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?

 
Poindexter
Senior Member
Avatar
717 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 255
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
     
Mar 10, 2016 17:42 |  #61

Jack Dawe wrote in post #17930817 (external link)
But don't you ideally want both? Seems to me that the most satisfying bokehs are those which are acting on a substantial blur. Or am I misunderstanding?

He's just hung up on a technical definition. I'm with you on the more real world affects of varying things that create blurring.


flickr (external link) | SmugMug (external link) | Gear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Mar 10, 2016 17:49 |  #62

Poindexter wrote in post #17930921 (external link)
He's just hung up on a technical definition. I'm with you on the more real world affects of varying things that create blurring.

There has to be a certain amount of anything before you can perceive it as pleasing or not.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
Avatar
2,844 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 217
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Kawasaki, Japan
Post edited over 3 years ago by InfiniteDivide.
     
Mar 10, 2016 18:07 |  #63

OP: You seem to be as a cross road now.

The 100L or the 135L? Here in Japan they are equally priced used.

I will say I have never used a 135mm outside of a camera store.

But it was just as dreamy shooting the customer near me wide open as I imagined, even in the terrible store florescent lighting.
With that said I still don't own it for a simple reason. I prefect the ability (option) to shoot macro or at least very close to small subjects.

If I desired a true portrait lens for friends and family with space outdoors, it would be the 135mm without question.

If you are looking for outdoor reach on a budget, I will add to the mix the 200mm L f2.8 lens.
Double the FL of the macro and the same speed. Under $400 used.


James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 10, 2016 18:08 |  #64

Jack Dawe wrote in post #17930817 (external link)
But don't you ideally want both? Seems to me that the most satisfying bokehs are those which are acting on a substantial blur. Or am I misunderstanding?

Both are great as long as people dont confuse the terms. A long lens with poorly designed aperture blades will give you lots of blur, but bad bokeh. To see what I mean look at samples from a mirror lens. If you dont have blur then you cant see bokeh but they are different concepts. As long as people keep confusing the two ideas then it leads to some bad discussions. Some here will accuse me of being pedantic but they are showing some intellectual sloppiness on an idea thats not hard to understand.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jarvis ­ Creative ­ Studios
Goldmember
Avatar
2,405 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 846
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Houston, Texas
Post edited over 3 years ago by Jarvis Creative Studios.
     
Mar 10, 2016 18:16 as a reply to  @ InfiniteDivide's post |  #65

Man, yes I agree the 200 2.8L is quite good. Great suggestion. I could never buy one, as I've lusted after the 200 f2 my whole life, so getting the 2.8 would kind of feel like getting a boxster when all I really wanted was a 911.


WEBSITE (external link)
flickr (external link)
Sony HX90V || Sony RX100V || Sony a6500 || Sony a9 || Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS || Sony FE 24-70 f/2.8 GM || Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA || Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA || Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS || Godox speedlights and strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lyndön
Goldmember
2,182 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 203
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Mar 10, 2016 18:26 |  #66

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17930962 (external link)
Man, yes I agree the 200 2.8L is quite good. Great suggestion. I could never buy one, as I've lusted after the 200 f2 my whole life, so getting the 2.8 would kind of feel like getting a boxster when all I really wanted was a 911.

So I suppose the 135L is sort of like a Cayman?  :p


GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 10, 2016 18:29 |  #67

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17930962 (external link)
Man, yes I agree the 200 2.8L is quite good. Great suggestion. I could never buy one, as I've lusted after the 200 f2 my whole life, so getting the 2.8 would kind of feel like getting a boxster when all I really wanted was a 911.

I've made peace with the idea that I will never own a 200f2 following a midlife crisis career change. I wrestle with the idea of the 200 2.8. Its a bargain and I want one. But on the the other hand my 135L with a 1.4 is nearly the same lens so I cant decide.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Mar 10, 2016 19:11 |  #68

I have both the 100L and 135L on crop no less and I find uses for both. The 135L works great with a set of extention tubes for macro but the 100L with the same set of tubes gives nearly 2x life size macro! The 100L's IS comes in handy for non macro stuff and the focus speed on 135L is much better for sports and action. All in all two very enjoyable lenses. And I in no way feel either is too long for crop. If I need something wider I just grab a wider lenses for that need just as I grab these when I need something longer: the beauty of SLR systems.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jarvis ­ Creative ­ Studios
Goldmember
Avatar
2,405 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 846
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Houston, Texas
     
Mar 10, 2016 22:06 |  #69

Lyndön wrote in post #17930972 (external link)
So I suppose the 135L is sort of like a Cayman?  :p

It could be. But I think of it more like a Nissan GT-R. It's top of the line, can keep up with the baddest competition out there, but costs 1/5 the price :-).


WEBSITE (external link)
flickr (external link)
Sony HX90V || Sony RX100V || Sony a6500 || Sony a9 || Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS || Sony FE 24-70 f/2.8 GM || Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA || Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA || Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS || Godox speedlights and strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,594 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Likes: 6200
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by CyberDyneSystems.
     
Mar 11, 2016 13:55 |  #70

FEChariot wrote in post #17930927 (external link)
There has to be a certain amount of anything before you can perceive it as pleasing or not.


If we use the correct definition of "Bokeh" there is no quantity, no more or less.

We say a face is pleasing to the eye. We don't say that she has "more face" if it is more pleasing.

which goes right back to the fact that the "amount" of blur has little (or nothing) to do with the pleasing qualities of Bokeh.

For anyone interested in the actual meaning of the word Bokeh, as opposed to continuing to misuse the term to describe DOF/back ground blur, check out this excellent explanation;

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2320659&po​stcount=25


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coatfetish
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
72 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Jan 2012
Post edited over 3 years ago by coatfetish.
     
Mar 11, 2016 14:58 as a reply to  @ CyberDyneSystems's post |  #71

He also provides a link to an article that shows samples of different lenses, comparing the same points in each one. There are descriptions of the quality of the bokeh that is very helpful to me, to understand things I've been reading but haven't actually seen. Like edges (rings) and double rings, and the shape of out of focus spots caused by the number of aperture blades. I've only just begun to read the article, but it's very informative and easy to understand for someone on my level of limited experience...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,073 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Mar 11, 2016 17:51 |  #72

I am curious if anyone has the 200 f2L. That thing is a beast! Just wondering if that lens is good for this?


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, 7D2, SL1, G12, iPad Pro, iPhone 6P, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 11, 2016 18:24 |  #73

SuzyView wrote in post #17932158 (external link)
I am curious if anyone has the 200 f2L. That thing is a beast! Just wondering if that lens is good for this?

I dont have it but I lust for it each time I read the 200f2 thread. It has more abilty to blur than the 135L and the bokeh is absolutely smooth. Its simply in a class of its own.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 3 years ago by FEChariot.
     
Mar 11, 2016 18:39 |  #74

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17931923 (external link)
If we use the correct definition of "Bokeh" there is no quantity, no more or less.

We say a face is pleasing to the eye. We don't say that she has "more face" if it is more pleasing.

which goes right back to the fact that the "amount" of blur has little (or nothing) to do with the pleasing qualities of Bokeh.

For anyone interested in the actual meaning of the word Bokeh, as opposed to continuing to misuse the term to describe DOF/back ground blur, check out this excellent explanation;

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2320659&po​stcount=25

You missed my point. I am talking about perception. You need to have a certain amount of anything before you can perceive it. This statement is by no means at odds with your post. Take a 24L who's bokeh is a characteristic of the lens. Then take a landscape shot with that lens shot at hyper focal distance and f22 where everything is in focus. Then take more shots slowly stopping down to f/1.4. Then slowly change the focus point to where you are focusing on a flower at MFD. The bokeh is there in all the pictures but at some point between those extremes, you can start talking about Bokeh.

Take a drop of soy sauce. Now dilute it in water. That doesn't change it's flavor. Now dilute it in homeopathic fashion 1MM:1: what does it taste like now?


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 11, 2016 18:43 |  #75

FEChariot wrote in post #17932201 (external link)
You missed my point. I am talking about perception. You need to have a certain amount of anything before you can perceive it. This statement is by no means at odds with your post. Take a 24L who's bokeh is a characteristic of the lens. Then take a lanscapes with that lens shot at hyper focal distance and f22 where everything is in focus. Then take more shots slowly stopping down to f/1.4. Then slowly change the focus point to where you are focusing on a flower at MFD. The bokeh is there is all the pictures but at some point between those extremes, you can start talking about Bokeh.

Take a drop of soy sauce. Now dilute it in water. That doesn't change it's flavor. Now dilute it in homeopathic fashion 1MM:1: what does it taste like now?

Again the amount doesnt matter in terms of quality. If nothing is out of focus you cant see it, it it doesnt change the fact that the bokeh is qualitative descriptor.




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

16,510 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 achamb7
699 guests, 288 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.