The Canon 50mm F1.4 has crappy Bokeh!

http://www.planetneil.​com …quality-of-blur/#more-314

i dont think its crappy not the best but not crappy. but i do notice that my 70-200 has alot more bokeh then my 50

I guess my 50mm f1.8 is complete crapola then!!!

Bokeh is supposed to be about Quality, not Quantity.

Someday people will know the difference between DOF and bokeh.

Yes, yes it does have crappy bokeh. The article was pretty good. And I totally agree with the above two posters - people need to stop confusing DOF with bokeh. This sentence for example, is meaningless:

jcp2000 wrote in post #7076508
i do notice that my 70-200 has alot more bokeh then my 50

Canon's 50 1.8. 50 1.4, and 24-105L have really, really crappy bokeh.

gasrocks wrote in post #7076897
Someday people will know the difference between DOF and bokeh.

... and that it's all optical and not effected by any crop.

But not in this lifetime.

snails wrote in post #7077043
... and that it's all optical and not effected by any crop.

But not in this lifetime.

This thread's a good way to get the ball rollin' at least...

whats a good 50 Pime that HAS good bokeh then? Besides the L's

ngn8dogg wrote in post #7077121
whats a good 50 Pime that HAS good bokeh then? Besides the L's

Rokkor 58 1.2, for starters. I LOVE 50mm lenses. But you'll notice there isn't one in my sig. Why? Because all the AF ones are crap in some way or another. Still on the hunt for that perfect autofocus 50mm....

ngn8dogg wrote in post #7077121
whats a good 50 Pime that HAS good bokeh then? Besides the L's

I like the Sigma 50/1.4's

http://www.flickr.com …919063/in/pool-664291@N24

(not mine)

perryge wrote in post #7077143
Rokkor 58 1.2, for starters. I LOVE 50mm lenses. But you'll notice there isn't one in my sig. Why? Because all the AF ones are crap in some way or another. Still on the hunt for that perfect autofocus 50mm....

They don't exist.
70+ years of great MF primeage...

I am somewhat puzzled by why the 24-105L would have ugly bokeh. I agree 100% that it does have ugly bokeh...too bad. Otherwise it would be a fantastic lens.

perryge wrote in post #7076955
Yes, yes it does have crappy bokeh. The article was pretty good. And I totally agree with the above two posters - people need to stop confusing DOF with bokeh. This sentence for example, is meaningless:

Canon's 50 1.8. 50 1.4, and 24-105L have really, really crappy bokeh.

gasrocks wrote in post #7076897
Someday people will know the difference between DOF and bokeh.

I have a feeling if that day were possible, it would have already passed. There'll always be new people learning photography, and so always people to attach numbers to why they don't like a lens

What should happen is developing a numerical scale of bokeh, sliding from nervous to smooth. Then we can have more flash widgets for lens comparison!

nicksan wrote in post #7077257
I am somewhat puzzled by why the 24-105L would have ugly bokeh. I agree 100% that it does have ugly bokeh...too bad. Otherwise it would be a fantastic lens.

There are a lot of compromises with that lens... the non-internal zooming extension, the barrel distortion... and the bokeh.