How is this Bokeh and color?

I'm trying out my first 3'rd party glass and wanted to get some feed back as to whether this lens is acceptable or should go back. It's also not a constant aperture lens

Most of my other glass is L or high end Canon (17-55, 10-22) and I don't want to ruin my kit if this doesn't tread water. (I'm thinking maybe it should go back and I should save my money towards a Canon 50 f/1.4)

Shots were taken f/2.8 thru f/5.6, varying focal lengths, image size pretty much identical.
No PP other than JPG conversion.

Lots of comments and feedback, please. (I've only got 5 days to decide)
Images

I don't get it.

Bokeh (appearance of the out of focus scene elements) is primarily a function of the aperture, focal length and focal distance. Those are all standard factors for any lens design and user settings - not manufacturing quality. In other words, both high quality and low quality lenses will exhibit essentially the same "Bokeh" when set up for a given aperture, focal length and focus distance. Even the number of lens elemsnts and the quality of the lens coatings should not be a factor until you get into other issues, such as forward scatter or lens efficiency, which are not part of your test setup.

So, your problem just does not compute.

RichNY wrote in post #3422426
I'm trying out my first 3'rd party glass and wanted to get some feed back as to whether this lens is acceptable or should go back. It's also not a constant aperture lens

Most of my other glass is L or high end Canon (17-55, 10-22) and I don't want to ruin my kit if this doesn't tread water. (I'm thinking maybe it should go back and I should save my money towards a Canon 50 f/1.4)

Shots were taken f/2.8 thru f/5.6, varying focal lengths, image size pretty much identical.
No PP other than JPG conversion.

Lots of comments and feedback, please. (I've only got 5 days to decide)
Images

given the tough background i think they look okay. which lens did you use?

ed rader

Dunno about that background for any kind of subjective testing.. extremely bright highlights + mass clutter = ? bokeh on anything. Plus, the subject doesn't seem like it's very isolated (ie, providing a good setup for bokeh).

So.. maybe a new test? What lens anyway? I've had fantastic results with all my third party gear, and don't buy in to the crap some people spew about it on here.

RichNY,
How about answering your own questions? After all its you that has to be satisfied with it. If your happy with it keep it, if not well you know.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #3422599
I don't get it.

Bokeh (appearance of the out of focus scene elements) is primarily a function of the aperture, focal length and focal distance. Those are all standard factors for any lens design and user settings - not manufacturing quality. In other words, both high quality and low quality lenses will exhibit essentially the same "Bokeh" when set up for a given aperture, focal length and focus distance. Even the number of lens elemsnts and the quality of the lens coatings should not be a factor until you get into other issues, such as forward scatter or lens efficiency, which are not part of your test setup.

So, you problem just does not compute.

Not trying to hi-jack or challenge, but if what you are saying is true, why do so many people go on and on about the "Creamy Bokeh" of a particular lens, or the "Ugly Bokeh" of a particular lens?

I thought the aperture blades were a factor in "good" vs. "bad" bokeh?

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh

Anyway, I would also vote for the OP to try a different test.

sumocomputers wrote in post #3423136
Not trying to hi-jack or challenge, but if what you are saying is true, why do so many people go on and on about the "Creamy Bokeh" of a particular lens, or the "Ugly Bokeh" of a particular lens?

I thought the aperture blades were a factor in "good" vs. "bad" bokeh?

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh

Anyway, I would also vote for the OP to try a different test.

they are. lens design also affects bokeh.

ed rader

Three new images posted

sumocomputers wrote in post #3423136
Not trying to hi-jack or challenge, but if what you are saying is true, why do so many people go on and on about the "Creamy Bokeh" of a particular lens, or the "Ugly Bokeh" of a particular lens?

I thought the aperture blades were a factor in "good" vs. "bad" bokeh?

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh

Anyway, I would also vote for the OP to try a different test.

There are many things that are claimed, much of which is highly emotional or subjective. As an engineer, I attach little significance to anything so vague.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #3423914
There are many things that are claimed, much of which is highly emotional or subjective. As an engineer, I attach little significance to anything so vague.

It's a good thing photography is purely science and not an artform

RichNY wrote in post #3423517
Three new images posted

The one of mother and son looks decent enough.

I would like to see something like some colorful flowers with lots of various background objects surrounding them (back, front, sides).

I don't really know if others would consider this good bokeh in the photo below, but I like it. It was using a 50mm f1/.4.

What lens are you using?

The glass is a Canon 85L f/1.2 Mk1 I just wanted to see if anyone would get thrown by the background as Ed pointed out in his first post. The first 6 images where shot from f/1.2 - f/2.0

People on this forum are not easily fooled!

RichNY wrote in post #3424700
The glass is a Canon 85L f/1.2 Mk1 I just wanted to see if anyone would get thrown by the background as Ed pointed out in his first post. The first 6 images where shot from f/1.2 - f/2.0

People on this forum are not easily fooled!

Love it. Sort of like blind coffee cupping (tasting) that I participate in.

I am not enough of an expert to say "That Bokeh came from this lens", so I am glad you presented the way you did.

Personally, I find the obession with Bokeh a little weird. For me, most of the time my energies are put into the subject in focus. I think the average people that look at my photos never give a single thought to the quality of the bokeh, although I find myself increasingly doing so.

But other photographers...they not average are they?

You could have picked better subjects to illustrate your point. No offense but I hope you can get better photos out of the lens than the ones you posted. Not that they aren't good, but a $1700 lens needs to do better IMO. Again, no offense intended.

Hi Robert,

Robert_Lay wrote in post #3423914
There are many things that are claimed, much of which is highly emotional or subjective. As an engineer, I attach little significance to anything so vague.

This is only vague because there is no specific characteristic by which this can be measured, a standard way of measuring it, and on top of that there are emotions attached to it as well.

Lenses are designed to project sharp images, so the quality assigned to the unsharp projection of the out of focus part of images, or bokeh, naturally sounds a little strange if you're used to working with numbers.

However, there is distinct science involved with this, as optical engineers more and more take this aspect into account when designing lenses, f.e., the Canon EF 85 F/1.2 L II, and the EF 16-35 F/2.8 L II.

It is a combination of factors, though, which is what makes this very difficult science, or very difficult to describe purely in numbers. It is about lens design, the correction of specific optical aberrations, how and to which degree, aperture roundness, (relative) distance of foreground and background from the object in focus, shape of the foreground and background, and colour comes into it as well. IMO, this is about optical engineering, engineering in other words, but it is about very difficult aspects of it, and not in any way easy to grasp in traditional science and engineering, at the moment anyway.

Kind regards, Wim