Ivor Karabatko Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.7 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS | |
nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?
Good bokeh to me is having a lens that eliminates the competitive roughness of the background, giving you a smooth and interesting result. When you're stuck with the crappiest, most annoying and visually competitive background and can't change your position between you, the subject, and the background.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but maybe someone can catch my drift. In other words, it separates the subject from the background and makes the subject stand out, without having anything competing for attention in the frame.
At least that's what I think of when I think of shooting at a low aperture. In my opinion, when you can eliminate the background factor almost completely, and most of the time turn it into something favorable that benefits the quality of the photograph, that's a great advantage to have. You get more light, too. That's the added bonus.
I have my L glass, and I have two sigma lenses that I use. I never had a problem with my sigma 15-30mm, I love that thing to death. Sharp, no CA, and pretty good with flare too. Now I'm looking at a nice prime, and for a while I couldn't decide between the Canon or the Sigma 50mm 1.4's. But this thread helped me out. I always wondered why the Sigma costs more than the Canon, but now I know. I have confidence in buying Sigma for Canon bodies, and this thread reassures me that I'm buying a solid product.
This is a great thread, I've read every post/reply and found them all to be good, constructive posts that I can learn something from. Thanks everyone!
|