# Lens with good bokeh



## ~myStical~ (Jul 24, 2009)

For a nikon D40 ...I'm looking for an lens under $300 (if possible)... that will allow me to have blurred backgrounds(bokeh) without being too close to the subject..for portraits , fashion shoot...

any suggestions?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 24, 2009)

First - I know nothing about Nikon lenses...

But - The thing that affect bokeh the most is the number of aperture blades.  More is better.  (More=Rounder)


Also, if the edge of the blades are curved (that usually won't be specified in the specs), that helps too.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 24, 2009)

Sorry. You need a lens that can go to f/0.2.


Bahaha. Just kidding. Ditto on the number of aperture blades, though nine usually produces quite creamy bokeh. If you meant f-stops, try to get something with a constant aperture of f/2.8.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 24, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Sorry. You need a lens that can go to f/0.2.
> 
> 
> Bahaha. Just kidding. Ditto on the number of aperture blades, though nine usually produces quite creamy bokeh. If you meant f-stops, try to get something with a constant aperture of f/2.8.



*
yes, i meant f-stop
fast lens*


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 24, 2009)

If you're on a crop body, I'd suggest looking for a decent 50mm fixed lens. I didn't see the price tag until just now. Point is, you won't find glass (with zoomable goodness) with a constant f/2.8 for under $300.


----------



## PastTheFuture (Jul 24, 2009)

I have a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens for my D60 and it produces good bokeh. Here's an example:







That was shot at f/2.8 and 1/60 second. On Wolf Camera it is $209.99 plus tax but free shipping. On B&H Photo it is $199.95 plus shipping but no tax. On B&H it is currently backordered. It might be on Wolf Camera as well, it was when I ordered it.


----------



## Samanax (Jul 24, 2009)

~myStical~ said:


> For a nikon D40 ...I'm looking for an lens under $300 (if possible)... that will allow me to have blurred backgrounds(bokeh) without being too close to the subject..for portraits , fashion shoot...
> 
> any suggestions?
> Thanks in advance.


You need to understand Depth Of Field too.

*Understanding Depth Of Field*

*Depth Of Field In Photography*

*Examples For Understanding Depth Of Field*


----------



## Baaaark (Jul 24, 2009)

Samanax said:


> ~myStical~ said:
> 
> 
> > For a nikon D40 ...I'm looking for an lens under $300 (if possible)... that will allow me to have blurred backgrounds(bokeh) without being too close to the subject..for portraits , fashion shoot...
> ...



You are (no exaggeration) the best poster around here.

The blur in the background is cause by having a lower number for your f-stop.  As far as what "bokeh" is, its a type of sushi.  No, seriously, it refers to the type of blur the background has.  People get very serious about their photos, and even the background blur has to look good to them.  IMO bokeh is an intermediate to advanced concept.  I'd work on just taking some sound photos with the blurry background first, and then worry about what the blur looks like.

And like I said, AWESOME WORK SAMANAX!!!


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 24, 2009)

Baaaark said:


> IMO bokeh is an intermediate to advanced concept.  I'd work on just taking some sound photos with the blurry background first, and then worry about what the blur looks like.



Bokeh _IS_ the blur.  There is not a "method" you can use to make it better.  You can't "learn" bokeh.  It's just something that happens.

It is completely dependant on the lens.  ...Some lenses have "good" bokeh, others have "bad" bokeh.


As far as bokeh goes, bad=ugly.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 24, 2009)

But you can learn to effectively use bokeh.

And the word bokeh in Japanease literally means "fuzzy", like the kind of fuzzy that comes with being old and senile.


----------



## Dao (Jul 24, 2009)

For portrait type shots, a fast telephoto prime lens is good tool for creating creamy blur background photos.

i.e.  85mm F/1.8 lens


----------



## Baaaark (Jul 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Bokeh _IS_ the blur.  There is not a "method" you can use to make it better.  You can't "learn" bokeh.  It's just something that happens.
> 
> It is completely dependant on the lens.  ...Some lenses have "good" bokeh, others have "bad" bokeh.
> 
> ...



I am fully aware of what bokeh is.  Its not the blur itself, it refers to the quality of blur.  And my point was to not get caught up on what the bokeh (just call it background blur) looks like, and focus on taking good, compositionally-sound shots.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> the word bokeh in Japanease literally means "fuzzy"



Sounds suspiciously like "out of focus"...

Like I said - it's just something that happens.  You can't (other than aperture - controlling DOF) control it.

It's always there.  Whether it is good or bad depends on the lens you are using.  Good=pretty; Bad=ugly.

It's that simple.

There is nothing you can learn to "master bokeh".  That would be like me saying that I only shoot f/5.6, 1/200 sec - and I just make the light right where ever I happen to be.

It just happens.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2009)

Baaaark said:


> Its not the blur itself, it refers to the quality of blur.



Exactly what I have been saying the whole time.

It is just a decription of how good the background blur looks.


----------



## Baaaark (Jul 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > the word bokeh in Japanease literally means "fuzzy"
> ...



I still think it refers to the quality of blur, and not the blur itself.  Its a measure of quality not an indication of presence.  But that's just semantics.

But if it makes you feel better, you're right and I'm wrong   But it wasn't even the point anyway.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2009)

Baaaark said:


> But if it makes you feel better, you're right and I'm wrong   But it wasn't even the point anyway.



I think we are both saying the same thing (in different ways).


----------



## Markw (Jul 25, 2009)

Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 is a cheap lens with agood and shallow DOF that should give you a good and blurry background.

The Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 would be even better for portraits in my opinion, but it beats your budget.

They have a Nikkor 50mm F/1.4 also, but Im pretty sure that beats your budget too.

If youre dead set on having the best, save your money for a while, while you practice other things such as composition and exposure, maybe learn manual techniques, etc. and get the better lens for your scenario.  I will be getting the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 ASAP.

Mark


----------



## MarkV1184 (Jul 25, 2009)

Make sure it is an AF-S lens for your D40 if you want it to auto focus (this will drive the cost of the lens up)


----------



## shmne (Jul 25, 2009)

Buying any prime lens will enable you to have better "bokeh" then a similar priced zoom / kit lens. 

The 50mm is great but you can't get in to close, that is going to be the only lens however, in your price range.

The problem with your question however is that you want the background to blur without getting close to the subject, this is a bit to generic to give an answer. Wide open a 50mm can shoot at 1.5ft away from a subject, anything behind that subject is going to blur rapidly. You move back and keep the subject in the same spot, the background comes into focus. Slightly, but it still starts to come into focus. Now you can solve this by moving your subject farther from your background, but I don't know how much space you have.

If you don't want to get in close because you want a wider shot look into used 28mms and see if you can find a decent one in your price range, then you can get in close and maintain the heavily blurred background without an in your face feel. If you are using a cropped sensor a 28mm should be a "normal" lens meaning that it lacks much distortion. 

Take everything I say with a grain of salt, I've been learning a lot lately and mixing things up here and there  So just research more into what I've said before you act.

Though I heavily suggest a 50mm, 1.8 for now is fine. Shooting at f/2.8 you get great subject - background separation as long as you set the shot up right


----------



## Derrel (Jul 25, 2009)

I can not think of a Nikkor lens that has good bokeh and that can be bought for $300 or less. I'm pretty familiar with bokeh,and with lenses that produce good bokeh. Some examples are the 85mm 1.4 AF-D, the 105mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control, the 70-200 VR, and the 200mm f/2 AF-S VR-G. Those four lenses are the current bokeh kings of the Nikon lineup.

Bokeh is not just out of focus or selective focus; one might want to do a Google search on the term,and read a handful of articles to get a fuller,more nuanced understanding of what bokeh is, and what it is not.

The suggestion to just try and shoot some selective focus shots might be a good suggestion. The D40 can use older lenses, albeit without metering or autofocus. You might try and find an old, Ai-converted 85mm f/1.8 H-series Nikkor manual focus lens, or better yet, look at the "new" 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical manual focus Samyang or Vivitar Series 1 lens that was introduced a year ago or so--it has pretty good bokeh,and was around the $300 price point the last time I checked, which was before all the lens price increases of the past few months.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > the word bokeh in Japanease literally means "fuzzy"
> ...



The traditional spelling of this Japanese word using Latin characters, instead of the original Japanese Kana, is "boke", though it has a short "e" sound at the end unlike the English word "poke". Its literal meaning may be "fuzzy", but as I understand it one of its conotations is the photographic out-of-focus blur.

When "boke" is spelled "bokeh" in non-Japanese text, it carries a slightly different conotation. "Bokeh" refers specifically to the _quality_ of the blur rather than to blur in general. The only reason this Japanese word should be used in non-Japanese text is to refer to the quality of the blur. If writing in English and wanting to refer to the absence, presence, or quantity of the blur you should use "blur".

The term using this alternate spelling was first coined by writer/editor/photographer Michael Johnson to refer specifically to the quality issue, not presence, absence or quantity of blur. Check out his blog, The Online Photographer, and use the search link to find his several excellent, definative essays on the topic:

The Online Photographer

He coined the term; he's the authority.


----------



## Kcc (Jul 25, 2009)

Another vote for the 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX lens!  I had one myself, and they are great.  The *G* beside the 1.8 means it's some newer lens Nikon have made.  More sharp than regular 50mm prime lens.

edit: 





MarkV1184 said:


> Make sure it is an AF-S lens for your D40 if you want it to auto focus (this will drive the cost of the lens up)



Yes, as MarkV mentioned, the Nikon lens is AF-S, which it does work for the *D60* so I guess it will also work for the D40.

sec edit: 





Markw said:


> Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 is a cheap lens with agood and shallow DOF that should give you a good and blurry background.



The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 isn't an AF-S, you will have to manual foucs with it, but the price different is like $100+ CND.

As of price for the 35mm f/1.8G, 279+tax in CND.  It's around your buget.

Kcc


----------



## DScience (Jul 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > the word bokeh in Japanease literally means "fuzzy"
> ...



Lol you can't most definitely control it. I take pictures alllll the time to get 'purposeful' bokeh.


----------



## DScience (Jul 25, 2009)

Here is some examples of how you can 'control' bokeh. Every single of these shots I took for the 'bokeh' in which they produced. I took tons of each shot so that I could 'control' the type and look of bokeh in the shots.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 25, 2009)

wow guys...thanks for all the suggestions..you have no idea how happy you guys have made me. I know I can always count on this forum and u guys.... you all are always helpful. Samanax, thanks for the lessons on depth of field. I've read a lot on depth on field before... but those links were some good reviews.
Now im looking into  Nikon 35mm f/1.8G  & Nikkor 50mm F/1.8  ...both are great..and goes with my budget too.

Basically I want to be able to shoot from a distance where I wont have to be  too close to the subject and will be able to get a nice blurred background. That's my main concern ...
A good distance away. I want to be able to also zoom in with my lens and not with my feet.. ( i don't know if that makes sense)  ....  These are the things I have in mind. With my kit lens (18-55mm) is okay for casual shooting but I feel like the ability to achieve nice blurred backgrounds is not that great.

ooh yeah and also a lens that will auto focus with the nikon d40


for example a picture like this... the photographer was probably a few feet away.. but i want a nice blurred background than the one here..more creamish smooth ..
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/238174/2114Z4SmkzNfvr/YIvRfiUNH2/125821.jpg





more like this one





http://fast1.onesite.com/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/user/kate_day/3daa7cd370c0c899fc2cef93a2ad6668.jpg



I hope I make sense ... thank you guys once again ! really reallly appreciate it ... any other suggestions will be awesome :mrgreen:


----------



## DScience (Jul 25, 2009)

For one that auto focuses on the D40, you'll either have to get the 35mm f1.8G, or the 50mm f1.4G.

Here is an example from the 50 mm, with the creamy background you are talking about.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 25, 2009)

DScience said:


> For one that auto focuses on the D40, you'll either have to get the 35mm f1.8G, or the 50mm f1.4G.
> 
> Here is an example from the 50 mm, with the creamy background you are talking about.



yes, thats exactly it. thats the kind of blur im looking for . I love how vibrant this picture is. nice!
thanks for sharing :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2009)

DScience said:


> Here is some examples of how you can 'control' bokeh. Every single of these shots I took for the 'bokeh' in which they produced. I took tons of each shot so that I could 'control' the type and look of bokeh in the shots.
> [...]



I like this one a lot.


I don't really think that you are "controlling" the bokeh though, you're just using an aperture that allows it to happen, and composing so that it becomes an important part of the image.

To _change_ the bokeh, you would have to change the design of the lens.


----------



## DScience (Jul 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some examples of how you can 'control' bokeh. Every single of these shots I took for the 'bokeh' in which they produced. I took tons of each shot so that I could 'control' the type and look of bokeh in the shots.
> ...




I agree for sure. It's really not a matter of _controlling_ the bokeh, as it is _using_ it.


----------



## Samanax (Jul 25, 2009)

~myStical~ said:


> for example a picture like this... the photographer was probably a few feet away.. but i want a nice blurred background than the one here..more creamish smooth ..
> 
> more like this one


If you didn't take the pictures you shouldn't imbed them in your post. Provide a link to them instead. 

*Forum Rules*


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 25, 2009)

Samanax said:


> ~myStical~ said:
> 
> 
> > for example a picture like this... the photographer was probably a few feet away.. but i want a nice blurred background than the one here..more creamish smooth ..
> ...



Oops Sorry,  I edited my post. I googled those images.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 25, 2009)

> Oops Sorry,  I edited my post. I googled those images.


If you're speaking of post #25, then the links are showing (not going directly to the images) and the images are still in your post.

IMO, there is a direct correlation between the cost of a lens and its ability of producing quality 'bokeh'.  The examples previously posted are adequate at best and sub-par in reality.  Asking a $300 lens to produce excellent results is a tall order.  However, there are a few tricks as the photographer that you can play that will produce better results from a 'lesser' lens.  Getting the combinations right with camera-to-subject and subject-to-background ratios right will propel you further towards your intended goal.  Also know the strong and weak points of your lens.

For a buck and a quarter, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is pretty damn good at producing decent 'bokeh' if stoped down to about f/4.  If you want the ultimate, drop $1200+ on the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4.  The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 ain't too bad either.

Good luck, just my 2¢ worth as always.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 25, 2009)

another question....

with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G or Nikkor 50mm F/1.8

will i be able to shoot something like this ? blurry background ...full body ?
Yrsa on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

because with my 18-55 kit lens ... to get a blurry background i have to be very close to my subject...and i get very tight portrait shot.
like this one 
Yrsa on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

with my kit lens ... i can't get a blurry background when shooting from a few feet away from my subject.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 25, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Also know the strong and weak points of your lens.



Bingo. Knowing your lenses inside and out, their strengths and weaknesses, is what will allow you to finagle every last bit of sharpness and quality bokeh out of them. I'd argue knowing your lenses is more important than knowing the camera body you're working with, but that's just me.


----------



## Samanax (Jul 25, 2009)

~myStical~ said:


> another question....
> 
> with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G or Nikkor 50mm F/1.8
> 
> ...


Depth Of Field (DOF) is affected by 4 things...aperture size (larger opening = shallow DOF, smaller opening = deeper DOF), focal length (longer lens = shallow DOF, shorter lens = deeper DOF), distance between the camera (closer to the subject = shallow DOF, farther from the subject = deeper DOF) and the subject and distance between the subject and the background (subject close to background = shallow DOF, subject farther from the background = deeper DOF).


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Also know the strong and weak points of your lens.
> ...



I agree.  Lenses last longer than bodies anyway.

You will go through a few bodies over the years, but your lenses (if you care for them properly) will be with you forever.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 25, 2009)

Samanax said:


> ~myStical~ said:
> 
> 
> > another question....
> ...



Technically, on the last one (subject-to-background distance), the DoF doesn't change, just the strength of the bokeh.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 25, 2009)

DScience said:


> For one that auto focuses on the D40, you'll either have to get the 35mm f1.8G, or the 50mm f1.4G.
> 
> Here is an example from the 50 mm, with the creamy background you are talking about.



This shows decent bokeh, but not the best. If you look at the out of focus spots where a single small highlight is the spots have a bright ring around the outside. They are not as bad as the rather ugly bokeh in the shot of a woman at a railing in an earlier post.

Also, if you look closely, the off center spots are not completly round, but are slightly clipped like a gibbous moon. This latter flaw exists in almost all lenses when used wide open. When stopped down slightly, the nature of the iris blades (number of blades and, more importantly, the shape of the blades) can cause the blurs to take on a faceted shape rather than smooth round shapes. This makes for uglier bokeh as a rule.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2009)

mySticl wrote, "Basically I want to be able to shoot from a distance where I wont have to be too close to the subject and will be able to get a nice blurred background. That's my main concern ...A good distance away. I want to be able to also zoom in with my lens and not with my feet.. >With my kit lens (18-55mm) is okay for casual shooting but I feel like the ability to achieve nice blurred backgrounds is not that great."

After re-reading your comments and the thread, I've determined that what you want is the ability to throw backgrounds well out of focus. Bokeh is a more-esoteric quality than mere background or foreground blur. The problem you have with the kit lens is that with a small sensored camera and a short focal length lens, the combination produces quite a bit of depth of field. With the kit lens, having only an f/5.6 maximum aperture at 55mm means that, once a subject is 10-15 feet away, the depth of field at that distance range and at f/5.6 or smaller, everything from infinity and closer to XX feet is rendered in "recognizably sharp focus"; mind you I am not saying that objcts at infinity are rendered as acceptably sharp enough to be considered within the Depth of Field zone, but simply sharp enough to be "recognizable" Your lens aperture limits with the 18-55,combined with an APS-C size sensor, means that the majority of your photos have backgrounds that are "reasonably" in-focus. And the only way you've been able to get the backdrops well,well out of focus is by shooting from a close camera-to-subject distance,and having backgrounds that are relatively "far away" from your main subject.

What you want to do has long been called achieving a "blown-out background". That is very hard to do with an 18-55 kit zoom; it can NOT be done at longer working distances like 15 to 20 feet on APS-C.

Welcome to the world of slow consumer lenses shot on APS-C cameras. I recently wrote a lengthy blog post on how APS-C impacts people photography,and your situation is very frustrating to many people. Still, all hope is not lost. When you asked if you could get a full-body shot with the 50mm f/1.8 with an out of focus background, the answer is "somewhat" out of focus. I think you'd find it easiest to buy an 85mm lens or a used 105mm f/2.5 AiS Nikkor, and experiment with those two focal lengths, at apertures of f/4.5 to f/2.5.

With a 50mm on a D40, you will need to be 17 feet away from a 6-foot tall person in order to get a field of view that is 8.16 feet tall, to allow for some space above their head and at their feet. At f/2.8 you will have good depth of field from 15.2 feet to 19.2 feet, a four-foot deep DOF band. Objects that are "close" to 20-30 feet will appear reasonably recognizable, while backgrounds that are "far" behind the 19 foot range will appear increasingly out of focus.

Using your kit lens at f/5.6, the DOF band is from 13.8 to 22.1 feet, or a total depth of 8.35 feet--twice as much as with a 50mm lens set to f/2.8. it might not "sound" like much of a difference, and the numerical or quantitative difference between a four foot and an 8.35 foot deep depth of field might seem like it is not significant, but the qualitative difference is quite significant, especially at short focal lengths like the 18-55 zoom has.

Buying a longer focal length zoom, like a 70-300 would give you more framing and distance flexibility and the ability to get what I think you seek--out of focus backgrounds WITHOUT the need to be really,really close to your subjects, the way the 18-55 forces you to do.

A good lens to look for would be a 105mm f/2.5 in AiS mount. No zoom, no metering, but a long enough length and a wide enough aperture and excellent manual focusing characteristics on something like a D40. Decent bokeh, but not as good as newer,more-costly, rounded-diaphragm bokeh lenses like the 85 1.4 or 70-200VR.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 30, 2009)

Thank you so much Derrel. You understood exactly what I was talking about...
Thank you for taking your time and explaining. I really really appreciate it.

105mm f/2.5 in AiS mount ....

What is AIS ? is this one compatible with the nikon d40 and does it auto-focus? 

How much is it ? I couldn't find it online.


----------



## PastTheFuture (Jul 30, 2009)

~myStical~ said:


> Thank you so much Derrel. You understood exactly what I was talking about...
> Thank you for taking your time and explaining. I really really appreciate it.
> 
> 105mm f/2.5 in AiS mount ....
> ...


I don't think that one auto-focuses. I think the only lenses that auto-focus for the D40 are AF-S lenses.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Jul 31, 2009)

oohh soo any suggestions for a 70-300 mm lens for the nikon d40 ?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 31, 2009)

The 105mm f/2.5 is widely available used in either Ai or AiS mount variations at used dealers like the on-line used specialist KEH.com. It is one of *the* easiest-focusing Nikon short telephotos ever made, but it is manual focus only,and it will not give light metering on a D40. It's an excellent outdoor portrait lens on a crop-body d-slr.

Nikon has made several 70-300 models that I can recall. The discontinued,very low-cost 70-300G series model which is optically rather weak at the long end, the 70-300 standard model, the 70-300ED, and now the 70-300VR model. The best optically is the new current VR model, followed by the 70-300ED.

Sigma also makes a 70-300 APO model which isn't too bad from reports I've heard; make sure if you buy a Sigma to get the APO-designated model.


----------

