If the gentleman in the picture ever sees his photo and wants a copy I will be happy to send him the full res. Just let me know which restaurant it was taken at on Sept 26.
If the gentleman in the picture ever sees his photo and wants a copy I will be happy to send him the full res. Just let me know which restaurant it was taken at on Sept 26.
It might be best if you posted these on the alternative image thread instead as they dont seem to be examples of admirable blur to me.
So, here is my 'bokeh torture test' shot. I take a photo of this post every time I get a new lens. No lens has really passed the test with flying colors. Until today. Only one of these is an alternative, but there's admirable blur, IMO.
The two shots have completely different background content with respect to lighting and particularly specular highlights. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this comparison.
It might be better to shoot them side-by-side to get a better idea.
The two shots have completely different background content with respect to lighting and particularly specular highlights. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this comparison.
It might be better to shoot them side-by-side to get a better idea.
You are indeed correct. Here are the two side by side. Of course, to get similar framing, I had to move, so they are not identical, but they are pretty close. Tough bokeh test: mixed light, with sunlight on leaves and twigs in the background. Both at f/1.2, and both look pretty good, though I still think the 85L has a decided edge:
Oh...and here's my Sigma 30 @ f/1.4, which turned in quite a good performance, I think. The bokeh on this lens is surprisingly good...it's very smooth.
Jman13 if you take any 135 f2.8 (cz, leica or similar) you get even bigger and more pleasantly fuzzy highlights then you get from 85mm, so you need to compare lenses with similar focal length.
I'm not talking about the degree of background diffusion. That will obviously be smaller with a longer focal length lens, as there is less background captured for the same framing. I'm looking at the QUALITY of the background blur, which I think is significantly better on the 85L....note the smooth specular highlights...no bright edges at all...just perfectly illuminated discs. The Rokkor does that in some areas, but has bright rings on the highlights in other areas.
Note the Sigma 30 pic, which I also think outdoes the Rokkor in bokeh quality.
Mind you, I'm not saying the Rokkor bokeh is bad. I am just saying that it has a very two sided personality. I have had it give me absolutely phenomenal bokeh in certain situations (which I have posted in this thread), but it doesn't handle harsh jumbled light as well as some other lenses.
Jman13 wrote:
Oh...and here's my Sigma 30 @ f/1.4, which turned in quite a good performance, I think. The bokeh on this lens is surprisingly good...it's very smooth.
Have you ever compared your Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX with the Nikon 35mm f1.4 AIS?
I know the Sigma is sharper WO but I would like to know which has the better bokeh because from the samples I've seen so far the Nikon has pretty amazing bokeh.
I have not. If anyone wants to send me one for testing, I can do a side by side.
I have to say, the Sigma (as you mentioned) is incredibly sharp wide open (well, in the center 80% of the frame..the corners lag...like I care at f/1.4), with no loss of contrast at wide apertures. The bokeh has been very pleasing to my eye, though I haven't seen enough shots of the Nikon 35 to say whether or not it's as good / worse / better.
This is the only Sigma 30 'tons o bokeh' shot I have online at the moment....a photo of a decidedly non-alternative lens, but the photo gives you an idea of the 30's bokeh.
