Bokeh

With my current arsenal of lenses (L 100macro, 24-105, 100-400 , & 17mm T/S) which lens would give me the best bokeh for senior pictures?

I'd have to say the 100mm. Really pleasing backgrounds with that lens. What about that 35mm you have in your sig? Is that an option? Also really lovely.

Gotta ask, since the term 'bokeh' is mistakenly used to refer to 'amount of out-of-focus blur', rather than the quality of the blur... Are you asking about 'quantity' or 'quality' of blur?

The larger iris size (FL / f-stop) has more quantity of blur of the distant background.

Wilt wrote in post #14805981
Gotta ask, since the term 'bokeh' is mistakenly used to refer to 'amount of out-of-focus blur', rather than the quality of the blur... Are you asking about 'quantity' or 'quality' of blur?

Given his list of lenses, the macro will likely be the right choice, regardless of which one he wants. It's also a good length for portraits.

krb wrote in post #14805992
Given his list of lenses, the macro will likely be the right choice, regardless of which one he wants. It's also a good length for portraits.

One might be able to come to a conclusion about QUANTity of background blur, but the quality of blur (bokeh) can only be done via comparison shots, as this illustrates http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

For quality bokeh its best to create your own

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=H5jjr_vKruU

But your macro will probably give you the best low DOF for a milky background if thats what your after.

Nature Nut wrote in post #14806212
For quality bokeh its best to create your own...

I think an apodization filter at the iris position is much better than those shaped forms in front of the lens.
The Helios 44 works very well with my apodization filters (see my homepage).

Nature Nut wrote in post #14806212
But your macro will probably give you the best low DOF for a milky background if thats what your after.

The issue of what is in focus (DOF) is very independent from
1) how blurred the background is or
2) the quality of the out-of-focus blur (bokeh).

The illustrations used in this post shows three shot at f/11 with the subject the same size in the frame...the DOF is the same for the three shots (note the two black objects perched on the ends of the yardstick); but the out-of-focus blur in the background buidings is quite different. https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=7667310&p​ostcount=3

Wilt wrote in post #14806145
One might be able to come to a conclusion about QUANTity of background blur, but the quality of blur (bokeh) can only be done via comparison shots, as this illustrates http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

I did say "likely" and considering the max aperture, number of aperture blades and bokeh reputation of the three lenses he owns that would be generally suitable for portraiture, not to mention personal experience with 2 of those 3, I am confident with my earlier statement.

Not sure which is "best", but no doubt, the 100mm f2.8L will give you great portraits and excellent bokeh.

I am unsure of which has the best looking bokeh, but my guess for which has the most intensity of bokeh is 100-400mm @ 400mm F5.6.

I think the 100mm macro will be the best choice, but try taking some shots at 300mm or 400mm wide open with your zoom. Those would be interesting. I had to laugh seeing your 17mm tilt lens included in the question. I don't think those seniors would be to happy with the portrait results!

nightcat wrote in post #14807367
I think the 100mm macro will be the best choice, but try taking some shots at 300mm or 400mm wide open with your zoom. Those would be interesting. I had to laugh seeing your 17mm tilt lens included in the question. I don't think those seniors would be to happy with the portrait results!

It can work fine so long as you are standing back and getting more of the background. Not likely to be used for more than a few shots and definitely not for closeups.

Yeah, I should have updated my tag. I sold my 35mmL because I never used it. Now that it's gone, I have a use for it now!!!! Ugh..... I threw the tilt shift in just for humor!. I'll give my macro a try then, the 100-400 and compare. I was leaning towards the macro too but wondered what others thought. Thanks for the help!

mike3767 wrote in post #14810497
Yeah, I should have updated my tag. I sold my 35mmL because I never used it. Now that it's gone, I have a use for it now!!!! Ugh..... I threw the tilt shift in just for humor!. I'll give my macro a try then, the 100-400 and compare. I was leaning towards the macro too but wondered what others thought. Thanks for the help!

My favorite portraits come from my 70-200mII and 300 2.8. Personally, if what you want is an isolated subject with a smooth, completely blurred background I'd say the longer the better.