Just some Bokeh (8 pics)

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will let the other guys talk about the bokeh, this is how I see it...

I appreciate threads like this. It gives a pretty good idea on different lenses. BUT....I wish you would've had an object at a fixed distance, not your hand holding the object. Some pics are closeups, some are not.

And the nifty fifty pic is not even in focus.
I do however give you credit for the time and effort. Thanks.

Yes, nice effort but none of these lenses are anything really talked about in the world of Bokeh.

Thanks. That's all I was trying to do.

I stood in the same spot every time. The length of my arm never changed and the tree I used for the background never moved.

That would be due to the varying focal lengths from 17mm - 105mm.

Neither is the 105mm shot from the 28-105. Didn't notice until after it was done and I decided it wasn't worth my effort to do them over since the point was the out of focus highlights in the background.

It was something I have been wanting to compare. I wanted to see if the 50mm f/1.4 had the best bokeh of the bunch and I think it does. I never liked the bokeh of the 28-105 at the wide end. I was disappointed to see how similar the 17-55 was at it's wide end.

its a tough crowd

OOF backgrounds - Yup.

Bokeh, a long ways to go before they qualify.

Thanks. Much appreciated. I have nothing negative or untoward to say about your efforts.

Someone say bokeh? Look, it's even a duck. Clique:

IMAGE LINK: http://litpixel.com …on=2&ee_lang=en​g&u=1155,2

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #5760758
OOF backgrounds - Yup.

Bokeh, a long ways to go before they qualify.

I thought someone would have said this.
Could you say why they are long ways before qualifying? I thought bokeh was quality of background blur; good or bad is a different story.

In any case, I think I like the 50/1.4 best, and that might just be a partiality on my part. Cause I love the lens so much.

Not sure that the intent of the OP is.
If it comparing bokeh quality on various lenses, then it would indeed help if the framing didn't change that drastically between lenses.

For instance the 50 1.4 shots seem like it has "better" bokeh, but that might just be because you were closer to the subject than the other shots.

Good efforts!

However, with bokeh, i was under the impression that recognizable geometric shapes/globes of light are bad bokeh, versus the creamy type.

No real intent here other than to show what you get from these lenses. These are some of the more popular lenses asked about on these forums.

You may not be able to directly compare them all, but you could certainly compare the 30 vs 35 or the 50/1.4 vs. 50/1.8. These are the same lens comparisons that people frequently want to know about.

SeattleSpeedster wrote in post #5760572
its a tough crowd

Just what I was thinking...

Mark, thanks for your time / effort.... I think it gives a high level understanding of what different focal lengths do in comparison to aperture used. I found it to be a great post... hell of a lot better than some of the criticism that followed, that's for sure

George

Angry Dad wrote in post #5759925
I will let the other guys talk about the bokeh,
And the nifty fifty pic is not even in focus.

my nifty fifty pics look like that a lot. says its in focus but i get that. beginning to wonder if i got a bad one b/c everyone always talks about how sharp that lens is.

thanks for this thread...i like comparing bokeh shots

Thanks for the Bokeh...good effort and nice post