100-400 people help

How is the bokeh at 5.6 at a reasonable distance (ya know, 15-25 feet) if i wanted to use this lens for a random portrait? please post examples if you have one. also Im interested in the separation for subjects wide open. Thanks

Do you want to know about bokeh (quality of the out of focus parts of the scene), or how much DOF you get? The first one is mainly due to the lens, the 2nd one is purely due to your distance (15-25 feet), your aperture (f5.6) and your focal length (???) and not the lens.

In regards to DOF, assuming you are shooting at 200mm at f5.6 at 20 feet, you would have about 7" in acceptable focus, and the rest would all be OOF. (http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html)

In regards to bokeh, the 100-400 is okay, sometimes I didn't like how the OOF areas looked, the 50-500 OS is better here. The highlights were just a bit odd with the 100-400L IMO.

Pretty much onboard with what TS says there. Here are some example shots at f/5.6, although, they aren't all people Pay particular attention to the highlight areas, like the stick behind the owl or the openings in the bushes behind the guy.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5983​956456/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5926​923572/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5926​346119/

Now one more caveat to all of this, there are 2 more factors I have found that go into the quality of the bokeh, one is the amount of separation between the subject and the background, as well what material make up the background. Grass reeds vs building or people will yield a different effect, or at least it seemed to when I shot with it.

Here is one of my samples from the 100-400L, it made the POTN photo book in one of the past years. This is actually probably pretty close to the scenario that was outlined, about the correct distance (15-20') and at f5.0 at 210mm.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13204960
Do you want to know about bokeh (quality of the out of focus parts of the scene), or how much DOF you get? The first one is mainly due to the lens, the 2nd one is purely due to your distance (15-25 feet), your aperture (f5.6) and your focal length (???) and not the lens.

In regards to DOF, assuming you are shooting at 200mm at f5.6 at 20 feet, you would have about 7" in acceptable focus, and the rest would all be OOF. (http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html)

In regards to bokeh, the 100-400 is okay, sometimes I didn't like how the OOF areas looked, the 50-500 OS is better here. The highlights were just a bit odd with the 100-400L IMO.

I understand the technical aspect of bokeh. I am wondering if it's worth saving the money by buying this lens instead of a 400 2.8 or a 500 f4. light performance is fully understood, I am sttrictly wondering if the bokeh is pleasing or donut city. looks good snyd.. sorry if I didnt articulate

vpnd wrote in post #13205659
I understand the technical aspect of bokeh. I am wondering if it's worth saving the money by buying this lens instead of a 400 2.8 or a 500 f4. light performance is fully understood, I am sttrictly wondering if the bokeh is pleasing or donut city. looks good snyd.. sorry if I didnt articulate

Ah, okay we are on the same page, and sadly I have no experience with those zooms. Not due to lack of desire, just lack of funds... From what I remember, all the big fast primes have great bokeh and IQ.

If you want to see donut city bokeh, check out my mini reviews link and find the Rubinar 1000mm post I did, yikes!

You'd get smoother, less jittery bokeh out of the big primes, but you are also paying 3-4x as much or more; and they're a LOT heavier/larger.

Also, if using a 400 or 500...is it really portraiture any more? Isn't that more like espionage?

Snydremark wrote in post #13205710
Also, if using a 400 or 500...is it really portraiture any more? Isn't that more like espionage?

And what is wrong with that ?

Bokeh is dependent on lens, background separation, distance to subject, and background content. At 25 meters, roughly 3 times that of what the OP is requesting, the background separation and distance smears the details much more.

And the lens, like others are saying, can shoot people pretty close for portrait-style pics. It is a great all purpose long telephoto, no doubt.

Wow, the sharpness and detail on that Owl is amazing. I got the pleasure of using that lens for a weekend. I would LOVE to own it, but for me the price is pretty steep since I don't make $$ with my photography and it's more of a hobby.

I don't remember the distance here, but this is the 500 for a comparison.

thats the prob HK, those super teles are superior in every way. Of course except price and weight. I went from the 70-200 2.8 is to the 70-200 f4 is, and imho didnt notice much difference in bokeh. I think I'll rent one for a week and tell my wife I'll be back sometime later in the week. I'm sure she'll understand. Well that small issue that she's due with our 5th child in 3 weeks might make it a little harder....

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13207932
Bokeh is dependent on lens, background separation, distance to subject, and background content. At 25 meters, roughly 3 times that of what the OP is requesting, the background separation and distance smears the details much more.

And the lens, like others are saying, can shoot people pretty close for portrait-style pics. It is a great all purpose long telephoto, no doubt.

That looks good too.