I have a Fuji Xt2 with a 35mm f2 (50mm equivalent) but I love the out of focus background I can get with my Canon fd 50mm 1.4, even at f2 its better, however its a bit too tight for me being a 75mm equivalent. Could anyone tell what sort of apeture 35mm lens I would need to get in the same ball park? I know focal lenght plays a big part too but would the Fuji 35mm 1.4 do the job?
Apsc vs full frame depth of field equivalent
- Thread starter Nebular89
- Start date
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,087
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
35/1.0 would be about 50/1.4, roughly.
This would work.
www.7artisans.co.uk
Manual focus...
This would work.
7Artisans UK 35mm f/0.95 (Fuji FX Mount)
35mm f/0.95 (Fuji FX Mount) Our new Bokeh Monster, with 2 pieces of ultra-low dispersion glass lens structure. Super fast lens allows you to capture details we
www.7artisans.co.uk
Manual focus...
D
Deleted member 95430
Guest
I'm guessing when you say the Canon looks better but you dont like the 75mm crop you are using on the Fuji? It looks better at f2 (compared to the 35) as you also have increased the focal length (relatively) so the depth of field again decreases.
Raymond quite right any 35mm 1.4ish will give you a similar/very close look to the Canon at f2.
To get something similar for the 50mm field of view(ff) you will need something below the f1 range so the Mikaton manual
I'd perhaps stick with the 33mm f1.4 from Fuji
Raymond quite right any 35mm 1.4ish will give you a similar/very close look to the Canon at f2.
To get something similar for the 50mm field of view(ff) you will need something below the f1 range so the Mikaton manual
I'd perhaps stick with the 33mm f1.4 from Fuji
Yes sorry its too tight on the Fuji camera. Thats what I was hoping to hear
cheers. Even at f2 the 50mm has way more seperation that my 35mm f2,
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This really isn't an APS vs FF question...
FL and subject distance makes much more difference to DOF than aperture does (~ 2x). And DOF doesn't tell you anything about how a lens will render out of focus parts... e.g. an overcorrected lens (nisen/doubled, nervous) can look much worse than an undercorrected lens. And the biggest factor in BG separation is the actual BG separation... which is something you can take control of in a lot of situations.
You want great BG separation for a portrait? Use a 400mm lens; the aperture you choose makes little difference.
FL and subject distance makes much more difference to DOF than aperture does (~ 2x). And DOF doesn't tell you anything about how a lens will render out of focus parts... e.g. an overcorrected lens (nisen/doubled, nervous) can look much worse than an undercorrected lens. And the biggest factor in BG separation is the actual BG separation... which is something you can take control of in a lot of situations.
You want great BG separation for a portrait? Use a 400mm lens; the aperture you choose makes little difference.
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,087
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Wait....are you telling me if I shoot 2 photos.
1 - 400mm with F/2.8
2 - 400mm with F/16
Both with a brick wall behind the person, say 2m.
Everything is fixed...and the background separation between these 2 apertures have "little difference" ?
I don't have a 400mm 2.8 to test...but I cannot imagine this is true. The difference should be massive and obvious.
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There will be little difference because there will be very little BG included in the shot. And once you get to a certain amount of BG blur, more makes little difference.
When you increase FL 2x you have to increase subject distance by 2x to keep the same framing. That negates the increased magnification at the subject; But it does not fully negate the increased magnification at the BG distance, because that distance hasn't increased by a full 2x... so less of the BG is included and it is magnified (blurred) more. The greater the difference between subject distance and BG distance, the greater the effect.
F2.8-f/16 is a pretty extreme comparison, and only 2m separation is pretty tight; there will be some apparent difference. But then compare it to a 50mm shot...
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,991
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
f1.4 Aperture / 1.5 crop factor = 35mm f0.93.
Apart from Raymonds above there's the Laowa 33mm 0.95 Argus which is available in Fuji mount.
I haven't had time to google it but I have read a review of their 35mm f0.95 in Sony mount and it looks to be very good indeed so hopefully this 33mm will be a nice one too.
If it helps at all... I had a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for MFT years ago and it did give the sort of look I expected from a FF 50mm f1.8 or so.
This sort of lens tends to be expensive so here's another way you could go... Buy a used Sony A7 for between £300-£400 and mount your FD 50mm F1.4 on it using a cheap adapter.
Apart from Raymonds above there's the Laowa 33mm 0.95 Argus which is available in Fuji mount.
I haven't had time to google it but I have read a review of their 35mm f0.95 in Sony mount and it looks to be very good indeed so hopefully this 33mm will be a nice one too.
If it helps at all... I had a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for MFT years ago and it did give the sort of look I expected from a FF 50mm f1.8 or so.
This sort of lens tends to be expensive so here's another way you could go... Buy a used Sony A7 for between £300-£400 and mount your FD 50mm F1.4 on it using a cheap adapter.
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,087
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
I am only using the criteria you set out...
There will be notable differences between f/2.8 and f/16. Not a little. That...I think, is a fact.
Back in the real world, it's much easier to change aperture than to change focal length, for example....you are not going to use 400mm for a portrait....the focal length for a lot of the time is decided for you in the real world, due to the constraints in the real world, be it the size of the studio or what lens you have that day.
And f/2.8 vs f/16 will have a massive affect to the back ground separation...all things being equal, especially at 400mm.
- Messages
- 657
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
You can use a depth of field calculator to check it for yourself:
A 400mm lens at 2m distance will have no definable depth of field at F2.8 but at F16 it's just 2cm so it's still extremely small, as sk66 mentioned above with a long focal length and a short distance to subject the aperture will make almost no difference to the depth of field. Not a comment on how usable a 400mm lens is for portaits though.
I'm not really much of a posed portrait person tbh. I've just stopped using medium format film, 6x6, and have been looking into getting as close to that kind of depth of field look as I can. It'' never look the same but I want to get as close to that "3d pop" look as I can.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Your equivalent lens will be a 35mm f/1.2.
But just as important to replicating that look is a lens which is undercorrected (bokeh doesn't render with hard edges/rings), or at least neutral rendering. Most modern lenses for digital are overcorrected; but maybe something like the Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2. Unfortunately undercorrection can cause chromatic aberrations in color images (certain conditions). It also looks like you want a lens which isn't particularly sharp wide open... but that can be adjusted in post to suit.
So the 35mm 1.4 would be a decent match, I’d like auto focus ideally. Even with the focus aids getting the focus spot on is hard enough with the 1.4 as it is.
Are raw files corrected? I had always assumed they wernt. I never turn correction on in post. Same goes for sharpening. I use capture 1 and that always has sharpening applied straight away, I always get rid of all of it. Plus for black and white I use silver fx which adds a little fake grain, I like to add a small amount to take the harsh sharpness of modern lenses off
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This article and particularly the accompanying video are well worth a watch, it's the best explanation of sensor size, DoF and lens compression I've ever come across.
fstoppers.com
No, Larger Sensors Do Not Produce Shallower Depth of Field
Most photographers believe that larger sensor sizes produce images with shallower depth of field, but that's not exactly true. Before we can fully explain depth of field, let's talk about how a lens works. Light rays reflect off of an object, and a lens can focus those light rays onto a digital...
- Messages
- 7,153
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fuji raw files are corrected in camera. The 35f1.4 is a cracking lens, although the autofocus is slow. If you want faster, there's the new Fuji 33f1.4.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,991
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This article and particularly the accompanying video are well worth a watch, it's the best explanation of sensor size, DoF and lens compression I've ever come across.
No, Larger Sensors Do Not Produce Shallower Depth of Field
Most photographers believe that larger sensor sizes produce images with shallower depth of field, but that's not exactly true. Before we can fully explain depth of field, let's talk about how a lens works. Light rays reflect off of an object, and a lens can focus those light rays onto a digital...
I think the headline of that article is misleading and IMO the closing paragraph of that article should be the opening paragraph.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a lens the 33 f/1.4 is. I used the Fuji 48 Hour free loan scheme, but over Christmas I could have it for 2 weeks, free of charge. It's a great marketing tactic as, having used the lens for a couple of weeks, I'm saving up to buy one.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's just an interesting take. The sensor size itself doesn't have any effect on DoF, even though that's how its always portrayed.
The effect of Sensor Size is one of the things that has the most 'partly right' things said about it on the internet!
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,991
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
But the sensor forces you to make such fundamental changes / decisions that saying "sensor size affects DoF" although not factually correct is pretty much the state of things in the real world. I think saying sensor size affects DoF is sort of like saying the sun rises each morning... well no, it doesn't does it? It's the earth that changes position and that causes the light levels to change and for people to get up or go to bed. I think the article is interesting and informative and doubtless factually correct but I think the title is misleading no matter how correct it may be possibly for reasons of clickbait.
I think discussions on DoF can easily go too far and personally I'm not interested in getting into discussions about circles of confusion and all the rest as I think it all goes too far and too far away from what I want to get involved in
I think it's handy to read these articles once or twice and have a basic knowledge but I don't want to get lost in it and I'm far more interested in day to day photography than the minutiae of the technicalities. Good luck to those who enjoy the deep technicalities and I can see the attraction there. One thing that has helped my own understanding and has therefore affected how I use the kit is comparing MFT, APS-C and FF in the hand, understanding the decisions that the different formats cause us to make and the effect they have on the final picture
- Messages
- 7,153
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, I managed to snag a copy last year, when Curry's were selling them off cheaper than the used prices.
I have also used the Fuji 48 hour loan - I had an X100V over the Easter weekend last year, which resulted in my buying one...
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think people get caught up in the whole shallow DoF thing. Maybe its more common now as a way of separating images taken with an actual camera from smartphone photos, where it's impossible to achieve shallow depth of field (portrait mode doesn't count and it's invariably awful). Shallow DoF doesn't automatically make a great image,But the sensor forces you to make such fundamental changes / decisions that saying "sensor size affects DoF" although not factually correct is pretty much the state of things in the real world. I think saying sensor size affects DoF is sort of like saying the sun rises each morning... well no, it doesn't does it? It's the earth that changes position and that causes the light levels to change and for people to get up or go to bed. I think the article is interesting and informative and doubtless factually correct but I think the title is misleading no matter how correct it may be possibly for reasons of clickbait.
I think discussions on DoF can easily go too far and personally I'm not interested in getting into discussions about circles of confusion and all the rest as I think it all goes too far and too far away from what I want to get involved in
I'm itching to borrow an X100V from them for a weekend but I know it will end up costing me a fortune as I'll have to buy one.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Looks like the Fuji 35/1.4 would be a pretty good choice. It has some chromatic aberration/color fringing to the bokeh, but it doesn't appear to be significantly overcorrected to me, and the fringing isn't too bad.
The correction I am speaking of is spherical correction... making all three wavelengths focus at the same distance. It is not "lens correction" that can be turned on/off. Over correction can result in a lot of negative bokeh characteristics (double lines, nervousness, etc). Undercorrected results in that smeared/dreamy look ("blur" is not bokeh, even though it is often confused that way).
This is an example of the Samyang 35/1.4 I found... it shows both overcorrection and neisen bokeh (doubling). It should be pretty aparent as to how that would/could degrade the OOF (transition) characteristics of an image
It is more common for modern lenses to be overcorrected, and for older film lenses to be undercorrected... overcorrection reduces the CA by moving it inside, which causes the bright outline. CA was less of a concern when a lot (most) of photography was B&W, and I think digital sensors might be more prone to it for some reason. A lens that has over corrected bokeh in the BG will have under corrected bokeh in the FG; but the BG characteristic is typically the primary concern.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,991
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The Online Photographer has a good piece on bokeh...
What Is Bokeh?
There's another lively long thread about "bokeh" at Photo.net that's garnering some attention over there. It's a bit disorienting for me now when I post at other sites; despite the fact that my name was referenced several times in the...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
"The original articles about bokeh were published in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine, which I edited at the time."
"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement). It includes, but is not limited to, out-of-focus highlights. Out-of-focus specular highlights are simply where aperture shape will show up most easily in pictures (i.e., spots of bright sky in out-of-focus foliage, for example). The reason people think it only refers to highlights, and that the shape of the aperture blades are the defining feature, is because that's the most obvious effect. Humans like obvious. The only lens I ever got rid of because of its specular highlight bokeh was a Zeiss 100mm ƒ/3.5 for the Hasselblad. It had five aperture blades, and small, bright out-of-focus spots were perfect pentagons."
"ADDENDUM: Just to further clarify the terminology:
Boke: Japanese for "out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur."
"Out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur": English for boke.
Boke-aji: Japanese for "flavor of blur," i.e., what kind of boke it is or how the boke might be described.
Bokeh: Alternate spelling of boke meant to forestall mispronunciation.
Selective focus: Tactic by photographers of deliberately putting some parts of a picture in sharp focus and other parts not.
Poor focusing: Indiscriminate or inadvertent misfocus."
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, bokeh is the quality of the rendering of out of focus areas, or the quality of blur.
But bokeh is also a lens specific characteristic, just like sharpness is. And just as how you cannot tell how sharp a lens is unless there is something in focus, you cannot judge a lens' bokeh characteristics w/o there being something distinguishable in the OOF regions (contrast, e.g. a highlight).
I have lenses with pretty nervous/overcorrected bokeh which can look pretty bad, but it looks perfectly fine when the background is nothing but haze/blur... and all lenses can turn a scene into mush when far enough OOF.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,780
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
The 35mm will be roughly 52.5mm f2.8 in FF terms, so you would expect the 50mm at f2 to have “way more” separation as it’s only one stop difference.Yes sorry its too tight on the Fuji camera. Thats what I was hoping to hear
However separation is not just a result of aperture and depth of field, light, contrast, object distance, background distance, and lens design can all influence subject separation.
Glory Hallelujah...Somone who understands that 'bokeh' is not a reference to the out-of-focus area in the photo, as most folks who learned the term from the internet miunderstand and perpetuate the misuse of the term.
There will be a significant difference in the degree of blur of objects in the out-of-focu area, dependent upon their distance from the plane of focus.
If you shoot 2 photos.
1 - 400mm with F/2.8
2 - 400mm with F/16
both with a brick wall behind the person, say 2m. the degree of blur is not tremendously different. But something 200m behing the person will display a very significant difference in the degree of blur, because the degree of blur is dependent upon Aperture Diameter. The larger diameter aperture size (143mm) will have much stronger blur than a smaller diameter aperture size (25mm). This grapy illustrates the relatively small difference in degree of blur at 2m vs out at 200m
The difference in degree of blur is diminished if you move camera position farther from subject position, but remains easily detectable to the eye.
These photos illustrate virtually same DOF zone depth, but significantly different degree of blur in the far field.
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You've got that backwards... there will be more significant difference due to aperture when there is less difference in distance.
But as I said, once you get to a certain level of BG blur, a bit more or less makes little difference.
This was taken at f/16... f/2.8 would only make it so that there is less subject w/in the DOF.
And the original statement was in regards to using a longer focal length for separation rather than aperture... as magnification (FL/distance) has a greater effect than aperture does.
Last edited:
I just used the background blur program to show 400mm f/2.8 vs. 400mm f/16 blur, first with a head & shoulders tight crop of the focused subject, then with a 15m wide FOV of the focused subject. At 500m far field distance, the magnitude of the out-of-focus blur is 15x v. 2.5x in the head & shoulders shot, but only 0.7 vs 0.12 in the 15m wide FOV shot. So comparatively we have 6:1 vs 5.8:1 , a very subtle difference. But the absolut magnitude in the head & shoulders shot, 15X is far far greater than in the 15m wide FOV shot (0.7X)
In these screenshots, it is apparent which is for head & shoulders shot (first one)
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,762
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What that calculator doesn't (cannot) tell you is how the comparative blur will appear to you in relation to visual acuity. Much of that depends on the characteristics of the BG (business), and how the image is viewed (depth of field); both of which are quite variable.
If you take the first example graph. And if you assume that when the blur radius is equal to ~ 2.5% of the total image width a BG detail will be completely indistinguishable from other details next to it (** a very reasonable assumption); this modification more accurately shows how changes in aperture will affect the distinguishability of the BG (focus/business/etc).
At 500m separation the BG is a complete blur even at f/16 (as in my example above)... i.e. changing the aperture makes no significant perceptual difference. At 10m separation f/11-16 are making the BG details more distinguishable; but not actually sharp. Then at 2m separation f/2.8 is minimally distinguishable where f/16 is beginning to approach being actually sharp/distinguishable.
You can change the blur radius criterion to whatever you want based on BG characteristics and viewing conditions (if known); but that won't change the relationship.
quoted from that website (emphasis added):
"It is important to intepret the results correctly. The first obvious observation to make is that the background blur increases when the background is further away, regardless of focal length or aperture settings. In order to give meaning to the results, think about what kind of shot you want to make, and what distance there will be between the subject and the background.
As you probably have seen by now, the relative blurring ability of lenses is very much dependent on the specifics of your shot. As a rule of thumb it can be concluded that a wider aperture is more important for blurring closer backgrounds, whereas the focal length comes more and more into play when the background is further away."
(** 2.5% image width is .9mm on a FF sensor, and ~ 210px wide (~35,000px area) if it's a 46MP sensor)
Last edited: