Bokeh/dreamy look difference 85 1.2L Mark I vs Sigma 85 Art in practice ?

I'm not a very high demand shooter when it comes to people. Focus on the eye, clean bokeh, and I'm good. Super duper sharpness and contrast is great, however I'm ok with less.

You just gotta fiddle with it yourself and decide. I was shooting the 55 zeiss one time, downgraded to 50 f1.8 budget lens..... I use the samyang 85mm f1.4, would love sony version which is sharper and has great bokeh for a sharp lens, but I'm ok with lesser. I adore the canon 135L and not interested in the better samyang or zeiss stuff.

all of those lenses are people lenses to me, and as long as bokeh is good, I'm happy. I've gotten rid of lenses that have bokeh that annoys me, or avoid them when I want blur in my images.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18240158
There are a ton of 3rd party processing tools to soften up "too sharp" images.

Processing software cannot re-create the complex character of a lens, because they work on a 2D picture deprived of most of the information in the original 3D scene fed to the lens.

If you just want to soften an image, software can indeed do that. That is the only thing mentioned above is how sharp the Sigma 85 might be, and sometimes you don't want those details. In fact you can just add a softening filter to the lens and do it that way if you would like. My point is that it is easier to soften an image than it is to sharpen, in a way that nobody is going to know whether it was optically soft or it was done by software.

I do this with family portraits, especially the older crowds, and always run a skin softener and sometimes a glamour glow, never ever get a complaint, but always compliments. So who cares if the result is from the lens or from the software?

I love the 85L and its rendering, I had one for years, but the Sigma looks like a great alternative at a much lower price.

Software softening works decently if you assist it preparing the masks for the areas to process.
Apart from the waste of time, like I said, the complex overall character of a real lens cannot be emulated by processing a 2D image.

For most portraits, I personally prefer a lens with a strong character to create an emotional picture. Some other photographers will prefer a lens that allows them to pixel-peep eyelashes at 50MP resolution. There's no right or wrong, just different tastes.

Agreed, and that is why I say "personally" in my post...

Yep, the dreamy look produced by lens aberrations is more complex and delicate looking than what I usually see from software produced blur.

I am pretty sure the dreamy look being discussed here is simply the bokeh produced by such a thin DOF.

We then went into a discussion about how what was in focus was actually possibly too sharp with the Sigma, because with some portraiture, details aren't exactly desirable in some cases. There are wonderful tools that you can use that selectively modifies certain colors that you can eyedrop, without affecting other areas of the photos. I run into this with the more older crowds during family and couple portraits. I am not advocating using software to make areas out of focus, there is no need for that with an 85mm f1.2 or f1.4, those do that all by themselves.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18240469
I am pretty sure the dreamy look being discussed here is simply the bokeh produced by such a thin DOF.

We then went into a discussion about how what was in focus was actually possibly too sharp with the Sigma, because with some portraiture, details aren't exactly desirable in some cases. There are wonderful tools that you can use that selectively modifies certain colors that you can eyedrop, without affecting other areas of the photos. I run into this with the more older crowds during family and couple portraits. I am not advocating using software to make areas out of focus, there is no need for that with an 85mm f1.2 or f1.4, those do that all by themselves.

well the bokeh can have highlight edges, which can be distracting, and not easily post processed clean. Canon 50mm f1.4 for example, has this issue. Sigma 85 art seems to have somewhat hard edge bokeh balls.

if you shoot in daylight, this can be a big issue.

I have shot with the 50 1.4 (and particularly hate the bokeh highlights on that lens), but have never heard a parent or client that received a photo complain about it. I ended up going with the Sigma 50 1.4, it is nicer in that regard. I haven't shot with it in a long time though, my 24-70II and 70-200II get the most action these days. I do miss my 85L sometimes though, it was a special lens.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18240469
I am pretty sure the dreamy look being discussed here is simply the bokeh produced by such a thin DOF.

That's only a small part of it.

For a clue, take a critical look at how things like specular highlights on jewelry are handled by lenses with a bit of residual chromatic aberration versus sharper more analytical ones.

The results of those aberrations give a bit of a glow that is often absent in more highly corrected lenses.

Great thread; I have an 85 1.8 and a 135L but I'm limited in church where I do all the annual photography for baptisms, first communions, etc. I use my 85 1.8 and Tamron 24-70 2.8vc but I'm looking for more. Thinking about dumping my 135L and 85 1.8 for an 85 ART but I do like my 135L. I can't have both. Grrr.....

very interesting statement....
Have you compared the new STM with the older 50mm f1.8 II and 50mm f1.8 I?
From what I've heard the STM uses the same lens elements as its predecessors and I've have never seen anyone praising the bokeh created by these two lenses.

The STM 50 got 7 aperture blades instead of 5 in 50 II but the most important factor is the reduced minimum focus distance. Its only 35cm and can produce shallower dof than 50L. This is why the bokeh is even smoother and more creamy from the STM 50. On longer distance I cant see any difference between STM and II exept the aperture blades when stopping down.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18240503
I have shot with the 50 1.4 (and particularly hate the bokeh highlights on that lens), but have never heard a parent or client that received a photo complain about it. I ended up going with the Sigma 50 1.4, it is nicer in that regard. I haven't shot with it in a long time though, my 24-70II and 70-200II get the most action these days. I do miss my 85L sometimes though, it was a special lens.

Methinks that a non-photographer is unaware of what we photographers may consider to be 'disturbing' bokeh, and unless you were to present photos using two or three different lens designs side by side so that they could see 'less disturbing' vs. 'more disturbing' bokeh, a complaint would virtually NEVER arise from the clients!

Consider the fact that photographers made photos for many decades and we were ALL totally unaware of 'bokeh' as a concept, and never during that time were there any complaints -- with the exception of the bokeh from mirror lenses...we simply accepted what a lens gave us. It took in-print popularization of the 'bokeh' as a term and as a concept about 20 years ago among photographers only, for anyone to start thinking about it. Now bokeh is discussed (in my opinion, excessively) -- even if we don't count the popuilarly common misuse of the term in lieu of 'background blur'.

Mike Johnston, who is the editor said to be responsible for today's obsession with bokeh due to the article he published, himself rated the Olympus 50mm f/1.4 (photo 1 below) at only a lowly '3' in bokeh quality (on a scale of 10), and yet I see uniformity not onion rings, and the only comment about this lens bokeh is due simply to the lack of attention (unlike what we have today in aperture roundness) to the number of blades and formation of a 'round highlights' instead of the polygonal highlights of yesteryear's lenses.

In your example, I very much prefer the first photo, much smoother despite the polygonal bokeh.
And that photo was not taken with a Canon 50 f/1.8 II, despite the description.