# Canon bokeh vs. Zeiss bokeh



## shortpballer (Oct 22, 2009)

Here is a picture I took with a canon mount zeiss 50 1.4






And a picture with the Canon 85 1.2L





I was surprised at the COMPLETE difference in the looks of the bokeh.  Both are very pleasing.  The zeiss seems to give a more film bokeh, while the canon seems to give a really creamy bokeh.


----------



## ssnxp (Oct 22, 2009)

Thanks for the pictures; I personally like the 85mm 1.2L better.


----------



## o hey tyler (Oct 22, 2009)

Personally, I am more concerned with the fact that you are drinking Natural Ice.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 22, 2009)

welll DUH there's going to be a difference, You shot with a 50mm and an 85! not to mention the 85 is faster!

Failure IMO. This is like comparing a ford F-150 to a bmw, DUH the BMW is faster and smoother, it's a car, not a truck!


----------



## DScience (Oct 22, 2009)

Well first off, this isn't the most accurate _test._ Simply the difference in aperture (1.2 vs 1.4) is going to have a profound affect on bokeh.

Second, the focal length has a big influence as well.


----------



## shortpballer (Oct 22, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> welll DUH there's going to be a difference, You shot with a 50mm and an 85! not to mention the 85 is faster!
> 
> Failure IMO. This is like comparing a ford F-150 to a bmw, DUH the BMW is faster and smoother, it's a car, not a truck!



First of all if you guys would look closely there is a HUGE difference, and it is due to the design of the lenses.  The zeiss produces more choppy, film-like bokeh.  

And by the way they were both taken at 1.4 for comparison purposes


----------



## syphlix (Oct 22, 2009)

i think i like the second one better.

what does "film bokeh" mean?


----------



## shortpballer (Oct 22, 2009)

syphlix said:


> i think i like the second one better.
> 
> what does "film bokeh" mean?



I would say it applies to the aperture blades, In film days lenses had less aperture blades, the bokeh comes out more choppy.  With the 85 1.2 it is circular, so the bokeh will look very creamy.

Thats what I would assume... lol! someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I just wanted to show you guys the difference as I was amazed


----------



## Dao (Oct 22, 2009)

I think it will make more sense if you compare a 50mm lens to a 50mm lens.


----------



## shortpballer (Oct 22, 2009)

Dao said:


> I think it will make more sense if you compare a 50mm lens to a 50mm lens.



well couldn't exactly do that, as I do not have a canon 50 at this moment.


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 22, 2009)

The Cosina-made "Zeiss" lenses are not known for their creamy "bokeh," regardless of the different focal lengths used here. But yeah... this isn't the most accurate "test."


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2009)

No surprises,really. There is no such thing as "film bokeh". The Zeiss brand of lenses has long been known to produce bokeh that is,well, often jarring. In recent years, and I mean very recent years, the term bokeh has come into vogue, and is widely misused. The term was first brought to the attention of the English-speaking world by Mike Johnston, a little over 12 years ago now.

To many people bokeh means "out of focus specular highlights", which is only one aspect of bokeh; DScience loves making photos that have small, point sources of light in the background, but that is only the portion of bokeh known as the "specular highlight rendition". OOF specualr highlights are fun to shoot, and a lens that renders OOF specular highlights with a nice shape is fun to own and shoot. But specular highlight rendering is only one aspect of bokeh.

To many people, bokeh means "an out of focus background". That is not what bokeh is. To many people, the more out of focus the background is, the more they think they have achieved "bokeh". Again, it's not a quantity thing--it's about the quality, the character, and the characteristics of the out of focus areas that a lens creates that makes up bokeh.

Last night I was putting together a list of articles on bokeh from some sources that are accurate, and reasoned. Here it is.

The Online Photographer: What Is Bokeh?

Bokeh Test

Bokeh in Pictures

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_1/129000/129691/4/print/bokehrankings5.pdf
Mike Johnston's 2005 bokeh list in .pdf format, free download

Bokeh: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Silverbased | Bokeh: What it is and isnt

Learning bokeh - Page 3 - Rangefinderforum.com

Here is an example of a person with a very shallow understanding of bokeh, and who has developed a bunch of bokeh "textures", thinking that bokeh refers exclusively to out of focus specular highlights or out of focus lights. Still,it's interesting to see what one person's incomplete idea of bokeh is all about    155+ Free Grungy And Beautiful Bokeh Textures | Little Box Of Ideas


----------



## Dwig (Oct 22, 2009)

shortpballer said:


> syphlix said:
> 
> 
> > i think i like the second one better.
> ...



Balderdash.

One, the number of blades has very, very, very little to do with the quality of bokeh. Two, the shape of the aperture has only a little to do with the quality of bokeh, Three, "in film days" lenses had easily as many and very often more blades than modern lenses.

Check out this link that was posted in another bokeh thread here recently:
http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

The biggest factors affecting the quality of bokeh lie in the optical design. The 50mm f/1.4 shows what I consider very poor bokeh. Small round highlights (there's one on the right side of the image) show a bright ring. This is cause by slight overcorrection of spherical aberration. The 85mm f/1.2 isn't fantastic, but is much better. It seems to show evidence of a very slight bright ring causing the blur to have too much of an edge (look at the edge of the white roof in the center; it doesn't feather out completely but stops suddenly).


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 22, 2009)

beer fail for sure.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 22, 2009)

Thank you so much, Derrel and Dwig. The...misguided notions in this thread were giving me a headache. *applauds*


----------



## gl600 (Oct 22, 2009)

Wow, what a difference! Thanks for the post.
I know that this is not the topic but the zeiss lens seems to capture better contrast which I think also lends to a more interesting look in the bokeh.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 22, 2009)

gl600 said:


> Wow, what a difference! Thanks for the post.
> I know that this is not the topic but the zeiss lens seems to capture better contrast which I think also lends to a more interesting look in the bokeh.



Read the full thread. Lens properties are not manufacturer-specific, they are lens-specific.


----------



## usayit (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't like the "orbs" in the Zeiss sample...

almost as distracting as the doughnuts in mirror lenses...


----------



## gl600 (Oct 23, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> gl600 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, what a difference! Thanks for the post.
> ...



Do you mean to say that if I bought the same Zeiss lens that the bokeh would not have the same amount of contrast? (that's all I meant).


----------



## usayit (Oct 23, 2009)

I think the both of you have a miscommunication going on....  It sounds like musicaleCA thought that you said "Zeiss lenses are generally more contrasty" as in the manufacturer Zeiss rather than the lens in the OP in particular.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 23, 2009)

I kinda mis-read, but hey, I'm sick and my right ear feels like it might explode and take half my head with it (too bad the right hemisphere is the abstract, creative side...).

If you bought the same model of Zeiss lens, yes, it would have similar properties. I was saying that between different lenses in the Zeiss line-up, let alone other manufacturers', not all lenses are equal...or something like that...*pops more Advil*


----------



## Stosh (Oct 23, 2009)

I would be interested in seeing this comparison with both lenses shot at the same aperture.  And I don't mean f-number, I really mean aperture.  Since background blur is mostly a function of aperture, this would be an interesting test.

To accomplish this, shoot the 50mm at f/1.4 (50/1.4=35.7mm aperture)
Shoot the 85mm at f/2.4 or as close as you can get to that (85/2.4=35.4mm aperture)


----------

