24-105 bokeh is BAD :(

Such a good all purpose lens is very sad when it comes to quality bokeh. Looks like my Tammy will stay to take over when bokeh is important for a shot.

Ed, you are absolutely right!!!

Two examples :

"Direct Linking Not Allowed"

Thats all I get

Owned by hotlinking.


Sorry, but your host hates you. Try photobucket.

I know when bokeh starts to look like a red triangle with a exclamation point in the middle, there need to be a lens sent in.:p
JK, no photos are showin

kram wrote in post #3168322
Such a good all purpose lens is very sad when it comes to quality bokeh. Looks like my Tammy will stay to take over when bokeh is important for a shot.

Ed, you are absolutely right!!!

Two examples :

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

The second one highlights the problem really well. I have seen such bokeh in a 50/1.8 thread....

man that looks terrible .

the convenience of 4.4X zoom with IS is not without cost.

i needed another lens for bokeh and another for portraits and then i finally surrendered and got the 24-70L .

ed rader

Just right click over the "DIRECT LINKING" image andgo to properties where the URL is.

Or try this.
http://images1.fotopic​.net …ngpt1&outx=980&​quality=70
http://images1.fotopic​.net …ngpt1&outx=980&​quality=70

But these examples are not very good at all. The rose is way too red and bleeched. You want the best Bokeh (man I hate that term) buy a 100mm Macro lens.

Sorry guys. Will correct the link when I get back home. The connection at the airport is terrible and I cannot upload to my smugmug gallery.

The bokeh is much worse than a red triangle

kram wrote in post #3168322
Such a good all purpose lens is very sad when it comes to quality bokeh. Looks like my Tammy will stay to take over when bokeh is important for a shot.

Ed, you are absolutely right!!!

Two examples :

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

The second one highlights the problem really well. I have seen such bokeh in a 50/1.8 thread....

That is horrible...there is no bokeh...everything is in focus....looks like a point and shoot at f/16.

Woolburr wrote in post #3168383
That is horrible...there is no bokeh...everything is in focus....looks like a point and shoot at f/16.

Except NO p&s goest to f.16

To direct link to fotopic files you ahve to first link to images and not images# with # being the server number

Then you remove everyhting from url other than the filenumber..


of course you ahve to enavle direct linking for it to work... can ya see your pic now? look at the url

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

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

I don't see what the problem is without knowing the specifics of each shot. Aperture, focal length, etc...

Sonic Infidel wrote in post #3168430
I don't see what the problem is without knowing the specifics of each shot. Aperture, focal length, etc...

20D
f1/4
1/250 sec
ISO 400
50.0mm

maybe because of the f/4?

Well, the background is kind of busy and not too far behind the main subject so isn't this expected from the 24-105L?

So "good" bokeh would be what? Silky smooth background?

Here is a estimate of what f2.8 would look like, meaning if you used a 24-70L instead of a 24-105 IS L. Meh is all I have to say if this is close. The Bokeh on this picture is not that bad.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.