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 28 Dec 2013 (Saturday) 09:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best lenses for Brenizer method

 
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Dec 28, 2013 16:25 |  #16

I've always thought it made things look like miniatures that have been photographed with a macro lens. Especially the swing picture above has that feel.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Dec 28, 2013 16:26 as a reply to  @ post 16560135 |  #17

Heads up: Show us your "Brenizer Method" shots! on POTN

Lots of lenses seem to work well for this:

85L, 85/1.8, Sigma's 85/1.4
135L
70-200 2.8s at 200.
etc etc.

Anything tele with a wide aperture will do the trick.

Also worth checking out: http://brettmaxwellpho​to.com/Brenizer-Method-Calculation/ (external link)


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DieselTech
Member
73 posts
Joined Oct 2013
     
Dec 28, 2013 19:27 |  #18

Thanks for sharing this post. I never heard of the Brenzier effect, but now I know :)


5D mk II, Rokinon 8mm, Rokinon 14mm, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2L II, 100mm 2.8L, 24-105mm L, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,131 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 449
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Dec 29, 2013 08:42 |  #19

I updated my first post with a table showing the ideal Brenizer setup for different lenses. On FF, the winners are 85mm lenses (f1.2 and f1.4) - with only 14 shots, one can mimic a very fast (f/0.44) wide angle (30mm) lens, with the whole subject in focus (DoF=0.5m). 135L will require 36 shots for the same effect, so is much less practical. 50mm lenses are not interesting, as the background blur is twice less strong.

So something like Samyang 85mm f1.4 (or 85L if you can afford it) sounds like a great Brenizer lens, on FF.

On a crop camera, 135L is pretty much useless: FF equivalent 30mm FL would require 81 shots. 85L is marginally usable: 32 shots. So FF does save a lot of time and efforts over crop when doing Brenizer.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Dec 29, 2013 08:54 |  #20

pulsar123 wrote in post #16561426 (external link)
I updated my first post with a table showing the ideal Brenizer setup for different lenses. On FF, the winners are 85mm lenses (f1.2 and f1.4) - with only 14 shots, one can mimic a very fast (f/0.44) wide angle (30mm) lens, with the whole subject in focus (DoF=0.5m). 135L will require 36 shots for the same effect, so is much less practical. 50mm lenses are not interesting, as the background blur is twice less strong.

So something like Samyang 85mm f1.4 (or 85L if you can afford it) sounds like a great Brenizer lens, on FF.

On a crop camera, 135L is pretty much useless: FF equivalent 30mm FL would require 81 shots. 85L is marginally usable: 32 shots. So FF does save a lot of time and efforts over crop when doing Brenizer.

This all assumes you want a 30mm framing. 15 or 60 mm framing and you'll come up with a different set of conclusions.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,131 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 449
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Dec 29, 2013 09:03 |  #21

As I mentioned before, 30mm seems to be what Brenizer was favoring. An that's the value which for me produces the strongest "wow" factor.

By the way, I computed one more value for my table - the strength of the background blur. And interestingly that makes 50mm lenses the biggest winner - despite larger effective f-number, the fact that you can stay much closer to your subject to get the same DOF (0.5m) makes them more effective Brenizer lenses, with stronger bg blur and fewer shots needed. Of course, the complication is that you'll need to place multiple shots over your subject, so any movements by the subject would be a bigger issue.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,686 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5729
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 29, 2013 09:08 |  #22

pulsar123 wrote in post #16561426 (external link)
I updated my first post with a table showing the ideal Brenizer setup for different lenses. On FF, the winners are 85mm lenses (f1.2 and f1.4) - with only 14 shots, one can mimic a very fast (f/0.44) wide angle (30mm) lens, with the whole subject in focus (DoF=0.5m). 135L will require 36 shots for the same effect, so is much less practical. 50mm lenses are not interesting, as the background blur is twice less strong.

So something like Samyang 85mm f1.4 (or 85L if you can afford it) sounds like a great Brenizer lens, on FF.

On a crop camera, 135L is pretty much useless: FF equivalent 30mm FL would require 81 shots. 85L is marginally usable: 32 shots. So FF does save a lot of time and efforts over crop when doing Brenizer.

85 or 135 will work fine on FF. 135 is not useless, the longer the lens, the better you keep distortion at bay. When you're stitching, you'll be introducing new perspective distortion since you're changing FOV. Also, it's background blur you're after, not DOF. 85 and 135 both do slightly different things when it comes to background blur. The 85 supposedly always more blur, but due to the larger backgrounds on the 135, it's really just different.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Dec 29, 2013 09:25 |  #23

pulsar123 wrote in post #16561466 (external link)
As I mentioned before, 30mm seems to be what Brenizer was favoring. An that's the value which for me produces the strongest "wow" factor.

By the way, I computed one more value for my table - the strength of the background blur. And interestingly that makes 50mm lenses the biggest winner - despite larger effective f-number, the fact that you can stay much closer to your subject to get the same DOF (0.5m) makes them more effective Brenizer lenses, with stronger bg blur and fewer shots needed. Of course, the complication is that you'll need to place multiple shots over your subject, so any movements by the subject would be a bigger issue.

Brenizer was a wedding photographer, but promoted a method to get ultra thin depth of field shots. 30mm happens to be a nice length to get reasonably the right depth of field for a person in a wide angle shot with lens commonly available on a FF format. The point is the technique that gets ultra thin depth of field that can be applied to anything, not just people. Restricting your self to simply copying what someone else did is silly. When you see a tractor in a field you may decide you want to apply the same technique, but since a tractor isn't the same depth as a person, you'll be incredibly restricted.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Data_Android
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Florida USA
     
Dec 29, 2013 09:38 as a reply to  @ vengence's post |  #24

I never done either one, but it seems to me that taking 30 pictures and stitching them is a lot more work than using lens blur in PS on a single photo.
Wouldn't that result the same effect?


For sale
Nothing at this time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,131 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 449
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Dec 29, 2013 09:44 |  #25

vengence wrote in post #16561506 (external link)
Brenizer was a wedding photographer, but promoted a method to get ultra thin depth of field shots. 30mm happens to be a nice length to get reasonably the right depth of field for a person in a wide angle shot with lens commonly available on a FF format. The point is the technique that gets ultra thin depth of field that can be applied to anything, not just people. Restricting your self to simply copying what someone else did is silly. When you see a tractor in a field you may decide you want to apply the same technique, but since a tractor isn't the same depth as a person, you'll be incredibly restricted.

Sure, no problem, you can use these equations for any situation. I wrote this as a script, so it is easy to change any parameters. Personally, when it comes to shallow DoF, I am mostly interested in people photography, hence the choice of the parameters for my table.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,131 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 449
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Dec 29, 2013 09:48 |  #26

Data_Android wrote in post #16561534 (external link)
I never done either one, but it seems to me that taking 30 pictures and stitching them is a lot more work than using lens blur in PS on a single photo.
Wouldn't that result the same effect?

I suspect doing this in PS will make it look fake, no matter how good the software is. For proper bg blur, one needs to know the distance to different parts of the bg, and photo doesn't have this information, so the best PS can do is to blur all bg to the same degree. This will be especially obvious when doing Brenizer-like shots, wide angle style - there bg is located at very different distances, and does require different degree of blurring.

Also, I've never seen a good PS bg blur where there are some fine sharp details in the foreground (e.g. subject's hair). This will look pretty fake as well.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,131 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 449
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Dec 29, 2013 10:03 |  #27

I added one more column to the table - the height of the frame at the subject's distance in the stitched photo (assuming landscape orientation). I think this is quite important: with the same degree of bg blur, I suspect the 30mm FL photo will have more wow factor if the subject occupies a smaller fraction of the frame (because the bg blur is stronger relative to the subject size). This brings us back to 135L and 85mm lenses as the best Brenizer lenses for portraiture, as the frame height is fairly large - more than double an adult's height (~4m), in landscape mode. With 50mm lenses, an adult barely fits into the frame (~2m).

Definitely, don' take my table as a gospel; but I think it provides a useful initial guess for those who are new to the Brenizer method (like myself). It also allows you to evaluate different lenses before spending $$$ (they are all expensive).


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Dec 29, 2013 10:21 |  #28

Useless trivia: it's pronounced Bren-EYE-zer.


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Dec 29, 2013 14:12 |  #29

Echo Johnson wrote in post #16561619 (external link)
Useless trivia: it's pronounced Bren-EYE-zer.

Ah, very useful. Thank you!


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 29, 2013 21:36 |  #30

I had a look at the sample photos of the Brenizer method and to be honest for 99.9% of them I can do with a fast prime in a single exposure. And for the other 0.1% I can do in photoshop.


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

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

17,469 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best lenses for Brenizer method
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 megabox
776 guests, 311 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.