telyt wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
The EF135/2 is one of the best for anything, isn't it?


Ummm.... about half of the 135/2 L photos posted in this thread are showing bokeh that I'd say was distracting.

At a second look I think you are right. I'm just used to see great 135/2L images and didn't pay attention.

I don't know of any lenses that can't get lured into producing bad bokeh (bad as in distracting, bright rings or double lines or just very edgy edges). Maybe it is a combination of relative distances (camera - focus plane - background) and the used aperture.

cogitech wrote:
When did the 85L and 135L become alternatives?

As nice as they are, the shots are out of place in this forum.

per the OP of the thread, so just showing some examples .. sorry.

Jonas B wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Only alternatives? I'll stretch the definition and include some from my Sigma 150 as well.


No, not alternatives only. But Sigma is not a stretch at all. And I like the blur in the portrait shots.

asabet wrote:
The Sigma DP1 renders pleasing background blur on close-up shots:



I don't agree here. The background highlights are to "edgy" to my eyes. I would ahve preferred a smoother background.

Here's an unlikely candidate for producing admirable blur. That's right, kids. It's the Leica 35-70/4.

teh_rebel wrote:
cogitech wrote:
When did the 85L and 135L become alternatives?

As nice as they are, the shots are out of place in this forum.

per the OP of the thread, so just showing some examples .. sorry.

Jonas B wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Only alternatives? I'll stretch the definition and include some from my Sigma 150 as well.


No, not alternatives only. But Sigma is not a stretch at all. And I like the blur in the portrait shots.



As long as there aren't too many of them I personally don't mind something from a Canon or Nikon lens (perhaps a DC lens?). Then it can be discussed if it _is_ allowed - it is after all Fred's forum.

Personally, I hope no list Nazi's take hold and destroy nice threads like this one that show comparitive examples from many lenses... and illustrate why people shoot "alternative lenses." I also kind of agree that the 135L doesn't shine as brightly here as when it is compared to other Canon lenses in the Canon Forum.

telyt wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
The EF135/2 is one of the best for anything, isn't it?


Ummm.... about half of the 135/2 L photos posted in this thread are showing bokeh that I'd say was distracting.

and:

When did the 85L and 135L become alternatives?

As nice as they are, the shots are out of place in this forum.

I don't shoot that many shallow DOF images...

Summicron-R 50 @ f2.4 looks nice IMO (looks better on the print than downsampled for web):

I'll play, some Minolta bokeh

hi,
i'm very pleased with this difficult blur situation.



canon 5D + nikkor 55mm 1:1,2

The Minolta AF 50/2.8 and 100/2.8 were some of my favorite lenses when I shot with Minolta film. The 85/1.4 is also spectacular, but I never owned it (too heavy, and close in focal length to the 100 macro) . Many of the Minolta AF lenses have great sharpness, color, and bokeh.

Jonas B wrote:


I don't know of any lenses that can't get lured into producing bad bokeh (bad as in distracting, bright rings or double lines or just very edgy edges). Maybe it is a combination of relative distances (camera - focus plane - background) and the used aperture.

I agree. Likewise, most lenses can produce good bokeh in the right circumstances, and I know for a fact that relative camera - focus plane - background - subject distances are the key.

Here is the Zuiko 50/1.4 wide open on my 5D:

Here's some $6 bokeh. CPC 135/2.8, wide open:

And how about some $2500 bokeh?

cogitech wrote:
Jonas B wrote:


I don't know of any lenses that can't get lured into producing bad bokeh (bad as in distracting, bright rings or double lines or just very edgy edges). Maybe it is a combination of relative distances (camera - focus plane - background) and the used aperture.

I agree. Likewise, most lenses can produce good bokeh in the right circumstances, and I know for a fact that relative camera - focus plane - background - subject distances are the key.

Here is the Zuiko 50/1.4 wide open on my 5D:

Another unlikely lens for decent bokeh, Zeiss 35-70 -- this was in MACRO mode 35mm at I think about f/8. The combination of close focussing distance and distant background really help.

The macro mode on the Zeiss 35-70 is quite a remarkable feature. Also this bokeh example you posted here is really nice, Paul.

Does the Canon 50 1.0 qualify as alt yet...? Visited a good friend yesterday who has one and canīt help myself. Shot with my 5D at his kitchen table:

ovredal73 wrote:
Does the Canon 50 1.0 qualify as alt yet...? Visited a good friend yesterday who has one and canīt help myself. Shot with my 5D at his kitchen table:


It's "alt" to me, at least thinking of its age...

But... it won't win any bokeh prices, at least not for the images you have shown here. That said, I would love to experiment a little with that lens if it had been available.

Andi Dietrich posted a 50mm zf image:

Jonas B wrote:
cogitech wrote:
Jonas B wrote:


I don't know of any lenses that can't get lured into producing bad bokeh (bad as in distracting, bright rings or double lines or just very edgy edges). Maybe it is a combination of relative distances (camera - focus plane - background) and the used aperture.

I agree. Likewise, most lenses can produce good bokeh in the right circumstances, and I know for a fact that relative camera - focus plane - background - subject distances are the key.

Here is the Zuiko 50/1.4 wide open on my 5D:

cogitech wrote:
(...) As these relative distances between the sensor plane, the subject and the background change, the nature of the bokeh is dramatically affected. That is a brick wall behind my wife and her pink vest has a quilted pattern that was simply smeared to nothing. If you had stepped forward and focused 6 to 8 inches closer, the bokeh (among many other aspects) of your shot would look entirely different.

I think this is why macro (including flower "macro") shots often show creamy smooth bokeh. Likewise, all of this is affected by the ratio of focal length to aperture, as well. Hence, my 350/5.6 Soligor renders gorgeous blurred backgrounds at or near close focus distance, even at f11. (I think the 15 beautifully curved aperture blades do help a bit, though.)

I agree. I also think that is why we see alot of close-ups and flowers in this thread.

Here is one small image:

here's some that will be difficult on 35mm, a 145mm f2.0 petzval type lens on a 4x5 camera. I'll be using this lens alot! It's roughly a 'normal" focal length lens, but pretty darn fast for being put infront of a 4x5.

1st one focused at about 10 feet, 2nd one focused at about 4 feet

I agree with Cogitech, almost any lens can be lured into back bokeh (except mabey the Minolta/Sony 135 STF). Close up bokeh is the easiest to have nice, like the flower shots posted. The lens is tested much more when the distance from photographer to subject is greater and the subject occupies a smaller part of the frame.

Some examples.

Your Minolta 200G shot looks like its stopped down a little (circles are lookking a little edgy)? Wide open, I always got beautiful smooth bokeh with it.