The Canon 50mm F1.4 has crappy Bokeh!

Agamemnon wrote in post #7077269
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!

It should be a pie rating...the smooth and creamier the better!

ie. My Zeiss 50mm is a lemon meringue...love it or hate it
70-200 is chocolate cake...get me now?

Psychobiker wrote in post #7077287
It should be a pie rating...the smooth and creamier the better!

ie. My Zeiss 50mm is a lemon meringue...love it or hate it
70-200 is chocolate cake...get me now?

But what about the flaky crust? That doesn't sound like good Bokeh...or is that just the outer edge?

Would that make the 50 1.4 a simple cream pie? More apt to hit you in the face than taste good?

Exactly, 'nervous' around the edges...

like this photo I took, and it's (currently) on a 1.6x :

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

TheHoff wrote in post #7077236
I like the Sigma 50/1.4's

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

(not mine)

Don't alot of people have back/front focus problems with this lens?

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.

Lenses that are heavily corrected for spherical aberrations usually have ugly bokeh. I think the otherwise very good sharpness of the 24-105L requires a lot of correction, and thus the bokeh is not so wonderful.

IMO the quest for good bokeh is a little overrated. Sure, if the OOF region has wierd geomtric patterns, or even worse little squiggly lines then that is not OK. But I personally have not found the bokeh of any of my current Canon lenses to be unacceptable, and that includes the 24-105L.

I tried rating some of the bokehs that my lenses produce and quickly came to the conclusion that it is not one dimensional. Or even two. Maybe the reason why it is an interesting subject?

ngn8dogg wrote in post #7077436
Don't alot of people have back/front focus problems with this lens?

i just posted a response to another thread about that haha - but i guess thats off topic
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=625196

How often does one look at an image and say...
"Gee, the subject looks great but that bokeh is terrible"?
I would think so long as there is separation between subject and background (portrait images) that would be enough.

Bad bokeh can really kill a picture, usually if there is a busy background like grasses or trees, but it's the exception to the rule, most pictures work just fine even if some OOF highlights are a bit ugly. Sometimes you can just clone them out in post processing too.

datadump wrote in post #7077576
i just posted a response to another thread about that haha - but i guess thats off topic
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=625196

Do you like your sig better then the canon?

i don't know, but i think you're being a tad too picky. bokeh's not everything in a picture.

OK, so the 24-105L is hereby dubbed Strawberry Sorbet Sundae.

Horribly over-sweetened.

I think so much affects a shot's bokeh that its not entirely fair to lay all the blame on the lens. Of course, the lens's maximum aperature and diaphram shape and front element's shape have a lot to do with what characteristics of that bokeh CAN be, but ultimately a lot more is involved in the final product. Subject's distance to the background items, contrast of the subject's colors to the background's colors, busyness of the background (and foreground, bokeh can occur with items in the frame that are outside the DOF while being in front of your subject as well).

I don't think the Canon 50/1.4's bokeh is bad. Of the AF 50/1.4s they are all about the same. I find the 50/1.4's bokeh pretty smooth and creamy... sometimes a little too much so. I find the bokeh of my Zeiss 58/2 to be much more appealing these days, but I recognize that what appeals to me most about that lens is the contrast and colors, with bokeh coming in 3rd place (with sharpness, which is amazing, in 2nd place).

I have a Helios-40-2, the lens that is sometimes known as the "swirlios" because of its truly unique bokeh which seems to make like a kitchen sink drain and swirl. Some people hate this effect, I find it very interesting.

Bokeh is a personal preference, and for people to spend so much time **** and moaning about some particular lens having good or bad bokeh is kind of missing the point. The lens has to be a lot of things. It has to be sharp where you want it to be, it has to have colors and contrast that represents the scene you saw when you tripped the shutter, and it should handle the background (if it is far enough to separate) with care up to its abilities. If I ever start hearing about how some f/4.5-5.6 lens has bad bokeh, I will call up Chuck Norris, give him their address and ask Chuck to give them a roundhouse kick to the head.

I'm including a shot of a face in the crowd at a Yankee game I went to this fall. Shot @ ISO 400, f/4, 1/200 ... 40D + 70-200mm f/4L IS USM @ 200mm. Minimal processing, Brightness +50, Contrast +25, Blacks 2. I like the bokeh of this shot, I feel the person between me and the subject being out of focus gives the shot more dimension - others may not agree. Feel free to chime in.

-Alan

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

nureality wrote in post #7079855
Ithink so much affects a shot's bokeh that its not entirely fair to lay all the blame on the lens. Of course, the lens's maximum aperature and diaphram shape and front element's shape have a lot to do with what characteristics of that bokeh CAN be, but ultimately a lot more is involved in the final product. Subject's distance to the background items, contrast of the subject's colors to the background's colors, busyness of the background (and foreground, bokeh can occur with items in the frame that are outside the DOF while being in front of your subject as well).

I don't think the Canon 50/1.4's bokeh is bad. Of the AF 50/1.4s they are all about the same. I find the 50/1.4's bokeh pretty smooth and creamy... sometimes a little too much so. I find the bokeh of my Zeiss 58/2 to be much more appealing these days, but I recognize that what appeals to me most about that lens is the contrast and colors, with bokeh coming in 3rd place (with sharpness, which is amazing, in 2nd place).

I have a Helios-40-2, the lens that is sometimes known as the "swirlios" because of its truly unique bokeh which seems to make like a kitchen sink drain and swirl. Some people hate this effect, I find it very interesting.

Bokeh is a personal preference, and for people to spend so much time **** and moaning about some particular lens having good or bad bokeh is kind of missing the point. The lens has to be a lot of things. It has to be sharp where you want it to be, it has to have colors and contrast that represents the scene you saw when you tripped the shutter, and it should handle the background (if it is far enough to separate) with care up to its abilities. If I ever start hearing about how some f/4.5-5.6 lens has bad bokeh, I will call up Chuck Norris, give him their address and ask Chuck to give them a roundhouse kick to the head.

-Alan

certainly not as bad as the 24-105L for sure. i'm ambivalent about bokeh for the most part but the bokeh of the 24-105L jumped out at me the first time i used the lens and was a large reason why i later sold the lens.

ed rader

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

Yeah it's on the To-Do list. Right under World Peace.