What the heck?? Does anyone have any example of a 50mm 1.4 lens wide open? I heard that has better brokeh
![]() | HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' |
booggerg Senior Member ![]() 460 posts Joined Aug 2004 Location: Chicago More info | Apr 24, 2005 21:07 | #1 ![]() What the heck?? Does anyone have any example of a 50mm 1.4 lens wide open? I heard that has better brokeh
20D || EOS650 || 50 f/1.8 MKI || 17-40 f/4L || 70-200 f/4L || Sigma 35-135 f/3.5 || Yashica Electro 35 || Yashica Minister || Yashica Mat 124G || Hoga 120CFN || 420EX || Sekonic 306 || Panasonic DVX100 || Canon GL2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cactusclay Goldmember 1,610 posts Joined Jan 2005 More info | Apr 24, 2005 21:30 | #2 |
tim Light Bringer ![]() 51,010 posts Likes: 375 Joined Nov 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand More info | Apr 24, 2005 21:36 | #3 You're right, that is pretty ugly. Try searching by lens type on pbase.com Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dante King "Cream of Corn" BurgerMeister ![]() 9,134 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: San Anselmo, California More info | Apr 24, 2005 22:08 | #4 Must be due to the light coming thru the tree. I had great results with my 1.8 Dante
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() Or does the bokeh progressively get worse of objects further from the lens? those trees were perhaps 10-12 feet away from the camera lens. 20D || EOS650 || 50 f/1.8 MKI || 17-40 f/4L || 70-200 f/4L || Sigma 35-135 f/3.5 || Yashica Electro 35 || Yashica Minister || Yashica Mat 124G || Hoga 120CFN || 420EX || Sekonic 306 || Panasonic DVX100 || Canon GL2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CyberDyneSystems Admin (type T-2000) ![]() More info | Apr 24, 2005 23:14 | #6 We don't know what aperture you were shooting.. with the sun in the image I would asume you were stopped down a bit.. which would totally change the bokeh.. GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CyberDyneSystems Admin (type T-2000) ![]() More info | booggerg wrote: Or does the bokeh progressively get worse of objects further from the lens? those trees were perhaps 10-12 feet away from the camera lens.
GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cmM Goldmember ![]() 5,705 posts Joined Apr 2004 Location: Chicago / San Francisco More info | Apr 24, 2005 23:34 | #8 it's not as smooth indeed, due to the 5 blade diaphragm... you can do *a lot* better than that though (as far as bokeh).... that looks pretty ugly
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Olegis Goldmember ![]() 2,073 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2004 Location: Israel More info | The 50mm f/1.8 sometimes does produce some pretty ugly bokeh - here's a picture shot at 1.8 : Best wishes,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Andy_T Compensating for his small ... sensor 9,860 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jan 2003 Location: Hannover Germany More info | Apr 25, 2005 03:23 | #10 You are right, the 50/1.4 is generally known to produce better bokeh. some cameras, some lenses,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
roanjohn Goldmember ![]() 3,805 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2003 Location: New York, NY More info | Apr 25, 2005 06:36 | #11 Blame it on the blades...........less blades = less rounded bokeh leading to the choppiness you see on your image.............I don't know how much better the f1.4 version would do though......but probably a tad better.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bauerman discount on value meals 3,457 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2003 Location: Idaho! More info | Apr 25, 2005 06:43 | #12 Was this shot with the 1.8 or the 1.4 - title of the post and body of the post are not in agreement there.....??
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Andy_T Compensating for his small ... sensor 9,860 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jan 2003 Location: Hannover Germany More info | Apr 25, 2005 06:53 | #13 Take a look here some cameras, some lenses,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() My original image was shot at 1.8. .I wouldn't put up a picture of any other aperature.. 20D || EOS650 || 50 f/1.8 MKI || 17-40 f/4L || 70-200 f/4L || Sigma 35-135 f/3.5 || Yashica Electro 35 || Yashica Minister || Yashica Mat 124G || Hoga 120CFN || 420EX || Sekonic 306 || Panasonic DVX100 || Canon GL2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mr.photoguy Goldmember 1,012 posts Joined Nov 2004 Location: new york More info | Apr 25, 2005 10:21 | #15 heh.. this is at f3.2, or 3.5 I forgot the Av already.
http://www.pbase.com …t/image/41829971/original ![]() This is why I have the Tamron 28-75, and contemplating a 85 1.8 (used or new) Bruce
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
Latest registered member is Paul92 427 guests, 166 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |