciting subject, I know .... those white blobs at the top are birds.

400 f5.6L @ f5.6


http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/_MG_0464_web800_1.jpg
Well at least you got the bee.......:p

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

hehe, true ... of course that's what the shot is all about *cough* :)

[mikereyno]

Here is my try (and my first attempt at posting an image).

[farrukh]

50mm 1.8 @ f/2.0

[goatee]

That's a really strong image, but, for me, it would be stronger, if the fingertips were in focus, rather than the knuckles behind. I think the bokeh in this shot is just fine - a little harsh where the white is against the blue, but I wonder how much better the 50mm f/1.4, or the 85mm f/1.8 would handle such a strong transition.

[goatee]

Good Bokeh or bad Bokeh you be the judge. :)

Lovely :)

[Kennymc]

Let's not fall in to the trap and mistake selective focus for bokeh... Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus parts of and image and in low contrast situations most lenses give good bokeh... The true test of a lenses bokeh is in contrasty situations and not necessarily at it's maximum aperture...

[goatee]

Sorry - didn't mean to start another of those shouting matches :) Actually, I was trying to get across that the nifty thrifty fifty is capable of some fantastic shots :)

[ssadanand]

Greetings,
Fascinating thread this. My first post here. Was very tempted. Posting my first pictures with a 50mm f1.8 for review...
Cheers :)
SS

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4060/img87830vd.jpg

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6762/img85036xf.jpg

[Kennymc]

Sorry - didn't mean to start another of those shouting matches :) Actually, I was trying to get across that the nifty thrifty fifty is capable of some fantastic shots :)

The 50mm lens is a very capable lens indeed so no shouting here... I have both the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 and pleased with the results from both of them...

ssadanand's images are actually a good example of what i was trying to get at...

The yellow flower being well removed from the background and probably used at the lenses closest focusing distance and at a wide aperture produced what appears to be very good bokeh... How much of this however was down to the DOF and the close focusing distance and how much to the lenses bokeh is a matter of supposition...

The other shot of the fruit on the tree, having highlights in the background has shown that the lens used has not such a good a bokeh after all... The highlights are not circular, nor do they have the soft edges of a lens which has good bokeh...

[JohnCollins]

Good points, Ken, but while you are being all clinical, let me say WELCOME TO THE FORUM ! ! :D

And despite being taken with the nifty 50, let me say those are both gorgeous shots! A good photographer can get great images with whatever tools he/she has at their disposal.

I can't tell which one I like better, but I've been looking at them for the last several minutes. The one nit I can find is the blown highlight on the peach shot on the upper right side is a little distracting, but it's a very minor, minor nit. I wish I could take shots like those!

You'll like it here, I think. Great forum.

John

[DavidEB]

SSADANAND -- very nice shots for your first post. welcome.

[Kennymc]

http://www.kennymc.com/ES/boke.jpg

A lens with poor bokeh will leave a two tone effect around a point of light (Chromatic Aberration)...
A lens with neutral bokeh will leave a crisp edge around a point of light...
A lens with good bokeh will give a diffused edge to a point of light which blends into its surroundings...

As you probably already know the word is boke (fuzziness) the 'H' was added to help in the pronunciation Bo-keh...

Just trying to be helpful...

[shinchan]

Tamron 28-75 xr di :D
75mm F5.6 1/200
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/3576/bunga5yi.jpg


EF85mm :D
F5.6 1/160
http://images.fotopic.net/yewffh.jpg

[JohnCollins]

You are helpful, Ken, those are good graphics to clarify it. Thanks!

John

[Mike6158]

I had a thought and this is the result...

http://images15.fotki.com/v263/photos/4/42560/3078788/Cross_011806aP-vi.jpg

[Calzinger]

After seeing that, I knew I had to post this.
Of course the composition sucks, but the shot was a result of boredom in the passenger seat of a car. I really should've used a wider aperture (it was at f/16), but I was in shutter priority mode and there was plenty of light around.

http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5804.jpg

[Mike6158]

After seeing that, I knew I had to post this.
Of course the composition sucks, but the shot was a result of boredom in the passenger seat of a car. I really should've used a wider aperture (it was at f/16), but I was in shutter priority mode and there was plenty of light around.



:D Exactly how I got my idea. Mine was taken with mirror lockup on, camera on a tripod, and the necklace hanging in a tree :) It took a little while to get set up so that everything was lined up. Prior to that I couldn't get the pickup pointed in the right direction :D In between then and today I tried but I sort of kind of forgot to put the memory card back in the camera and the photos didn't jump the 30 yards from the camera to the memory card that was still in the card reader in the house :shock: SOooooo.... we learned that no matter what the medium is... the "film" has to be in the camera to be able to capture an image :D

[farrukh]

Another shot 50mm 1.8 @ f/2

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

That ^^ is a fantastic shot.
Great work!!

[goatee]

Yeah, Farrukh - that is a great shot

[farrukh]

thanks goatee and mat,
if you want it as wallpaper (1280x1024), than you can download from this link:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/27939865/

get fresh feel on desktop

[One Eyed Jack]

Sorry guys this is my first post so i hope i get it right. Taken with a 17-85 on a 20D.

[One Eyed Jack]

Second time round hey! Any constructive feed back would good. I've not long had my 20D and am waiting on delivery of a 70-200 L IS USM.

Thought i would add another pic

[JohnCollins]

Very nice! And welcome to the forum!

John

[a.huhton]

Taken at the zoo. Trying out my Sigma 24-70 2.8 Settings 70mm 2.8 1/50 iso 100

[Calzinger]

back again with the kit lens
1/125", 55mm, f/5.6, iso400
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5911.jpg

[ChopstickHero]

http://images12.fotki.com/v217/photos/7/73230/2584253/IMG_8248-vi.jpg

http://images12.fotki.com/v214/photos/7/73230/2584253/IMG_8246-vi.jpg

http://images9.fotki.com/v183/photos/7/73230/2221029/IMG_7367-vi.jpg

[GeneMan88]

I just posted this photo in the "People" forum, but I thought I'd post it here too. Taken with my 1D MkI & EF 85 f/1.8 & 580EX, Tv=1/160th Av=f2.8 ISO=200

Its a photo of my wife holding a photo of herself when she was a little girl.

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

Another one ... even though the light was harsh (mid morning in spring), I've always liked the bokeh in this one.

400 f5.6L again.


http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/unhappycrow.jpg

[goatee]

Ok, a couple from yesterday. . . http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=131489

[Calzinger]

kit lens
1/400", f/13 (yeah i know, i was using Tv), 55mm, iso400

http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_6032.jpg

*here's another
again kit lens but with the monopod this time
1/5", f/16, 55mm, iso1600

that's my logitech g7 in the background. it gets really bad around those two leds.
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_6165.jpg

[Jarrad]

http://xs63.xs.to/pics/06021/Round-framed.jpg
Canon EF 100mm 2.8 Macro USM
f4

[Meaty0]

Another one ... even though the light was harsh (mid morning in spring), I've always liked the bokeh in this one.

400 f5.6L again.

Mat, that's a Professional Photographer's photo!:) How do you get the focus so spot on. It's so 3D, I can feel my hand reaching for the air-rifle right now!

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

Hehe, thanks.
I credit the lens ... I love that lens :)

[Calzinger]

kit lens: 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
1/10" (on monopod), 55mm, f/5.6, iso1600
there isn't much oof area, but there is a bit on the side.

http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_6228.jpg

[Meaty0]

My daughter's best friend, (after her camera of course)! I like the bokeh in this one.

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

Great shot, Paul .. and indeed, lovely bokeh :)
Nice one!

[JDrex05]

Not really a great photo (I actually took it to show someone how the XT handles noise at 1600) but I like the bokeh that the 85mm 1.8 has.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/runnerdrex/bird.jpg

[SYS]

Another one ... even though the light was harsh (mid morning in spring), I've always liked the bokeh in this one.

400 f5.6L again.


http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/unhappycrow.jpg


Like the photo, but couldn't help thinking that something just shot up through the bird's rear-end, though... :)

[Calzinger]

Here's a few:
http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/my_house/[960].[640].5.jpg

http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/my_house/[960].[640].7.jpg

http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/my_house/[720].[480].8.jpg

http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/firebird/[960].[640].side_body.jpg

[Woolburr]

http://www.pbase.com/woolburr/image/55104510/medium.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/woolburr/image/28090759/medium.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/woolburr/image/19461285/medium.jpg

Images captured with D30 armed with Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM @ f/3.5

[yb98]

http://bellik.free.fr/photos/Thoiry/autruche.jpg

[kheops]

http://toriamos.free.fr/potn/img_7615.jpg

[kwsanders]

back again with the kit lens
1/125", 55mm, f/5.6, iso400
http://calzinger.net/uploads/misc/_MG_5911.jpg

As someone said earlier, we should not longer hear any talk about how the kit lens sux, because as anyone can see here, that is not the case.

[mrclark321]

heres my post.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/mrclark321/IMG_4814.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/mrclark321/IMG_5166.jpg

[Crashoran]

http://spotted.lubbockonline.com/images/photos/16/2006/01/27/zoom/337508.jpg

[JuZ]

Here's some from me :)

50mm f1.8 wide open
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/juz13/Bonz/BonzodogBW2.jpg

100-400 wide open
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/juz13/Animals/Tit.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/juz13/Animals/Tigeryawn.jpg

[Carzee]

Lotsa good shots here... about time I posted another think.

50mm prime wide open at f1.4 - (jpg compression a tad severe)

bigger version here:
http://www.pbase.com/pixelparker/image/55380130/original

http://i.pbase.com/g3/58/572458/2/55380130.IMG_6129v1.jpg

[mrclark321]

one more

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/mrclark321/IMG_5616A.jpg

[Hellashot]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/mrclark321/IMG_5166.jpg

That shot rocks! :)

[JohnCollins]

Carzee, you get such great shots of your kids, I'm jealous! My two won't let me near them with a camera. All I get is complaints. Enjoy the fact that they don't mind cooperating in your hobby!

John

[Calzinger]

As someone said earlier, we should not longer hear any talk about how the kit lens sux, because as anyone can see here, that is not the case.
Do you know how much post-processing went into that shot? It was nothing beyond the simple photoshop tweaking (ie. contrast, levels, etc.) and some intense improvements by noise ninja. However, I do consider the final product to be quite different from the original. That is why I still look down on the kit lens because I rarely get great pictures straight out of the box. In any case, I guess that doesn't really matter since the finished product looks great!

Sometimes I wonder if a good ending result is more from the lens or your post-processing. I always do a great deal of post-processing on my shots with the kit lens because I often find the originals to be pretty useless (sometimes I'll use 3 of 220 shots).

The kit lens certainly gives you a good ground to work on. Surely a lously lens can't save pictures even with some intense post-processing. However, it should be noted that my image(s) are pretty different than what the lens initially gives me.

Not sure if I posted this one already, so I'll give it another go.
Nothing has changed, still with the kit lens!
http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/christmas/[960].[640].5.jpg
Click here for the gynormous one: http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/christmas/[1440].[960].5.jpg

[rklepper]

Taken with the 85. f1.8, 1/25, iso 400.

[BigFatCat]

:lol: :lol:

Food for thought?

[Calzinger]

all taken with my new 70-200 f/4L

#1
http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/my_house/[960].[640].IMG_7090.jpg

#2
http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/my_house/[960].[640].IMG_7114.jpg

#3
http://photo.calzinger.net/_sitecontent/_cache/_photos/my_house/[960].[640].IMG_7124.jpg

[kwsanders]

Nothing special, but front and back bokeh look nice. Took this with my 50mm f/2.5 CM. The light was low, however, so there is slight OOF due to hand holding.

http://potn.kwsanders.com/nail2.jpg

[Dragos Jianu]

Bokeh comparison. I noticed that most guys around here prefer Photoshop-like blurry bokeh. That is strange. I love a lens which paints with light in the bokeh.
All 4 lenses shot wide open. To my eyes the L is the worst performer. I love the poetry in the bokeh of the other 3 "lesser" lenses. BTW: The Pancolar beats Canon 50mm f/1.8 hands down from all points of view (build quality, bokeh, SHARPNESS, contrast, saturation). And both the Pancolar and the Helios beat the L for sharpness at f/4 while the Jupiter is close behind.

BTW, I paid 650$ for the 70-200L (in Romania that is a very good deal), 10$ for the Helios, 10$ for the Pancolar and 20$ for the Jupiter.

So what do u say ?

[Dragos Jianu]

last one. As u can see the main difference is in the way they interpret the highlights. Canon looks dull while the other play whit light. Bokeh poetry ;)

[goatee]

I do like the bokeh exhibited by the Canon, but find the Panocolar gives the most pleasing - it's a nice compromise between the Canon, and the harder edged Jupiter on this page - although from the necklace examples, I think the Jupiter gives a really nice effect.

[Photodawg1]

I am not only fairly new to photography, but also blogs...what is a "bokeh"?

[goatee]

Hi Linda,
welcome to the forums!

Bokeh: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Abokeh&btnG=Google+Search
"In photography, Bokeh is a Japanese word - the transliteration of a Japanese word for "blur" - describing the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of an image projected by a camera lens. For example, in some images the background may be deliberately caused to be out-of-focus to reduce distractions and to emphasize the primary subject. " from wikipedia.org

You will find people endlessly discussing the bokeh of a particular lens - basically, it's how the blurry areas look. In fact, bokeh is the bottom of my list (if it features at all) when shopping for a lens, although my Canon 85mm f/1.8 is a stunner :D.

People here are generally friendly, but there are some grumps, so always feel free to ask questions - you'll normally get a friendly sensible answer :).

[Dragos Jianu]

You will find people endlessly discussing the bokeh of a particular lens - basically, it's how the blurry areas look. In fact, bokeh is the bottom of my list (if it features at all) when shopping for a lens

It all depends on your needs i guess. For me it is top of the list.But then again I do portraits so i'm not very impressed by clinical sharpness.

[goatee]

Having taken a look at your portfolio, I'm surprised that you prefer the Panocolar / Jupiter - most of the backgrounds are that creamy bokeh that the Canon 70-200 and 85mm lenses exhibit.

By the way, I really like your portfolio - your shots have a really timeless quality about them - I'm not keen on the soft focus ones, but the others are great. They almost remind me of some of David Bailey's work.

[Desertraptor]

Canon looks dull while the other play whit light. Bokeh poetry
NBot a fair comparison when the Canon is F4 and the others are F2 or better

[goatee]

But the 70-200 is at 200mm - all Dragos is pointing out, that many people (especially in POTN) like OOF areas to be smooth, and buttery - whereas he prefers to have some extra 'sparkle' in them.

Am I right Dragos?

[Dragos Jianu]

Yes. you r right. Thanks for the compliments :D
Most of them are shot with 70-200 f/4 L because i only recently discovered the M42s. That might soon change ;) Either that or I will get over the "new toy frenzy" :)

Two test shots taken with the Jupiter wide open. Not very artistic though. Used a hand made adapter made from a body cap - very hard to work with.

[rklepper]

last one. As u can see the main difference is in the way they interpret the highlights. Canon looks dull while the other play whit light. Bokeh poetry ;)

Your differences are more related to aperature than lens.

[goatee]

Yes. you r right. Thanks for the compliments :D
Most of them are shot with 70-200 f/4 L because i only recently discovered the M42s. That might soon change ;) Either that or I will get over the "new toy frenzy" :)

Two test shots taken with the Jupiter wide open. Not very artistic though. Used a hand made adapter made from a body cap - very hard to work with.

I'd disagree with you - they're a couple of really nice portraits! I'd be interested in finding old cheap manual lenses, but wouldn't know whether they're ok / crap, and how to mount them, and doubt I have the patience / skill to make something out of a bodycap!

[Dragos Jianu]

Your differences are more related to aperature than lens.

Then how come the 3 M42 lenses have such different? They are all f/2 (though the pancolar is f/1.8). They have 6 , 8 and 15 aperture blades. They have different optical designs. You are oversimplifying things.

I'd be interested in finding old cheap manual lenses, but wouldn't know whether they're ok / crap, and how to mount them, and doubt I have the patience / skill to make something out of a bodycap!

All you need is this: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/canon_eos_lens_adapter.htm
(more like 17$ then 30$) and a lens. I just didn't have the adapter when i got the lens. They work just fine on M or Av. You just have to do the focusing and aperture setting manually.

[goatee]

Thanks Dragos - hmm, may start searching eBay, or local shops lol!

[Dragos Jianu]

For the price it can't hurt.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70506&highlight=jupiter

http://oomz.net/mf/index.php


Do not click this link. I warn you :lol:

http://oomz.net/mf/viewtopic.php?id=283

[goatee]

Hehe, thanks Dragos - plenty of reading material. Wow, an f/1 lens that is so sharp! Hmm, maybe I now need to buy a Leica Rangefinder. . . ;)