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 03 Aug 2013 (Saturday) 09:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What's the best BOKEH for the buck?

 
Aressem
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,364 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 511
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 07, 2013 15:36 |  #61

LostArk wrote in post #16189010 (external link)
Best bokeh under $500:
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - has the smoothest, creamiest bokeh of any 50mm other than Leica Summilux / Noctilux, earning the Sigma the deserved nickname of "Sigmalux." This lens is high in the running for best bokeh period, regardless of price

Best bokeh under $1000
Canon 135L - really no contest here. It produces such unique and pleasing bokeh that it's one of the only lenses where I can look at a photo and know it was shot with the 135L.

Best bokeh under $2500
Canon 85L - if you want more bokeh than what the 85L can dish out, you have to step up to the 200mm f/2 ($6,000). www.howmuchblur.com (external link)

Finally - a complete and quality post not debating the definition of bokeh. Thank you! :)


Ryan Mackay WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | GEAR LIST | Buy & Sell Feedback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kenwood33
Goldmember
2,597 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jul 2005
     
Aug 07, 2013 15:38 |  #62

A lot of the old manual lens (50mm something) produces very nice bokeh and are generally under 100.


Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Aug 07, 2013 18:02 |  #63

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16179363 (external link)
All these "bokeh" threads crack me up... Bokeh is completely subjective. What some people find appealing, others might not.

I can't stand Andy Warhol paintings, that doesn't make him a bad artist...

good point
btw grab any lens, open it up, zoom all the way out(if a zoom), frame it super tight then focus on a subject at MFD and get bokeh that's smooth enough that judging it is subjective.


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Aug 07, 2013 19:12 |  #64

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16179363 (external link)
All these "bokeh" threads crack me up... Bokeh is completely subjective. What some people find appealing, others might not.

cracks me up too

the 50mm 1.8 bokeh ..... smooth as melted butter

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3833/9355388314_31a6c098c4_c.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rui ­ Peixoto
Member
249 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2011
     
Aug 07, 2013 19:51 |  #65

that´s it. I ordered a 50/1.8.

I love my pancake but it´s a bit close to my 35 and it´s a bit slow sometimes. I´ll see how the nifty50 compares.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JM ­ Photos
"Childhood ruined"
Avatar
3,374 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 319
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Washington: North Seattle
     
Aug 07, 2013 20:04 |  #66

k-lo wrote in post #16189402 (external link)
good point
btw grab any lens, open it up, zoom all the way out(if a zoom), frame it super tight then focus on a subject at MFD and get bokeh that's smooth enough that judging it is subjective.

This!

bberg wrote in post #16178200 (external link)
Agree with the poster above. The 135L is the best bokeh for the price in the Canon lineup.

It's funny because the 70-200 2.8 at 135mm has better bokeh than the 135L to me. :)


Canon 6D, & Sony α6000
Own: 24-105mm f/4L | Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 | Rokinon 14mm f/1.8
Want: 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II
Website: Jordyn Murdock Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aressem
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,364 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 511
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 08, 2013 01:20 |  #67

Agree with the poster above. The 135L is the best bokeh for the price in the Canon lineup.

JM Photos wrote in post #16189633 (external link)
It's funny because the 70-200 2.8 at 135mm has better bokeh than the 135L to me. :)

I think you need to re-read what he/she said. That aside, I'd have to disagree. The 70-200 is a great lens although I'm not sure how you figure it can out-perform the 135L at 135mm wide open. It has an entire stop to it's advantage. Seems like a no-brainer but I had to point it out.


Ryan Mackay WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | GEAR LIST | Buy & Sell Feedback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JM ­ Photos
"Childhood ruined"
Avatar
3,374 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 319
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Washington: North Seattle
     
Aug 08, 2013 01:39 |  #68

Aressem wrote in post #16190366 (external link)
I think you need to re-read what he/she said. That aside, I'd have to disagree. The 70-200 is a great lens although I'm not sure how you figure it can out-perform the 135L at 135mm wide open. It has an entire stop to it's advantage. Seems like a no-brainer but I had to point it out.

I think you need to re read my post because I simply said the bokeh was better at 135mm lol. I said nothing about it being able to "out perform the 135L"

I said the 70-200 at 135mm has better bokeh than the 135L and that's strictly opinion just like all other posts here.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1108366


Canon 6D, & Sony α6000
Own: 24-105mm f/4L | Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 | Rokinon 14mm f/1.8
Want: 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II
Website: Jordyn Murdock Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,644 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 234
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Aug 08, 2013 02:49 |  #69

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16188745 (external link)
...If the edges of circle of confusion are brighter than center - it's a bad bokeh. If the center is brighter than edges - it's good bokeh. If it's an oval, it'll give a swirling effect....

The terms "good" and "bad" are relative.
For this image a neutral or "good" bokeh would be far less interessting:

IMAGE: http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Natur/slides/Soap-Bubble-Bokeh.jpg

Typical Meyer Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 (external link)image.

Canon photographers don´t realy know "good" bokeh lenses from Canon (exept probably the 135/2.8 Softfocus). They only talk about some images with (accidential) good bokeh - but the same lens will give normaly only more or less neutral bokeh.

Dependable "good" bokeh with smooth edges give the Sony 135mm STF lens, and with right use the Nikon Defocus Control lenses 135 and 105mm.
Here an example of "good" bokeh (external link) - apodization filtered:

IMAGE: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Bokeh-Test.jpg

Here a small comparison between apodizated bokeh:

IMAGE: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Good-Bokeh-.jpg

and more or less neutral bokeh with the same lens (Helios 44) wideopen:

IMAGE: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Unschärfe-Kringel-.jpg

and closed

IMAGE: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Kringel-Unschärfe-.jpg

Wideopen the bokeh looks fine, because the blur is bigger - but it is not "good" bokeh, only much blur/bokeh.

Same with defocus control lenses which use spherical abberation correction to get smooth bokeh (external link)- but only in foreground or background.

Canon has patented a apodization lens (external link), I hope they make this as a product.

DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Aug 08, 2013 07:22 |  #70

ZoneV wrote in post #16190501 (external link)
Canon photographers don´t realy know "good" bokeh lenses from Canon (exept probably the 135/2.8 Softfocus). They only talk about some images with (accidential) good bokeh - but the same lens will give normaly only more or less neutral bokeh.

Excellent points and good suggestion on the language. Perhaps we should be discussing blur aesthetics in terms of 'bright edge bokeh', 'neutral bokeh' and 'faded edge bokeh'. That takes the value judgement of 'good' vs. 'bad' out of the discussion.

You can see it within this thread. People cite the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 lenses as lenses with 'good' bokeh. These are actually lenses that make 'bright edge bokeh' but they can overcome the appearance some times simply because they can make very blurred backgrounds owing to their large maximum apertures.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Aug 08, 2013 11:50 |  #71

ZoneV wrote in post #16190501 (external link)
The terms "good" and "bad" are relative.
For this image a neutral or "good" bokeh would be far less interessting:

Wideopen the bokeh looks fine, because the blur is bigger - but it is not "good" bokeh, only much blur/bokeh.

Same with defocus control lenses which use spherical abberation correction to get smooth bokeh (external link)- but only in foreground or background.

Canon has patented a apodization lens (external link), I hope they make this as a product.

I'm not sure why you're replying to my post, because you're not rebuking any of the points I made.

I never said bad bokeh can't be used with good results or that bad bokeh can't make a pleasing image.

As for good and bad, it's not subjective. If there's more light in the center - good. More light at the edges - bad.

If you take a salad bowl right side up, it can hold water. If you invert it, it can't hold water. It's a very objective test to see which way the bowl is up.

If you think it's subjective, try pouring water on an inverted bowl with your friends. If one of your friends gets the water to stay in an inverted bowl, then it's subjective. ;)

I'm also not sure what a "canon photographer" is, but I'm not it.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,797 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2562
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 08, 2013 12:50 |  #72

Aressem wrote in post #16189068 (external link)
Finally - a complete and quality post not debating the definition of bokeh. Thank you! :)

Only because the OP didn't inquire about getting the 'most blur', but inferred using the term correctly in asking for the most pleasing bokeh. :D

Zone5 wrote:
The terms "good" and "bad" are relative.
For this image a neutral or "good" bokeh would be far less interesting

^
Zone5's first photo in Post 69 is a great example of what someone might find to be 'bad' bokeh, but which greatly adds to the impact of the shot in this case...'bad' really is 'good' here.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cesium
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
     
Aug 08, 2013 13:51 |  #73

What lens should I buy that will give me the most bokeh and best perspective for portraits of my wife? I hear primes are best for this since they become 1.6x longer on my crop camera. I want that blurry backgorund look so I can start shooting weddings too. Already have two booked for this year. Please, don't recommend a flash... I am strictly a natural light photographer.

.......:lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,644 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 234
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Aug 08, 2013 14:30 |  #74

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16191443 (external link)
I'm not sure why you're replying to my post, because you're not rebuking any of the points I made.
...

Sorry, I took your post only because of the good and bad. Should be no offense - I am no native speaker so probably my post sounds too offensive, sorry.

I think "bad" bokeh with bright edges is very often bad - but for sure it is not every time bad. My favorite lens has exactly this, and I love it to make bokeh images.
Furthermore the bad background bokeh results most times in a very smooth foreground bokeh.

This is the reason why I often describe it as pronounced, or edge boosted. But "bright edge bokeh" is probably even better.

Bokeh is one part of many images - and sometimes "bad" bokeh with bright edges is much better than normal or soft edge bokeh. And the "good" soft edge bokeh from an apodization lens is sometimes too uncommon. A neutral bokeh would be better.

It is a kind of sad that probably 95% of western photographers only know these more or less neutral bokeh lenses. Only very few people know the Sony STF or the real function of the Defocus Nikkor lenses.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,938 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6681
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Aug 08, 2013 14:43 |  #75

I think you two have more in common in how you think of Bokeh than most in the thread, so the possible offense is a bit ironic. :) I'd say we are fellow appreciators and be happy! :) You've both posted some of the most understandable aspects of the discussion.


Great post ZoneV! Love that first example.. I hope this drives home a point to many of the readers. A picture is worth a thousand words!!!!


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

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

20,035 views & 0 likes for this thread
What's the best BOKEH for the buck?
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 AlexRapp
1383 guests, 266 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.