Which lenses?

I have the 500D which came with 2 lenses, the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
and the 75-300mm - F/4.0-5.6.

I want to do on-location type photography with children. I have found that the 75-300mm lens is quite good for dof but I have to stand too far back for some of the shots i'd like to do.

The 18-55mm isn't very good for dof unless they are stood a long way away from their background.

I need a lens which is really good for dof but one where I don't have to stand miles away!
An in between lens I guess.

Examples of shots I have taken with the 75-300mm lens, i'd like to still be able to achieve the same sort of shots:

At what focal length were those taken?

Basically you want a lens with faster aperture to compensate the shorter shooting distance yet retaining the creamy oof area (that's what I think you meant).

Some suggestion - 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2, 70-200f2.8.

Both are very nice shots.

Perhaps a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. Relatively inexpensive, optically excellent, and much faster than the kit lens. I use its longer cousin (28-75) for that purpose, but the 17-50 would give you a full replacement of our kit lens.

Yes larger aperture = better bokeh. The suggestions above are good ones.

What Kin2son suggested.

casaaviocar wrote in post #14657369
Yes larger aperture = better bokeh. The suggestions above are good ones.

Incorrect

faster aperture = smaller depth of field = more out of focus

bokeh is the QUALITY of the out of focus area, not the amount

TO THE OP

any of the 17-5x/2.8 lenses will be better for subject separation than the 18-55 kit lens

and while we don't know what price range is ok for you, any of these will be great: 50/1.8; 50/1.4; 85/1.8

sol95 wrote in post #14657679
Incorrect

faster aperture = smaller depth of field = more out of focus

bokeh is the QUALITY of the out of focus area, not the amount

Web definitions:
In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/​Bokeh
More info*»Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com

The word Bokeh comes from the Japanese word Boke (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness, blur, or haze. This word can also be applied to a mental haze or senility.
Boke-aji is closer, meaning blur quality.

So wider aperture = more fuzziness or blur (there is no such thing as faster aperture if you're gonna get technical, faster is a function of SS)

Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 or Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 if you want a zoom that's wider than your 75-300 but still has some decent telephoto length.

casaaviocar wrote in post #14658326
Web definitions:
In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/​Bokeh
More info*»Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com

you're proving my point and disproving yours. the bokeh is, from your quoted definition, the aesthetic quality of the blur, or the blur in out-of-focus areas. since the fact that something is out-of-focus is already accepted, the term "blur" is referring to the qualitative measure, not the quantitative measure

if you want to see what it looks like, check out comparisons between 50/1.8 - 50/1.4 - 50/1.2 all at f1.8. The quality of the blur (which is the bokeh) differs significantly between the three lenses. the 50/1.8 is harsher than the 50/1.4. But best of all is the 50/1.2 which renders a smooth and creamy BOKEH in the out of focus areas.

wider aperture creates more blur, but doesn't necessarily mean you get good bokeh, which was your initial incorrect statement

Selective reading or failure to understand English? You're skipping the most important word in that definition...OR. Bokeh is the blur....OR....the aesthetic quality of the blur.


Or. conjunction Used to indicate an alternative. This or that, blur or asthetic quality of blur.


Japanese again: fuzziness, blur, or haze.

Those are nice shots. I have a lot of simular stuff with my 85/1.8. That can really blur the background without it having to be in the next yard over. Also the 30/1.4 can do a good job if you need something in the 18-55 range but obviously not as good as longer focal length lenses. A 50/1.4 would be good too in between those.

Can we not descend into squabbling semantics every time the word Bokeh is used? The OP wants a fast lens to retain shallow depth of field while allowing for a shorter working distance. Essentially, she wants a lens that is shorter, but faster. Simple. No need to argue and get off topic.

Cloe, I would personally recommend an 85mm lens. The Canon 1.8 is an excellent lens for the money, the Samyang/Rokinon is highly respected but is fully manual, and the Sigma isn't too shabby either.

Firstly, sorry to the OP for digressing here. But incorrect information should be corrected.

casaaviocar wrote in post #14658761
Selective reading or failure to understand English? You're skipping the most important word in that definition...OR. Bokeh is the blur....OR....the aesthetic quality of the blur.

Again, you're proving my point and disproving yours. The structure of that sentence isn't presenting the the concept of "blur" as an option to "aesthetic quality of the blur". The word "or" is functioning as additional information to what is meant by "blur". It seems here that your rudimentary understanding of English is failing to grasp how clauses work in English. The placement of the commas shows that the flow of the sentence is essentially "bokeh is the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image", and the clause "or the aesthetic quality of the blur" is giving additional clarification to that point.

This is borne out by the next sentence in your referenced wiki article. "Bokeh has been defined as 'the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light'." Read it properly - the WAY the lens renders, not the AMOUNT the lens renders.

At the end of the day cassaaviocar, if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to stay quiet and learn. It doesn't help the situation either if you accuse others of problems (selective reading, or lack of English) which is clearly the problem that you yourself have.

Anyways, I've said my piece and won't respond any further to misinformed comments.

Again, my apologies to chloeP for being part of the off-topic rant

but as I put in my original post...

sol95 wrote in post #14657679
any of the 17-5x/2.8 lenses will be better for subject separation than the 18-55 kit lens

and while we don't know what price range is ok for you, any of these will be great: 50/1.8; 50/1.4; 85/1.8

Moving right along.
Yup - look hard at the 50/1.8 (or if you like the 50 mm focal length, the 1.4 or the Sigma alternative), or the 85/1.8 or 100/2.