Acheiving Bokeh
- Thread starter mrbez
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
it depends what you mean by 'good bokeh'.
Do you mean good quality bokeh, or just lots of it?
Here is a shot taken with the 50mm f/1.8 almost fully wide open:
Unless you have points of light in the image, the pentagonal aperture shape isn't a problem. Even then, Canon's more expensive 50mm f/1.4 isn't exactly a bokeh dream either, and has some problems of its own besides that.
If it's lots of bokeh you're after, the faster the lens (LOWER f/ number) the more of it you'll get. If it's good quality bokeh you're after, i.e., perfectly rounded points of light, you'll be looking to spend a good bit of money. A lot of Canon's L lenses have rounded aperture blades (and lots of them) which helps to create really smooth bokeh.
Do you mean good quality bokeh, or just lots of it?
Here is a shot taken with the 50mm f/1.8 almost fully wide open:
Unless you have points of light in the image, the pentagonal aperture shape isn't a problem. Even then, Canon's more expensive 50mm f/1.4 isn't exactly a bokeh dream either, and has some problems of its own besides that.
If it's lots of bokeh you're after, the faster the lens (LOWER f/ number) the more of it you'll get. If it's good quality bokeh you're after, i.e., perfectly rounded points of light, you'll be looking to spend a good bit of money. A lot of Canon's L lenses have rounded aperture blades (and lots of them) which helps to create really smooth bokeh.
Last edited:
Bokeh literally means 'out of focus', so is pretty much depth of field (or lack thereof).
Are you confusing bokeh with bright circles of light made by out of focus lamp posts etc?
To get lots of bokeh with that lens you'll want the thing you're photographing to be as close as possible, and the background to be as far away as possible. If you're shooting a person from 20 feet away, and they have a brick wall 2 feet behind them, you're not going to defocus that wall.
If you put a person 3 feet in front of you and the background is a mile away, it'll be nice and blurry at about any aperture.
A 50/1.8 will quite clearly improve the bokeh massively compared to the lens he is comparing it to, which is what he asked.
OP should ignore this comment.
- Messages
- 10,095
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Wikipedia said:The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ, which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味
[emphasis added]
- Messages
- 3,459
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My apologies, I thought you meant the quality of bokeh as in nice oval OOF highlights... and what many people describe as creamy bokeh as displayed by such lenses as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4, the wide aperture of the 50mm f/1.8 will of course give you a very narrow DoF at relatively close distance as it is only 50mm focal length but just watch out for highlights as it's not best for this. Should everyone own one? Well yes even if it's to be replaced at sometime.
- Messages
- 3,459
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ummmm no he should consider the quality of bokeh he is looking for and at what subject distance... aperture is just one of the three variables that dictates the DoF :bonk:
stan the man
Nutkicker
- Messages
- 7,299
- Name
- mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
is this a good example of bokeh ?
- Messages
- 488
- Name
- Samuel
- Edit My Images
- No
Quality of bokeh or amount?
If its amount, then factor in the distance between you and the subject, and the subject and the background. Play around and you should find what works best with your lenses.
If its quality of bokeh, every lens has different properties.
This picture was taken with a very crappy Sigma 70-210 f4-5.6, still managed to squeeze some acceptable bokeh out of it through positioning correctly and by shooting wide open at f4. You don't NEED f1.4 to get bokeh
If its amount, then factor in the distance between you and the subject, and the subject and the background. Play around and you should find what works best with your lenses.
If its quality of bokeh, every lens has different properties.
This picture was taken with a very crappy Sigma 70-210 f4-5.6, still managed to squeeze some acceptable bokeh out of it through positioning correctly and by shooting wide open at f4. You don't NEED f1.4 to get bokeh
- Messages
- 2,675
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
is this a good example of bokeh ?
I'd say it is
- Messages
- 488
- Name
- Samuel
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
there is some connection surely...lenses are made out of glass and metal and have bits to focus and control light...the camera body generally assists in the light control in conjunction with settings we know as speed and aperture
then we get some mathematical explanation of why things look sharper when you squint your eye...and so depth of field comes about and we can use it to advantage...more sharpness or less..lens speeds/apertures are getting bigger and i remember the canon 0.95 lens which you could photograph things you couldnt see...??..many years ago
in any event now we can get really shallow depth of field and if the subject is close with really wide open lenses then that wonderful bouquet which everyone is dying to get can be achieved
its a strange world where we want to spend ££££ to photograph something out of focus
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can achieve 'bokeh' with any lens, the quality will differ between lenses however, with some achieving circular bokeh and some more angular depending on the shape of the aperture blades.
The key to achieving it is separating the subject from the background - physically. The further the subject is from the background, the more pronounced the 'bokeh' effect will be.
The key to achieving it is separating the subject from the background - physically. The further the subject is from the background, the more pronounced the 'bokeh' effect will be.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
