Elijah wrote:
Here’s mine I shot on Dec 31. Do you see the funky bokeh or is just me? The oval bokeh orientation varies across the frame...
The image looks good and the bokeh doesn't diminish the image. Sam Hurd (wedding photog) gets good results using Brenizer method with a 58. The backgrounds he selects don't seem to provided for any odd bokeh issues.
James R wrote:
The image looks good and the bokeh doesn't diminish the image. Sam Hurd (wedding photog) gets good results using Brenizer method with a 58. The backgrounds he selects don't seem to provided for any odd bokeh issues.
Um, that's because Sam Hurd is incredible. If I'm ever half as good as he is I'll probably feel satisfied.
James R wrote:
The image looks good and the bokeh doesn't diminish the image. Sam Hurd (wedding photog) gets good results using Brenizer method with a 58. The backgrounds he selects don't seem to provided for any odd bokeh issues.
Sam's work is truly amazing.
I find the Brenizer method, like with any other pano, works best with a lot of overlap between shots. This means more shots. Also, one has to consider the architecture or straight lines in the shot. Find the sweet spot and everything goes together nicely without any funky distortions or broken lines. I've got great results with the 35/1.4G and 58/1.4G.
Hardcore wrote:
Beauty combo Elijah! I would likely own the 24mm if I didn't have the 14-24mm. I just can't justify carrying them both around.
I owned the 14-24mm two years ago. Wasn’t my cup of tea, especially for weddings. Honestly, 24mm is wide enough for most applications. No regrets Although I own a 14mm lens, I RARELY use it... Want to get rid of it...
Elijah wrote:
I owned the 14-24mm two years ago. Wasn’t my cup of tea, especially for weddings. Honestly, 24mm is wide enough for most applications. No regrets Although I own a 14mm lens, I RARELY use it... Want to get rid of it...
Heres 2 snaps of clients kids from a recent fall mini session in 2014.
first one was @ 2.8 mainly because i didnt want the background melted into just a bunch of colors lol and still wanted some detail in the foliage but retain that buttery bokeh.
the 2nd one was @ 1.4 since the back ground was he right distance i was looking for behind the subject.
awesome photos. im saving for this lens too. more and more plz
One quick question. PPL said that this lens only create special effects (3D rendering) and bokeh if u open up wider than 2.8?
is that right?
Chester87 wrote:
awesome photos. im saving for this lens too. more and more plz
One quick question. PPL said that this lens only create special effects (3D rendering) and bokeh if u open up wider than 2.8?
is that right?
No, that is not right imo. Some will argue with me, but bokeh does not necessarily get better the thinner the depth of field. A lens' bokeh actually comes from the lens design, not from the position of the aperture. It is true that many people associate better bokeh with thinner depth of field (more bokeh), but imo, that is wrong.
If your looking for thin depth of field and circular highlights, then it is much easier to get those qualities by shooting at apertures wider than F2.8. If your looking for good bokeh, that is inherent of the lens design and you will get that at any aperture with this lens but as you stop down, your ability to notice the better bokeh decreases because more is in focus. (less bokeh)
Bokeh and shallow depth of field are separate. If you shoot and say an f5.6 and are really close to your subject, you will still get shallow depth of field and notice the great bokeh. If you shoot at F5.6 and focus at infinity, the bokeh will suck because there likely isn't any bokeh.
Hardcore wrote:
No, that is not right imo. Some will argue with me, but bokeh does not necessarily get better the thinner the depth of field. A lens' bokeh actually comes from the lens design, not from the position of the aperture. It is true that many people associate better bokeh with thinner depth of field (more bokeh), but imo, that is wrong.
If your looking for thin depth of field and circular highlights, then it is much easier to get those qualities by shooting at apertures wider than F2.8. If your looking for good bokeh, that is inherent of the lens design and you will get that at any aperture with this lens but as you stop down, your ability to notice the better bokeh decreases because more is in focus. (less bokeh)
Bokeh and shallow depth of field are separate. If you shoot and say an f5.6 and are really close to your subject, you will still get shallow depth of field and notice the great bokeh. If you shoot at F5.6 and focus at infinity, the bokeh will suck because there likely isn't any bokeh.
No, that is not right imo. Some will argue with me, but bokeh does not necessarily get better the thinner the depth of field. A lens' bokeh actually comes from the lens design, not from the position of the aperture. It is true that many people associate better bokeh with thinner depth of field (more bokeh), but imo, that is wrong.
If your looking for thin depth of field and circular highlights, then it is much easier to get those qualities by shooting at apertures wider than F2.8. If your looking for good bokeh, that is inherent of the lens design and you will get that at any aperture with this lens but as you stop down, your ability to notice the better bokeh decreases because more is in focus. (less bokeh)
Bokeh and shallow depth of field are separate. If you shoot and say an f5.6 and are really close to your subject, you will still get shallow depth of field and notice the great bokeh. If you shoot at F5.6 and focus at infinity, the bokeh will suck because there likely isn't any bokeh.
I get your point. Ofc i understand what you are talking about. But maybe you get me wrong.
Let's say, if you shoot a subject with both this 58 and a 50 1.4G, the looks with be different when u shoot at 1.4 until 2.8. From 2.8 and so on, the looks will be the same. Both bokeh and 3d rendering effects. that's my question.
Chester87 wrote:
I get your point. Ofc i understand what you are talking about. But maybe you get me wrong.
Let's say, if you shoot a subject with both this 58 and a 50 1.4G, the looks with be different when u shoot at 1.4 until 2.8. From 2.8 and so on, the looks will be the same. Both bokeh and 3d rendering effects. that's my question.
No, what Hardcore said is correct. The 58 will always have its own unique bokeh, but as you stop down & change subject distance, it will be noticeably less.
There is night and day difference between the 58 @ 2.8 and 60/2.8G @ 2.8 in bokeh and rendering.
Chester87 wrote:
I get your point. Ofc i understand what you are talking about. But maybe you get me wrong.
Let's say, if you shoot a subject with both this 58 and a 50 1.4G, the looks with be different when u shoot at 1.4 until 2.8. From 2.8 and so on, the looks will be the same. Both bokeh and 3d rendering effects. that's my question.
I do understand your question. I had the 50mm F1.8 and tested it against the 58mm F1.4. Bokeh & 3d rendering will diminish the more you stop down. I didn't do many tests at F5.6 as at that aperture, a 50mm lens just isn't going to give you a lot of subject isolation. That said, the tests I did the 58mm always maintains a lead over the 50mm f1.8 in terms of bokeh and how it draws the out of focus highlights.
