Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Dec 2012 (Sunday) 21:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bokeh of 300 f2.8 II & 200 f2

 
Malsam
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: SG
     
Dec 16, 2012 21:34 |  #1

Hi all,

Was wondering over some technicalities on the topic of bokeh...since we all know that focal length and aperture affects the bokeh and the aesthetics of portraitures...

like a 85 f1.2 will look better than 50 f1.2...and
200 f2 will look better than 135 f2 etc...while
200 f2 should look better than 85 f1.2 even though the aperture is smaller but the focal length is longer?

does anyone owns a 300 f2.8 II and did a test vs 200 f2? In my recent encounter, I have a wedding photographer using a 300 f2.8 and a chat with him he seems un-decided between a 200 f2 vs a 300 f2.8 for best portraits effects.

Anyone have some images to compare?


Gear Stuffs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Nightdiver13
Unabashed nerd!
Avatar
2,272 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2010
Location: Bigfoot Country
     
Dec 16, 2012 22:29 |  #2

To me it's more like: 85 f/1.2 will look different than 50 f/1.2, and 200 f/2 will look different than 135 f/2, and 200 f/2 will look different than 85 f/1.2. It's all subjective and some prefer certain styles of bokeh. Sorry to go a bit off topic, as I don't have any images to share. But I do have an opinion on bokeh to share.


Neil

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Dec 16, 2012 22:35 |  #3

Better?

The longer the focal length the more "damage" is done to the background.

Imagine your subject stand in front of a forest, some distance away. With the short focal length you will have more trees in the background, with the long focal length very few trees will be stretched out over the pictures, making them unrecognizable. That means in most cases the longer focal length will do a better job isolating the subject from the background.

This works regardless of aperture, but of course larger aperture helps.

That is shot 200mm headshots have the subject stand out so much. If that is your goal even a 200mm f/2.8 will do an excellent job, as long as the background is some distance away (but if it isn't you won't be able to isolate it either way).


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Malsam
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: SG
     
Dec 17, 2012 00:54 |  #4

yes you guys are right to say that...the correct way to say it should be they all look "different" and have different effects. Supposely we have the same subject standing at the same place taken with different lenses, would the 200 f2 have more "blur" background than 300 f2.8 given that the photographer will move himself to fill up the same size in the photo for its subject? It make sense for the photographer to be further away using a 300 than a 200 I suppose?

Just curious about whether will the focal length compensate to smaller aperture relative to bokeh and in this case, the 300 f2.8 and the 200 f2 which the latter is usually dub the king of portraitures (outdoor).


Gear Stuffs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Dec 17, 2012 04:57 |  #5

Depending on how close you are to the subject, both the 200 and 300 will completely eliminate the background.


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ando27
Goldmember
Avatar
1,218 posts
Joined Jan 2012
Location: New South Wales Australia
     
Dec 17, 2012 05:56 |  #6

My 3002.8 just turns BG's into butter.....


Ando.
"Down Under"
[CENTER][B]Canon 1D4 / 5D3 gripped / 7D gripped / 300f2.8 IS L / 100-400f5.6 L / 70-200f2.8 IS II L / EFS18-200IS / 24-105 f4 IS / 10-20 f4 / 580EXII x 3 /1.4 TC III / 1.4TC II / 2 TC III / 15' Rig / 20' Rig.[CENTER]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 17, 2012 08:40 |  #7

300 wins in that respect,

300/2.8 = 107
200/2 = 100

Not that you will notice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airbutchie
Not too crunchy
Avatar
12,931 posts
Gallery: 302 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 5555
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Monrovia, CA
     
Dec 17, 2012 10:11 |  #8

Ando27 wrote in post #15376229 (external link)
My 3002.8 just turns BG's into butter.....

Completely agree... More so with my 200 1.8L... BUTTERY BOKEH BONANZA!!! Something about the image compression at longer focal lengths add aesthetics to the image...

:D


Hi. My name is Butch...
Complete Gear List | Flickr Vault (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,632 posts
Gallery: 1653 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4561
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Dec 17, 2012 10:27 |  #9

cdang wrote in post #15376603 (external link)
300 wins in that respect,

300/2.8 = 107
200/2 = 100

Not that you will notice.

Time to get a hold of the 1200/5.6.


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Malsam
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: SG
     
Dec 18, 2012 00:23 |  #10

cdang wrote in post #15376603 (external link)
300 wins in that respect,

300/2.8 = 107
200/2 = 100

Not that you will notice.

Hmm...what does that figure comes out to?

jwcdds wrote in post #15376958 (external link)
Time to get a hold of the 1200/5.6.

haha...ya I guess theoretically it should be more bokeh but if its taking on portraiture, I'm not sure will that be the most pleasing to human's eye? I saw somewhere 135mm looks the most pleasing to most people while 200 f2 has the best looking bokeh.


Gear Stuffs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hennie
Goldmember
1,251 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 64
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
     
Dec 18, 2012 07:42 |  #11

Selecting a (expensive) lens using bokeh as most important criterium is not what I would do.
In portraiture FL and the matching perspective would seem much more important to me.
Especially in portraiture, when shooting in studio one can pick the nicest buttery backgrounds from stock.
Another thing is that the bokeh is also changed by the distance between subject and background.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,788 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2562
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 18, 2012 11:26 |  #12

Malsam wrote in post #15375878 (external link)
Supposely we have the same subject standing at the same place taken with different lenses, would the 200 f2 have more "blur" background than 300 f2.8 given that the photographer will move himself to fill up the same size in the photo for its subject? It make sense for the photographer to be further away using a 300 than a 200 I suppose?

Just curious about whether will the focal length compensate to smaller aperture relative to bokeh and in this case, the 300 f2.8 and the 200 f2 which the latter is usually dub the king of portraitures (outdoor).

Background blur amount is related to the aperture size. 200/2 = 100mm, 300/2.8 = 107mm. So the blur intensity will be slightly greater with the 300mm at f/2.8, but less with 300mm at f/4.

Here I compare 116mm f/4 vs 193mm f/6.3. The apple is about 30' away, the far hillside is about a 1 mile away from the plane of focus. And the object at the lower right was just a couple feet out of the plane of focus.

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/compare116193.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sdipirro
Goldmember
Avatar
2,207 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 18, 2012 11:36 |  #13

For indoor sports, where the lighting is often terrible and there's a lot of distracting stuff in the frame, having that extra stop (f2 vs f2.8) can help isolate the subjects from the background. For outdoor sports, you typically have more distance to work with and fewer distractions in the frame (although there are always exceptions). These were taken with the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8 (Mark I) respectively.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Cameras: 1DX, 1D4, 20D, 10D, S90, G2
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm, 16-35mm f2.8L II, 24-70mm f2.8L, 70-200mm f2.8L IS, 300mm f2.8L IS, 200mm f2L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L, 1.4x TC, 2x TC, 500D macro, Zeiss 21mm
Lighting: 580EX, Elinchrom 600 RX's, D-Lite 4's, ABR800, 74" Eli Octa, 100cm/70cm DOs, Photoflex Medium Octa and reflectors, PW's, Lastolite Hilite, Newton Di400CR bracket

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,094 views & 0 likes for this thread
Bokeh of 300 f2.8 II & 200 f2
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Birdie760
504 guests, 303 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.