Canon/Sigma lens with shallow DOF

J

jodyflorian

Messages
26
Edit My Images
No
Hiya,

I'm looking for a full-frame lens that has the strongest bokeh without breaking the bank, while maintaining high quality - above all, very low CA and good sharpness, but as a bonus little vignetting and good contrast.

I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II which is good down to f/2.8 or so but it's not quite shallow enough for my liking.

I'm shortly to receive a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM which I'm purely guessing might give better results.

Can anyone recommend a good compliment to these lenses which would give a particularly shallow-looking DOF ?

Cheers
 
Sounds to me that a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM would be ideal. It ticks all your boxes.

There is some bokeh CA typical of fast lenses shot wide open, but no purple fringing (PF) or red / blue outlining around contrasty edges. Its very sharp, and as good at f/1.4 as it is f/5.6 more or less.
 
Thanks puddleduck I'll have to check it out. I must say though I was thinking something a bit more telephoto than 50mm but I'll check it out. Do you know what the barrel / pincushion distortion is like on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ?

Thanks again
 
sorry, haven't a clue about barrel / pincushion - its probably fine, edges seem straight etc, but I'm not really fussy about that sort of thing,so I'm definately not the person to ask!
 
canon 135 f2 will destroy anything in the background and great on full frame
 
Superb... thanks! It's definitely on my list then.

Just one more factor I think I want to consider! Does any one have experience with the Canon 85mm f/1.8? What it's like fully open?

Thanks!
 
it's pretty sharp wide open with only slight improvement stopped down, great lens and compact. It doesn't have the bokeh of the 135, but it's still pleasant. Similarly, it has virtually no distortion problems. The focussing is as fast as the 135 in my mind too. Depends what focal length you want, the 85 is more practical every day where the 135 can be a bit long. I don't see much difference in resolution between the two, borders all seem fine on both.
 
I would recommend sigma 50/1.4. I am using their 30/1.4 and it is impressive. 50/1.4 is apparently even better. However I remember there were some issues with it on FF. I hope they have sorted that out
 
jodyflorian said:
Superb... thanks! It's definitely on my list then.

Just one more factor I think I want to consider! Does any one have experience with the Canon 85mm f/1.8? What it's like fully open?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

This search will return images shot with the 85mm at apertures from f/1.8 to f/2.0. You can tweak the search to bring back whatever you need....

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/...ax=none&aperture_min=1.8&aperture_max=2&res=3

Here's one of mine at f/1.8....

20090217_122458_4800_LR.jpg


Unfortunately it's not that sharp where it counts, as the camera (or I) missed the intended focus point of the eyes, but you get an idea of the shallow DOF.
 
Bokeh is a subjective thing, but for most people it mainly means shallow depth of field. In which case, just choose the focal length you want and buy the lens you can afford with the lowest f/number. When you get lower than about f/2.8, it tends to get expensive ;)

Differential focus technqiue is also about more than just expensive lenses with wide apertures. There are other ways you can increase the amount of out-of-focus in a picture, or at least the apparent amount. Using a longer lens helps a lot, as the narrow field of view cuts out clutter and confusion in the background (but long lenses do not inherantly reduce depth of field, so don't fall for that common myth). Also, you will maximise the focus differential by moving as close to your subject as you can, and arranging the subject so that it is as far away from the background as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top