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

gonzogolf wrote in post #17932206
Again the amount doesnt matter in terms of quality. If nothing is out of focus you cant see it, it it doesnt change the fact that the bokeh is qualitative descriptor.

And nothing I said contradicts anything you said.

SuzyView wrote in post #17932158
I am curious if anyone has the 200 f2L. That thing is a beast! Just wondering if that lens is good for this?

Oh yes, very good!

Remember that even with an UWA lens stopped well down, and focused at it's Hyperfocal distance, and HFD changes with aperture, ONLY items at the plane of focus are actually in SHARP focus, subjects at any other distance are simply more or less blurry. The thing is that for the specified viewing conditions, items that are within the range of the DoF are PERCEIVED to be in sharp focus. This is important as if you change the viewing conditions of the image, for example making the final image larger (bigger print, changing the viewing zoom level) or getting closer to the image will have the effect of reducing the apparent DoF.

Since at all distances other than the focus distance the image will have some degree of blurriness all of those parts of the image must also have a perceptual quality of bluriness associated with that part of the image. Since the perceptual quality of blurriness is defined as Bokeh any part of the image that has items that are not at the focal distance must by definition have Bokeh. That is not to say that the description of the Bokeh at any point could not be described as imperceptible. I would suggest that this would be a valid description of the Bokeh at points away from the plane of focus, but within the perceived DoF.

Alan

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17932372
Oh yes, very good!

You have no idea how many times I've passed on the 200f2 for a new camera body or a lens I actually need.

I have the 200f2. There is really nothing else like it.

Dang, now I really want one.

SuzyView wrote in post #17936125
Dang, now I really want one.

Don't we all..........sigh

Yeah, just don't go into the 200mm sharing thread!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17936297
Yeah, just don't go into the 200mm sharing thread!

Seriously dont. i follow lots of threads for inspiration but i dont click on that one.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17936326
Seriously dont. i follow lots of threads for inspiration but i dont click on that one.

Oops... I want one.

cjm wrote in post #17937656
Oops... I want one.

I tried to warn you.

As awesome of a lens as the 200L is.....It is also a lens with limited use. If you really look, the majority of photos captured with it are outdoor or in areas that have a ton of room. I use my 135L for full body shots inside very big churches and Im often in the back rows. It not practical inside at all.....Outside.....My o My its wonderful.....135L is pretty darn close at F/2.0, especially for 1/2 body shots

umphotography wrote in post #17937860
As awesome of a lens as the 200L is.....It is also a lens with limited use. If you really look, the majority of photos captured with it are outdoor or in areas that have a ton of room. I use my 135L for full body shots inside very big churches and Im often in the back rows. It not practical inside at all.....Outside.....My o My its wonderful.....135L is pretty darn close at F/2.0, especially for 1/2 body shots

Agreed. I swapped my 200mm f/1.8 for the 135mm back when I was shooting performances, and the 135mm was far better solution the vast majority of the time.

The ultra fast 200mm class of lenses starting with the f/1.8, was really a lens that was designed for events with specific distances and low light to deal with, Olympic gymnastics was it's big demand. That was why I grabbed one years ago for dance, however in my own situation I was able to get closer than most would and thus the 135mm was usually better.