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 09 Mar 2016 (Wednesday) 18:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bokeh! What are your favorite lenses for pretty, pretty bokeh?

 
coatfetish
Member
72 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Jan 2012
     
Mar 09, 2016 18:10 |  #1

I'm just a backyard hobbyist, and I didn't even know what bokeh was until I bought the 40mm pancake lens. Now I'm addicted to it. What favorite lenses do you have in regard to bokeh?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,120 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 09, 2016 18:12 |  #2

135L, best bokeh in its prce range. 85L, and the king of all is the 200f2 but its not for mere mortals.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,966 posts
Likes: 2155
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Mar 09, 2016 18:16 |  #3

Gotta be the 50mm f/1.2 but it's out of my range. Got to play with one a few times though.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pekka
El General Moderator
Avatar
17,740 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 1503
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
     
Mar 09, 2016 18:40 |  #4

85 1.2L is the best bokeh machine in my bag :)


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


The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 2.1 Changelog (installed here now)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coatfetish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
72 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Jan 2012
     
Mar 09, 2016 19:11 |  #5

Ouch! Some of these lenses are way out of my budget, lol. I didn't specify a $$ limit though...and it's good to see the comparisons. What little I've been able to look up on the 135L though, is stunning. And it's within my range. So, let me refine my question a bit...I'm planning on adding lenses to my kit this year, and I want to get a macro (I'm 99.9% sold on the Canon 100mm L macro). I also want something wider than my 40mm that I can use in deep, dark forests. I live within a few miles of both Jefferson National Forest and George Washington National Forest - a halfway decent hike finds me in some very cool, dark, claustrophobic woods. I'd like something f2.8 or better. Prime, probably - but I need to research that. And with great bokeh. I'm probably limited to $800 - $1000 for a solid used lens. Is that reasonable? Can I get more suggestions? I feel rather strongly that the 135L will be bought this spring too - what I saw so far is yummy. Thanks!
~ Cindy ~




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Mar 09, 2016 20:04 |  #6

Buy a 50 f/1.8 STM to satisfy your bokeh fever and won't break the bank.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,120 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 09, 2016 20:24 |  #7

Keeping in mind that blur and bokeh are different things. Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Inexpensive primes will give you blur, but the quality may not be as satisfying. The 85 1.8 is aa nice lens with decent bokeh, but its just not even close to the creamy blur of the 135L. You might consider the 35L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,598 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2362
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 09, 2016 20:33 |  #8

gonzogolf wrote in post #17929725 (external link)
135L, best bokeh in its prce range. 85L, and the king of all is the 200f2 but its not for mere mortals.


This


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,025 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2201
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Mar 09, 2016 20:33 as a reply to  @ coatfetish's post |  #9

what do you currently have now? that'll help with suggestions...i feel like bokeh, and deep dark forests don't really go along together...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,598 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2362
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 09, 2016 20:48 |  #10

Agree 1000%v with Gonz

NOTHING touches a 200L

135L is the next best thing

That shot that Pekka posted is an 85L very close to subject and you see immediate fall off from point of focus. It falls off so fast that from the temple back is OOF with Bokeh.

This is fine is you want this look but if you want fall off from the back of head then you have to stand further back and crop into the image or you have to close it down to F/2.0.......both will result in noticeably less Bokeh than is shown here.

Only the 135L and a 200 F/2.0L will get this creamy fall off and because of distance factors to get a 1/2 body shot, when using these lens, that is primarily why the bokeh is so pleasing and the subjects tend to pop off the page. If you get too close with a 135L, you will get what Pekka has shown. If you have enough room to use a 135L and a 200L, nothing touches the look of the bokeh.

I sold my 85L. Just doesn't do as well as a 135L for this look. I have an 85 1.8 that is glued to a body and 1.8 works great on his lens.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coatfetish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
72 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Jan 2012
     
Mar 09, 2016 21:09 |  #11

When I mention deep, dark forests, I'm thinking of picking out a fairly tight focal point, like a wildflower or fungus, etc. and having the out of focus forest in a wide pan behind - hence the bokeh issue. Am I making sense? I think it's clear to you all what a newbie I am! I've been happy with my 40mm, but I was wondering what I should be looking for in alternative lenses.

I'm rather embarrassed to admit what gear I have since there are so many pro/semi pro/advanced photographers here, but that was the appeal of the site for me - to learn. I'm finally getting to where I can buy better lenses every few months. I'm a generic Walmart associate, so that's where the $$ constraints stem from, and it's taken me so long to get to the point of buying better equipment. I c can afford lenses faster than I can afford bodies.

So this is what I have; 50D and 60D bodies, EF 40mm1:2.8 STM, EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5 - 5.6 IS (came with the 50D), and a EF 70-300mm 1;4-5.6 IS USM, which I bought when I bought the 50D seven years ago. I keep the 70-300 on the 50D in case I see deer or turkeys out in the fields, I use the 60D with the 40mm 90% of the time.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Canon macro Lens EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM, and the 135L mentioned so often above. As much as I love the 40mm, I'd like to add a lens that's a bit wider for landscapes. Thanks for helping me out!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coatfetish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
72 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Jan 2012
     
Mar 09, 2016 21:10 |  #12

You guys have totally sold me on the 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,120 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 09, 2016 21:27 |  #13

coatfetish wrote in post #17929929 (external link)
You guys have totally sold me on the 135L.

I'm perhaps the worlds biggest cheerleader for the 135L. But for someone on a budget having both it and the 100L macro is a waste of resources. They overlap in function to the degree that you dont really need both. The 135L isnt a macro but does great for flowers. If you need a macro though you can do most of the things the 135L does but perhaps not quitemas stylishly. Here is a flower shot with the 135L.

IMAGE: https://kevin-jones.smugmug.com/Other/General/i-Pf8F7Px/0/O/Tulips.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://kevin-jones.smugmug.com …x/0/O/Tulips.jp​g&lb=1&s=A  (external link) on Smugmug

IMAGE: https://kevin-jones.smugmug.com/Other/General/i-3jG4gbv/0/O/Iris.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://kevin-jones.smugmug.com …gbv/0/O/Iris.jp​g&lb=1&s=A  (external link) on Smugmug



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,025 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2201
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Mar 09, 2016 21:32 |  #14

if you're wanting a macro lens, i'd probably just stick with the 100L, and skip the 135L...135mm is pretty long on a crop body, you can set your 70-300mm to 135mm, and leave it there for a bit and see how you fare...there are good cheaper fast lenses that may not have the amazing bokeh like those listed above...but they're also a lot cheaper, and certainly capable of providing some good background blur...right now your fastest lens is f2.8, if you were to get something like a 50mm f1.4, or 85mm f1.8 you'd see some good blur, and still have some money left over

coatfetish wrote in post #17929927 (external link)
I'm rather embarrassed to admit what gear I have since there are so many pro/semi pro/advanced photographers here, but that was the appeal of the site for me - to learn. I'm finally getting to where I can buy better lenses every few months.

don't be...i'd guess 90% of the people around here started out with camera and a kit lens...but be careful, if you hang around here a lot people will gladly offer up ways to spend your money :-)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Mar 09, 2016 21:34 |  #15

coatfetish wrote in post #17929929 (external link)
You guys have totally sold me on the 135L.

The 35IS and 135L are my favorite 'people' lenses. Certainly work on acquiring the 135L. In your shoes, I'd take a serious look at moving to full frame. Good, used 5Dc bodies can be had for about $350-400. There is one on the sale boards right now for $335. The BG-blur/bokeh from full frame is in a completely different league. You are going to be spending large on full-frame compatible glass. Get the most out of it on a full frame body.




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

16,517 views & 37 likes for this thread
Bokeh! What are your favorite lenses for pretty, pretty bokeh?
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 Charis
883 guests, 313 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.