>>Agree 100%. That kind of ugly 'bokeh' drives me nuts with all my Canon lenses...
no, Canon lenses are not known as the bokeh star line of lenses... but the 24-70L, TS-E 45 & 90, 85L, 135L all have much more soothing bokeh... of course it is all a matter of taste...
Steve Torelli wrote:
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.
Agreed, personally I would rather have a 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L for shots like that..especially portraiture. If you insist to stay wide...perhaps try the Sigma 30 1.4 or 24L instead?
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?
Well, it's f2 but it's still 35mm. You will still have the same point of view which forces you to either PHYSICALLY seperate your subject from the background more to get more blur or use a different lens.
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.
I think you can get great bokeh, but you are limited by the laws of physics as to how blurry the bokeh will be. If you have great seperation between subject and background, then you'll get creamy. I think people forget that with bokeh, that it's more than the lens, it's the light, the foreground/background ratio etc.
anyways, those mtf charts i just saw are interesting....did not know that, I was speaking from experience, not from an all-knowing point of view. I agree with some of the others that you might want to pick up a 50mm for this type of thing and take a few steps back. I can second the opinion that the 24-70 is great boke(h)...too bad it's not at least 1.8 though...
>>Well, it's f2 but it's still 35mm. You will still have the same point of view which forces you to either PHYSICALLY seperate your subject from the background more to get more blur or use a different lens.
No, we are talking about bokeh here, NOT DOF... they are different. That is why people can compare the 24-70L to the 35L in this thread... the bokeh is different from each lens. If you have never done so, take two lenses of your own that have the same FL and take identical shots at the same aperture and you will see that for the same FL and same aperture that different lenses render background blur *differently*... this is what bokeh is, and what we are talking about here, not the degree of background blur... or that faster lenses can give you less DOF.
technocraft wrote:
I shoot my 35L (on a 5D) a *lot*, and almost always wide open.
I get more smooth, flat bokeh, then specular (?).
Great shots! But I see the same Nisen boken on the highlights as the OP. More subtle as your backgrounds are further away, but is indeed there.
Aperture blade shape (again, a function of lens design) play a part also, especially regarding the shape of speculars. As a side note, better smoother blur can occur in front of your focused subject, rather than behind. Bummer, as behind is where it is most often needed.
I agree with John Luke, the MTF saggital and tangential lines are very important to the characteristic of bokeh. For example, the Zeiss 2.8/100 macro lens has incredible bokeh. In addition I also see the harsh Nisen bokeh in other images presented here. It really is not very pleasing to view the image as a whole.
I have to say that I don't see the rings so much on a film shot from either my 24 or 35L lenses, it surely is a function of the sensor dealing with the lens. This is one of the reasons I still shoot a lot of film, it still has a more pleasing tonal transition with the tough stuff.
I am using the 35L a lot this week on a shoot in Mexico, all lifestyle, wide open and it looks stellar. But I am choosing my backgrounds carefully as it is still a wide angle after-all...
Funny, I brought the 16-35-II, 35L, 50 1.4, 85L and 70-200 IS....the only two lenses I seem to be using are the 35 and 85 as the client is looking for a very specific feel. The company that we are doing this for, well, they are as she would put it, "Brand Nazis" so the 35 and 85 are very good at giving us a dreamy look.
If you want that look with digital, you have to use one of the 4 fast L lenses. Things could be worse you know, all Nikon's glass has the peripheral boke cropped right out of it.
By the way, I own the 28/2 Summicron, 35 1.4 Summilux and 50 1.4 Summilux, they are indeed brilliant. But I will not shoot them on a camera that crops like the M8 does, so I use them on an M6 or M3.
Remember folks, digital is still very much in "toddler" stage, we are the beta testers...
jjlphoto, thank you for your posts. I have been debating on which lens to add to my collection. I could use a lot of them, so I have been scoping out a wide variety of lenses. The 35L and the 70-200 2.8 IS, among other lenses, seem to have this 'nisen-bokeh' you are talking about. When looking at the 'blurred' backgrounds from these lenses, it's as if you have double-vision. It's not the true, dreamy/creamy effect I get from my 135L and soon to be 85L.
In regards to the 35L bokeh at f/1.4, nisen-bokeh does not seem to occur if:
1) The shot is a macro
2) Subject is *VERY* far from a background/object
3) Shot with an aperature of f/4 or smaller (bigger number)
I am my own worst critic and I could not deliver images that looked bad to me to a paying customer. I just can't. I'm not saying the 35L is a terrible lens because I understand it's a specialized piece of glass, but it's just not for everyone. The 70-200 2.8 IS, on the other hand, leaves me with much to be desired; at this range, the background should be blown out completely, but I just don't see it happening.
just for fun, all the rest of the comments from the FM reviews:
"if bokeh makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, then this lens delivers. in spades....superb Bokeh... great bokeh... great bokeh... Incredible sharpness / color / contrast / bokeh... lovely background blur ('almost liquid')... The bokeh is creamy, much like the 135L/2 and 85L/1.2... great bokeh.... nice bokeh.... creamy bokeh.... nice bokeh... Good bokeh though not as good as my 135/2L.... Pleasing bokeh... beautiful out-of-focal backgrounds... Great Color, Contrast, Bokeh ... Color, sharpness, bokeh, accuracy... The bokeh and color is just not to be believed. THE VERY BEST... The clarity and bokeh stun me all the time with shots from this lens... Terrific colors & contrast, great bokeh..."
the only negative comment in all 7 pages:
"Its bokeh-wow factor is also much lower than 85L and 200 1.8"
this doesn't really add anything to the discussion, I just find it entertaining, that's all.
fourfa wrote:
just for fun, all the rest of the comments from the FM reviews:
"if bokeh makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, then this lens delivers. in spades....superb Bokeh... great bokeh... great bokeh... Incredible sharpness / color / contrast / bokeh... lovely background blur ('almost liquid')... The bokeh is creamy, much like the 135L/2 and 85L/1.2... great bokeh.... nice bokeh.... creamy bokeh.... nice bokeh... Good bokeh though not as good as my 135/2L.... Pleasing bokeh... beautiful out-of-focal backgrounds... Great Color, Contrast, Bokeh ... Color, sharpness, bokeh, accuracy... The bokeh and color is just not to be believed. THE VERY BEST... The clarity and bokeh stun me all the time with shots from this lens... Terrific colors & contrast, great bokeh..."
the only negative comment in all 7 pages:
"Its bokeh-wow factor is also much lower than 85L and 200 1.8"
this doesn't really add anything to the discussion, I just find it entertaining, that's all....Show more →
Dude give it up, seriously. Are you really shocked that you can't believe everything you read on the internet, and that people are really happy with a legendary lens like the 35L?
There are other qualities to a lens besides bokeh....
I wonder when Nissan will release the Boke. Will it have harsh, angular lines, and a windshield that produces specular highlights ? Will the tires be round, or gently octagonal ?
.