Bokeh - Is It All A Fallacy?

Bokeh is a relative new term in photography.. I, with over 30 years in photography, 28 years as a pro, 17 of those working for a newspaper, I'd never heard the term bokeh until I joined POTN.. I'd never heard any of my colleagues say "Great bokeh".. I haven't even heard anyone say "Nice background blur" but I've heard "Nice background to subject separation" but never "Nice bokeh"..

I've read in these forums people discussing one lens to another comparing bokeh and at times ignoring other characteristics of a lens.. I for one would never buy a lens on the bokeh it produces..Many times, in my opinion, bokeh is often thrown around to sound cool or even educated..

So, is bokeh over used in lens discussions?? Is bokeh really that important??

Is it all a fallacy??

short answer yes...

yogestee wrote in post #11437979
So, is bokeh over used in lens discussions?? Is bokeh really that important??

It's not all that important.

It is true that some lenses have better characteristics in rendering blurred regions than others. But I think the amount that some people discuss this topic is way out of bounds relative to how important it is.

I have owned two Canon lenses with reputations for the worst bokeh in the line - The EF 50/1.4 and the EF 24-105/4L. I have tons and tons of shots from these lenses, and I have never had a background that really caught my attention as being very bad. And I have certainly never had another observer comment on it.

I've also owned lenses with reputations for great bokeh like the 85L and 35L. These lenses do seem to make smooth backgrounds, but not in a way that looks much different (to me) compared to the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8.

I wonder how much of the reputation of some lenses for 'bokeh' is really just because they are so fast that they turn almost everything into a smoosh. I'd say the time you care about 'bokeh' is when you are using smaller apertures and the background is blurred but distinct.

From my perspective its an overused term, but it is a real concept. For some reason supershallow DOF photos are more popular in the digital world than we shot film. Perhaps its because with the review screen we can chimp and walk a finer line than ever before. Anyway with so many people using the narrow DOF it makes sense that they would compare the nature of the blurred area. Having used the 135L I can attest there is a noticable difference between the bokeh and that of some other lenses.

When I look at any pic I take, I look at sharpness, composition, lighting etc but ignore bokeh..

It all depends on the image and need for separation versus all in focus shots. I see so many blurred backgrounds, it's definitely overload. when I used to shoot stock photography, most editors desired to have everything in focus. The only exceptions would be for covers where copy would take up the OOF part of the frame.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11438001
It's not all that important.

I wonder how much of the reputation of some lenses for 'bokeh' is really just because they are so fast that they turn almost everything into a smoosh. I'd say the time you care about 'bokeh' is when you are using smaller apertures and the background is blurred but distinct.

Jeff,, that's a very good point..

Using my 135L for example at say f/2 or f/2.8, shooting a headshot, the background virtually disappears into nothingness..

I guess it depends how much of a perfectionist you are and to a degree personal taste.

There is definately a difference in the way a lens blurs the background though which is affected by the amount of aperture blades the lens has. Cheaper lenses tend to have less blades so the aperture hole is more hexagonal, more expensive lenses have more blades creating a much more circular hole.

The more circular the hole, the smoother the background blur (or bokeh)

You can see the effect that this has most clearly in lights and specular highlights in the background

as in these two pics...

50mm 1.8 (about £80)
50mm 1.2 (about £1200)


Incidentaly the term comes from the Japanese word boke which means "blur" or "haze"


For me personally, I would say a good smooth bokeh is important. For example, if I take a portrait with a shallow depth of field it is primarily because I want the viewer to focus on the face and eyes of the subject and not be distracted by the background.

However, when buying a lens this is only one of many factors which I would consider.

I thought this was interesting.

Origin

An example of the bokeh effect produced by a Canon 85mm prime f/1.8 lens.
200mm lens with a 100mm aperture, which corresponds to f/2The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality". The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense of a mental haze or senility.[7]

The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, saying "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable".[2] Bokeh replaced the previous spelling boke that had been in use at least since 1996, when Merklinger had also suggested "or Bokeh if you prefer."[8]

The term bokeh has appeared in photography books at least since 1998.[3] It is sometimes pronounced /ˈboʊkə/ (boke-uh[9]).

I have never considered bokeh when buying a lens. I'm one who thinks the donut bokeh from mirror lenses can actually be kinda cool, and that people are generally wasting their time arguing over the bokeh from a sigma vs a canon.

Worry about improving your weak portfolio...then worry about such trivialities such as bokeh.

image23 wrote in post #11438150
as in these two pics...

50mm 1.8 (about £80)
50mm 1.2 (about £1200)



For me personally, I would say a good smooth bokeh is important. For example, if I take a portrait with a shallow depth of field it is primarily because I want the viewer to focus on the face and eyes of the subject and not be distracted by the background.

Firstly welcome to POTN

The pic examples aren't really a good comparision as one pic was taken at f/1.2 and the other at f/3.5..

Commenting on this paragraph, if you compare an EF 50mm f/1.4 and EF 50mm f/1.8 at say f/2 with the same subject to camera distance, you'll have the same depth of field, therefore the same amount of background blur and subject to background separation.. The bokeh produced by both lenses will be subjective..

mikekelley wrote in post #11438213
that people are generally wasting their time arguing over the bokeh from a sigma vs a canon.

I'd like to expand on this idea.

For starters - it is true that some lenses do a better job and have more pleasant effects in how they blur a background.

But perhaps more importantly, similar lenses in similar ranges are usually so close in this regard that the differences are meaningless.

If you were to compare the 85L II, the 85/1.8 and the Sigma 85/1.4 for boheh, I suspect you would be really hard pressed to find people that could reliably sort which lens was which in a blind test.

Even different lenses in a similar range (like the 70-200 vs. an 85mm prime), well, my experience is that either will usually create a smooth background.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11438239
I'd like to expand on this idea.

For starters - it is true that some lenses do a better job and have more pleasant effects in how they blur a background.

But perhaps more importantly, similar lenses in similar ranges are usually so close in this regard that the differences are meaningless.

If you were to compare the 85L II, the 85/1.8 and the Sigma 85/1.4 for boheh, I suspect you would be really hard pressed to find people that could reliably sort which lens was which in a blind test.

Even different lenses in a similar range (like the 70-200 vs. an 85mm prime), well, my experience is that either will usually create a smooth background.

Pretty much what I wanted to say, but didn't have the brain power as it's only 7:-- AM here on a Sunday

mikekelley wrote in post #11438213
I have never considered bokeh when buying a lens. I'm one who thinks the donut bokeh from mirror lenses can actually be kinda cool, and that people are generally wasting their time arguing over the bokeh from a sigma vs a canon.

Worry about improving your weak portfolio...then worry about such trivialities such as bokeh.

Mike,, I remember the first time I saw an image from a mirror lens way way back.. I thought the donut effect was kind of cool..

I never did own a mirror lens.. I liked the concept, the compactness of the lenses but couldn't get my head around the fixed aperture..

If my memory serves me right, I think Tamron produced a SP 250mm f/5.6 mirror lens, which was tempting..

yogestee wrote in post #11438271
Mike,, I remember the first time I saw an image from a mirror lens way way back.. I thought the donut effect was kind of cool..

I never did own a mirror lens.. I liked the concept, the compactness of the lenses but couldn't get my head around the fixed aperture..

If my memory serves me right, I think Tamron produced a SP 250mm f/5.6 mirror lens, which was tempting..

I used a borrowed 500mm f/8 Nikkor for a series on horse racing I did way back in the day. It was kind of cool, it was tempting when the guy offered to sell it but the fixed aperture was the deal breaker.

Like you, the first time I heard the term bokeh was here on POTN. I was amused at first but after looking into it I get their point. It wouldn't really be my first concern in buying a lens, but I do see what they're talking about.