# Best lens for blurred backgrounds



## Ima Shooter

I've been at this a few years now, but just recently started doing it seriously, beyond fall foliage and my kids. What lens (for my Canon Rebel Xti) would be a good choice considering I want to get a nice blurred background in most of my shots? I know I can get this from a longer lens - I recently shot a soccer event and my 300mm was awesome, but obviously that lens isn't practical for portraits and every day use. The only other lenses I have are a 50mm prime (which is fantastic for low light, where I shoot a lot of my stuff) and the 28-80mm kit lens my camera came with.

I'm asking Santa for this new lens for Christmas, so any and all suggestions are appreciated! Thanks!


----------



## Montana

85 1.8, 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 200 2.0.    All of these produce very nice out of focus background  qualities in my opinion.   The 135mm is especially nice IMHO.  Do you own a 70-200 2.8?  It performs well, but out of focus highlights can be football shaped.  That bothers some folks, I am okay with it.  Derrel can explain the "whys" that football shapes are produced.

These examples may be a little long for some types of portraiture on your crop sensor camera, but half body and head shots are perfectly doable.  I mentioned these as I seen you have a 50mm already.


----------



## Dao

Personally I have the 85mm f/1.8 and it is quite nice (although I read that the 135mm L is much better).

Here is a photo I took last year with the 85mm f/1.8 lens that shows how the blur background looks like.  Photo taken at f/1.8


----------



## Derrel

Canon's 85mm f/1.8 EF and their 135mm f/2-L EF lens are both really good lenses. I own both of them,and think they are really very strong candidates for lenses that can create nice, blurred backgrounds, and which are still very practical lenses that are easy to carry and very useful. Both lenses focus very rapidly and accurately, are sharp, resist ghosting and flaring quite well, and are really outstanding values. The 135mm length has a more pronounced "impression" that it puts on photos. In family photography type situations, the 135mm f/2 lenses from Canon (and Nikon also) create an out of focus foreground, a very sharp in-focus zone, and then transition pretty rapidly to the out-of-focus background zones...there's quite a bit of background magnification and "telephoto effect" that is created by a 135mm lens on a crop-body capture...much more-noticeable than what an 85mm lens produces.


----------



## Ima Shooter

Thank you all -  this is great info. I know I need to go with a small f. I was seriously considering the 135mm and this might cinch it.


----------



## Light Artisan

Nikon 85mm f/1.4 

I know, I know... it's a Nikon, but you asked what's best right?


----------



## Robin Usagani

Hmm.. you have 50mm and you are still asking how to get blurred background?


----------



## davisphotos

I agree with Schwettylens-the 50mm on a crop sensor should give you a really nice bokeh. Beyond that, I have the 85mm f1.8, and the 100mm f2.8 macro, both of which are awesome. If you're interesting in getting into macro too, I think the 100mm is a great buy.


----------



## table1349

Best = 85mm f1.2L, 300mm f2.8L and 400mm f2.8L.  The 85mm would be the most practical.  

The 300 and 400 have remarkable bokeh however for portraits if of course you have the room. :mrgreen:


----------



## Eco

Ima Shooter said:


> I'm asking Santa for this new lens for Christmas, so any and all suggestions are appreciated! Thanks!



Forget Santa and a new lens, save a bunch of money and just in simple terms use the low numbers (1.4,1.8,2.8......) or put some distance between your focal point and the background.  

Or for free unless you drink coffee, go to a good bookstore....buy a cup of coffee and read books about photography  <--not an insult, rather a tip on how to learn for free or for the price of a cup of coffee....I do the same when I have free time.


----------



## Dao

But ... able to create a blur background doesn't mean able to create a creamy blur background.

I have 50mm, 85mm and 100mm prime lenses, and the out of focus blur background results varies from lens to lens.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

To be honest, i've never seen anything like the Sony.....Zeiss 135mm f/1.8

I've used some pretty exotic fast lenses and i tell you what, this is the best by a long shot, the only lens that's better is Nikon's 200mm f/2, butit's in a totally different class and it's enormous. The 135 f/1.8 is a damn near perfect compromise. Now if Sony only had an equally thought out camera body for it..


----------



## burnws6

18-55mm 5.6 

Trust me.


----------



## Ima Shooter

Eco:  I own a dozen photography books, and am taking a photography course in February. That was my first step.

Schwettylens: I can't always use the prime lens for portraiture because I don't always have the physical space to back up or move around to position my subject the way I want since there is no zoom on a prime. (Obviously.)

Thanks for the info, all.


----------



## Ima Shooter

Sw1tchFX said:


> To be honest, i've never seen anything like the Sony.....Zeiss 135mm f/1.8
> 
> I've used some pretty exotic fast lenses and i tell you what, this is the best by a long shot, the only lens that's better is Nikon's 200mm f/2, butit's in a totally different class and it's enormous. The 135 f/1.8 is a damn near perfect compromise. Now if Sony only had an equally thought out camera body for it..



If I had an extra 1500 bucks to spend, I'll be all over that.


----------



## pbelarge

Derrel said:


> Canon's 85mm f/1.8 EF and their 135mm f/2-L EF lens are both really good lenses. I own both of them,and think they are really very strong candidates for lenses that can create nice, blurred backgrounds, and which are still very practical lenses that are easy to carry and very useful. Both lenses focus very rapidly and accurately, are sharp, resist ghosting and flaring quite well, and are really outstanding values. The 135mm length has a more pronounced "impression" that it puts on photos. In family photography type situations, the 135mm f/2 lenses from Canon (and Nikon also) create an out of focus foreground, a very sharp in-focus zone, and then transition pretty rapidly to the out-of-focus background zones...there's quite a bit of background magnification and "telephoto effect" that is created by a 135mm lens on a crop-body capture...much more-noticeable than what an 85mm lens produces.


 

Ditto what Derrel has said.
Although I do not shoot portraits, I sometimes happen to point my camera at people. 

Of the two lenses, I happen to love the 135L This lens seems to 'correct' my bad habits and I love the results when shooting this lens. I have used it mostly on the 7D for the length, but it is one of my favorites on both of my cameras. My 50 f1.4 is another favorite as well. You would most likely do well with the 50 and 85 as a pair.


----------



## gsgary

200F2.8 is nice


----------



## table1349

Bottom line in the 85mm range the 85 f1.2L is superior to the 85 f1.8 in terms of bokeh at quite a cost.  The 85 f1.8 is a good portrait lens with pleasing bokeh and other attributes going for it including cost.  I will agree that the 200 f2.8 has very pleasing bokeh as well.  The one downfall to this lens is working distance.  If you have the distance it is an excellent portrait lens.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz

I've been trying to figure out the same thing..


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz

is that with a canon or nikon


----------

