>>wow, you're shooting 35mm,not 85 or 105. You get great bokeh...
huh you really think his examples show "great bokeh?" He's not trying to completely blur a background... just get pleasing environmental shots in low light...
>>35mm summicrons for R-mount do exist. but you wouldn't get anything all that different...it's still a 35mm lens, not matter who makes it.
can't you make the same case for the EF 35/2 then? Everyone always raves about how much better the bokeh from the L is... and these two lenses are also the same length... right?
I think you can get good bokeh from the 35L. But since it's such a short FL, you have to be right on top of your subject AND there needs to be distance between your subject and the background.
caleb condit wrote:
The main reason to shoot wide is to be inclusive with the environment. The reason to shoot teles is to be exclusive and to really get only the subject in the image or as the focal point. I think you need to rethink what focal lengths you shoot at, not blame a wide angle for including too much info, it's physically what a wide is limited to, period.
To each their own. I have a fondness for environmental portraits that show the subject in their surroundings, but with the surroundings somewhat blurred (*not* completely blasted away). This brings attention to the subject, de-emphasizes the background while still being recognizable, and gives the photo a little 3D pop. There's just a special look to wide angles with blurred backgrounds in my opinion. Others may disagree but I know what I like and fortunately I shoot for myself, not for you.
At conversational distances, f1.4-f2 is just about right for 35mm full-frame. At f2.8 or f4, there's a little blur but not like I mention above. By f5.6 you might as well stop down to f16, everything is more or less in focus.
That's why I bought the 35L, to shoot wide open. And I'm not alone, 35/1.4 is a classic street/environmental portrait setup and has been since forever. It might have originally just been for speed to compensate for slow films, but the look came along with it. Sometimes the harsh bokeh is a problem, other times not. I just think people should know what they're getting; if indeed bad bokeh is typical with this lens, conventional wisdom has not reflected that.
I think you're using the wrong lens for the work you do. A fast 50 or the 85 1.2 would be more appropriate, especially the 85 if you want great bokeh. The 35 1.4 is a great lens but too wide on the 5D for your type of work. Good luck.
sigh. I can tell you that all three of those photos were taken with a 5D and 85L hanging off the other shoulder, and I chose the 35L for those shots for reasons that are perfectly clear to me. the mixing board might indeed have been better with a 50 though.
Steve Torelli wrote:
too wide on the 5D for your type of work. Good luck.
P.S. if Canon had a 28mm/1.4 like Nikon's, I'd have bought that instead in a heartbeat, because if anything 35mm is just slightly too narrow. again, to each their own.
I hate to be pedantic but you are all spelling boke wrong. There is no 'h' at the end. I've often seen it spelt this way on the internet but the correct spelling is boke from the Japanese. Well known photographer and writer Mike Johnson purposely misspelt it bokeh for an article he wrote for a magazine so people wouldn't mispronounce it, so I blame him.
Fourfa,
Thanks for your post. I actually never really checked the boke(h) of my 35L, first because it appears that I never shot wide open with highly contrasted backgroud, and second because I used to rely on all the praise we hear everywhere about this lens.
I gave it a try outdoors this afternoon and my results are pretty consistent with yours.
Now I will be more careful when I use it in such conditions...
I think part of the problem is that you’re expecting too much from a wide angle lens. 35L is a decent lens as far as bokeh is concerned IMHO, but nowhere near 85L or 135L. If you want to shoot wide open with this lens you have to learn what works and what doesn’t. This lens is tougher to shoot with than longer portrait primes. I’m afraid it’s not as simple as with 135L where every snapshot wide open is amazing.
As for reviewers writing that the 35L has an amazing bokeh, they’re either clueless or they meant that 35L has an amazing bokeh…. given it’s a wide angle lens. Take your pick
If I had to review this lens I’d say the bokeh is very respectable given the focal length, much better than any other zoom or prime near this focal length in Canon lineup and is one of the best 35mm lenses ever produced.
I think some people mistake the quantity of boke(h), for the quality. That may be why they say the 35L has amazing bokeh...
Andy, do you have the 24L, too? How would it do in a situation like this? I'm wondering if the 24L's bokeh is as bad as people say.
I think the problem is a combination of somewhat misguided expectations/hype, and the fact that those were very challenging backgrounds. Any scene with lots of contrasty, specular highlights will look like that, to a degree, with any lens. Even the 85L isn't immune.
s23chang wrote:
If you choose to shoot the same type of background then you will get this every time on any given lens. There is nothing wrong with lens, rather, it is the angle you shoot. Try to avoid too much contrast high lights in the background.
Agree 100%. That kind of ugly 'bokeh' drives me nuts with all my Canon lenses, whether it is a 35L or a 500L. I did not recall seeing this when I shot film. Is this just a result of photo sensors?
Older lens designs (especially the Leica Elmars and similar for rangefinders) usually have more of a calm looking bokeh, but they're also not as sharp and the colors might not be as good...
If you got an Epson R-D1 you could use LTM or M lenses on it, but I don't know if you want to go there...
There is much, much more to the quality of bokeh, (or boke) than focal length, aperture, and distance. The entire design and build of the lens comes into play. These two 35mm lenses will produce very different qualities of bokeh- shown are their MTFs at wide open. The closer the sagital and tangential lines follow each other, the smoother the bokeh is. (Or conversely, the more they deviate, the harsher the bokeh is.)
huh 
