Bokeh! What are your favorite lenses for pretty, pretty bokeh?

cjm wrote in post #17930096
Uh Im going to disagree with you on this. This is looking at a skyline at dusk. Its correct bokeh just look at the tip of the lens to see it starting.

From your comment about it starting at the tip of the lens, I think you may be confused about quantity vs quality of the blur. As for the quantity of blur... you have plenty of that, but the "quality" of that blur (aka Bokeh) is arguably not as good as you could get from many other lenses. The bokeh balls aren't smooth at all, with halos and concentric rings (the dreaded "onion bokeh"). I'm not saying it's awful, but it's certainly not 85L/135L quality by a long shot.

I gotta side with Charlie. Blurry != Bokeh. That BG is ugly.

I will share an article I saved from a few years ago.

https://photographylif​e.com/what-is-bokeh

Charlie wrote in post #17930071
that's actually terrible bokeh. See how the bokeh balls have an outlined highlight?

here's what clean bokeh from a 50 should look like IMO (mitakon 50 f0.95):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/odxV​AX Butterfly play 3 by Charlie, on Flickr

I disagree that cjm's picture has terrible bokeh. However it's not outstanding, as almost all lenses with round aperture blades could produce out of focus bokeh balls on individual street lights, other lights, etc at night. Nonetheless, it's a pleasure to look at. And on your pic, the out of focus bits are also nice to look at, while not overly good or bad imo. You can't really compare a normal creamy bg vs. bokeh balls created at night though, they're too different.

Sigma 50 1.4 EX. Super sharp, super blur, bliss.

To the OP, a lot of factors go into the judgment of "bokeh", not least of which is personal opinion. Remember it's not a fair fight to compare lenses of vastly different focal lengths or maximum apertures. There's plenty of reviews out there showing test shots of similar lenses between Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc. It's easy to recognize and embrace the best lenses for this, but when looking to more affordable options, it's even more important to scrutinize more carefully and let your own eyes be the judge.

Also, with the advent of ever sharper lenses emerging on the market, I think this factors into the quality of blur. I respect Charlie's opinion, but I think his comment that the Sigma Art bokeh being terrible was a bit of an overstatement. It's different, yes. It's certainly not as smooth as a 50 f/1.2 or a 50 f/1.0. For some people bokeh seems to be a pass/fail test where the result must either be the best or the worst. No in between.

How you process your images will also impact the smoothness of the blur. I'm talking about sharpness, not negative clarity. For instance, when I shoot an image with a blurred background using a very sharp lens, in post I adjust sharpness locally where needed. Global sharpness adjustments will tend to give harder edges where you don't want or need them.

Am I the only person that doesn't like to describe blur as "creamy"? It just sounds like something that should be poured from a blender.

Let me throw another hat in the ring for "distance as a bokeh engine." Based on the photos the OP has shared it seems nature imagery is a primary subject. If this includes wildlife then bokeh is less about f-stops and more about depth of field (DOF). When you're shooting a subject in the distance, and not dealing with a nearly 2D focal subject (bird standing sideways to you), you're going to need to close the lens down to achieve a more pleasing DOF on the subject.

For example, this shot was with the 300mm f2.8L IS at f8 and the whole bird is still not in full focus.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rxsp​4M

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/v4zy​xf

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DrpR​Z1

I like my 135L then 200L, then 85 1.2 Here is 135L with my daughter

coatfetish wrote in post #17929719
I'm just a backyard hobbyist, and I didn't even know what bokeh was until I bought the 40mm pancake lens. Now I'm addicted to it. What favorite lenses do you have in regard to bokeh?

coatfetish wrote in post #17929801
Ouch! Some of these lenses are way out of my budget, lol. I didn't specify a $$ limit though...and it's good to see the comparisons. ...
~ Cindy ~

Your initial post certainly sounds more like a "post your dream lenses" vs. "post up affordable recomendations"

On the affordable side:

-EF 135mm f/2L
I'll start with the priciest, but still very affordable relatively speaking and it's the same 135mm f/2 already mentioned so many times in this thread. It hangs with lenses costing twice, even 5 times as much shoulder to shoulder.

- EF 85mm f/1.8 / 100mm f/2 USM
This pair, (chose one or both) are wonderful portrait lenses with lightning fast and accurate AF. Costing $350-$40.00 they are bargains considering what you get. The 85mm has a tendency for purple fringing, but is still a great lens.

- EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
Get the STM version of this lens only. It is the super affordable!

The not so affordable side:
EF 200mm f/1.8L / 200mm f/2L IS

EF 85mm f/1.2L

Any Super telephoto of F/4 or faster.

coatfetish wrote in post #17929929
You guys have totally sold me on the 135L.

Good! This is THE WAY to go!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17930382
Good! This is THE WAY to go!

Even on a crop camera? I'm not so sure I agree

i cant believe so many people continue to post things like distance improves your bokeh. Bokeh is a quality, not a quantity. Distance improves the quantity of blur. Bokeh is a quality of the lens.

DreDaze wrote in post #17930418
Even on a crop camera? I'm not so sure I agree

I have to agree with Dre on this one. The 135L is a work of art, but it is long on crop. I sold my first copy - then got a 5Dc - then bought a second 135L. The lens is a bit 'iffy' on crop.

I actually find the 70-200 2.8 v2 to have pleasing bokeh.
When I look at my own images the 85 1.2 v2 stand out the most.

That said, everyone should have a 135L, it's more than just bokeh with that one. I know it sounds daft but it just looks so different to other optics.
Maybe I'm just an old romantic.

I loved borrowing the 135L because it is a great lens. I find it too long for portraits, though, so I only use it for indoor sports or events. Since I shoot a lot of school events, it's just necessary to use the 70-200 2.8 IS II all the time, and it doesn't give much bokeh unless it's for a specific purpose. I would choose the 85 1.8 just for the cost and the bang for buck on this lens. It is inexpensive and so sharp. I have the pancakes and they are good, but the 85 1.8 is really what I use most.

What I don't like about really great bokeh (I still can't pronounce it well), is that once you get the person's nose in focus, the eyes aren't anymore.