35 f/1.4 ART-isn't the bokeh "disturbing"?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16785756
But you see, theese are two different places and....it should work well in all locations...

Even with a Canon 85/1.2 or 200/1.8 lens one can get disturbing bokeh. Foilage or branches near the object plane still brings somtimes bad bokeh.
Only lenses with apodization filtering or undercorrected spherical aberration could you help there a bit more.

I checked some other examples from this lens and with a different background and it looks better:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

David Arbogast wrote in post #16786359
Perhaps you're right. If he is truly comparing the bokeh from his 35mm to the bokeh of his 24-105mm or 70-200mm then I've given his post too much credit. Hopefully he'll end the mystery and let us know what specific lenses are being referenced for comparison.

David, I am very well aware that you get a very different bokeh with 24 mm, 35 mm, 200 mm and 400 mm. When I had both the Zeiss 35 and Sigma 35, I never compared them side by side. I also did not use Zeiss a lot in similar situations as I could not nail the focus I was just wondering....those who know 35 mm very well and are using Sigma/Canon/Nikon or Zeiss, do they see the same thing? Is this kind of bokeh a signature of 35 mm lenses or it is specific to Sigma only?

Well said, exactly my feeling. This is why I wanted to check with experienced folks whether this is the Signature of all 35 mm lenses and this is how it should be.

the flying moose wrote in post #16786417
The first one actually hurts my eyes. There is something about it that makes it feel like I am trying to focus on a 3D image without the 3D glasses.

pretty lady

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16787127
Well said, exactly my feeling. This is why I wanted to check with experienced folks whether this is the Signature of all 35 mm lenses and this is how it should be.

I just compiled a small random set of photos I've taken with the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 Distagon - maybe it'll give you a taste of bokeh in different environments.

https://www.flickr.com …2/sets/72157642​952105643/

I don't feel like it ever lets me down as far as bokeh is concerned - i love the bokeh it produces...

Now that I have magic lantern back on my body, 5dm3 1.2.3 firmware - I find focus peaking is excellent for getting focus.

You have to find the bokeh sweet spot for your taste. If you like smooth bokeh using any 35mm, you have to use a very distant low contrast background and the subject close to camera. Or use a longer focal length like a 85mm. For many, the 35mm is know as an environmental portrait lens. So part of the background is recognised to tell the story in the composition. Lots of us use flash to pop out the subject and darken the background so it is not so distracting.

ZoneV wrote in post #16787071
Even with a Canon 85/1.2 or 200/1.8 lens one can get disturbing bokeh. Foilage or branches near the object plane still brings somtimes bad bokeh.
Only lenses with apodization filtering or undercorrected spherical aberration could you help there a bit more.

I agree with this post. I occasionally got busy bokeh with the 50L, even 85L and 135L, which all have stupidly good bokeh. Wider angles just amplify the problem.

Bokeh may be a matter of taste, but CA is not and the sigma 35 is many times better the canon 35 not having any CA... that was my argument when I bought my sigma 35...

Charlie wrote in post #16787787
I agree with this post. I occasionally got busy bokeh with the 50L, even 85L and 135L, which all have stupidly good bokeh. Wider angles just amplify the problem.

Very true. Knowing bokeh characteristics and how/when to influence its rendering is part of the skill of being a photographer. Wonder if there's a bad bokeh thread on the forum... if not, I'll go make one.

Edit: Created thread in General Discussion: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=16787863#po​st16787863

I agree with many here that at 35mm one can't expect a particularly pleasing bokeh (of the 85L or 135L kind), and this must be a technical/engineering limitation (very smooth - gaussian - background blur is either impossible or very expensive/impractical to achieve at 35mm FF).

This is one of the main reasons I never understood why all this rave about fast wide angle (35mm or shorter) lenses, and why paying so much for them. When I think "portrait" and "wide angle", I think in terms of a classical environmental portrait, where everything is sharp. Wide angle lenses, even fastest ones, often don't produce enough of bg blur, creating an impression that the blur is a photographer's mistake rather then by design; plus, as discussed here, the blur is not particularly smooth, which I believe is bad , as it takes away your attention from the main subject of the photo. (Unless the subject of the photo is the blur, which is rarely the case.)

Interesting observations. So what is the role of the background blur? In my opinion it is intended to isolate the main subject from the background to drive the attention to what you believe is right. Busy bokeh is something that can be distracting.

I have to say that I like the lens, it is really good. But last weekend I took all these shots and started thinking....what is really wrong with them and then I understood it is the bokeh really.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16787882
I agree with many here that at 35mm one can't expect a particularly pleasing bokeh (of the 85L or 135L kind), and this must be a technical/engineering limitation (very smooth - gaussian - background blur is either impossible or very expensive/impractical to achieve at 35mm FF).

This is one of the main reasons I never understood why all this rave about fast wide angle (35mm or shorter) lenses, and why paying so much for them. When I think "portrait" and "wide angle", I think in terms of a classical environmental portrait, where everything is sharp. Wide angle lenses, even fastest ones, often don't produce enough of bg blur, creating an impression that the blur is a photographer's mistake rather then by design; plus, as discussed here, the blur is not particularly smooth, which I believe is bad , as it takes away your attention from the main subject of the photo. (Unless the subject of the photo is the blur, which is rarely the case.)

Fast wide/normal primes are useful for environmental portraits in which you want to bring background elements in the frame to give your photo context, but still want to isoalte your subject and draw the viewers eyes towards the subject the focal point of the shot. It also creates a greater sense of dimension when you keep background elements in the frame, but are able to islote the subject and "pop" them out of the background.

I actually like it quite a bit.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/koU2​re

^^^In that type of shot, the blurred background helps provide context giving a clue as to where the guitarist is. The subject is high contrast and the composition allows for the viewer not to be distracted by what's in the background.