# Lens Hype,  What is really a good lens?



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

many people go out and buy an expensive lens for the wrong reasons,  many will go out and buy lets say a Nikon 70-200 2.8 thinking ok they are oging to get sharp pictures and good bokah..
Bokah is a FAD  people getting all hyped up thinking the only good portrait is a bokah one, meaning blur the background,  but that is simply not true.

First off let me tell you the reason a background may get bokah, (blur)  it has to do with many factors, not just a small number aperture like 1,8 or 2.8    it's about how close you are to your subject, and how close your subject is to the background as well, and also your focal length is if using a zoom lens and not a prime lens such as a 50mm 1.8..

For instance if your subject is only 1 foot away from a brick wall it's going to be more difficult to make that wall blur out of focus, it's all about depth of field of course in that matter, because if your using a small number aperture then what will be in focus that is close to your subject will decrease greatly depending on how far away it is to your subject,  at 1.8 maybe 3 feel would be out of focus  more so then 1 foot away.

now if your subject is 10 feet away from a bring wall behind them then it's going to be easy to put that wall out of focus, and it don't have to be a low number aperture either,  you can do it with f5.6 

all you have to do is have your camera very close to your subject
then your lens will have a difficult time keeping anything in focus  further then 2 feet away even at aperture 5.6.

because of how close your lens is to that subject..
Now another factor that you need to know about Bokah  , (blur) the background, is the sensor size, a full frame camera will be able to blur the background easier then using an APSC camera..

that is one of the reason that the background gets soft is because of the amount of light hitting the sensor, so if you got a full frame sensor then more light is factored in the image, rather then a APSC sensor. that is why lower aperture numbers give you a narrower depth of field, it lets more light in the image.  so if you use f 3.5 on full frame sensor and use an f 3.5 on APSC sensor the full frame image is going to have more blur even at the same aperture setting.

Now the other thing people believe which is not true, is if they go out and buy a lens that can reach 1.8 aperture they will get sharp images, and they go out and get that lens and take all there pictures at f1.8 thinking this is the sharpest setting to have it on.

which is not true at all, in fact the lower number apertures are usually the softest, and not so sharp , for instance a Nikon 70-200 f2,8    using aperture 2.8 is not going to give you the sharpest pictures, in fact the sharpest area of that lens in aperture rage is f5.8 to f8.0
any lower then f5.6 the images start to get softer.. Don't believe me go to DxOMark by DxO | DxOMark  and check it out for your self, i'll post a few images showing you, but i checked it out and the lowest aperture numbers are not your sharpest ranges..

Alot of people think get a 1.8 or 2.8 lens and you will get sharp images, well yes you will but not because you can use the lowest aperture numbers. don't get me wrong the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is a very good lens,  but your not getting your sharpest images at  f2.8 at all..

if in a studio you take a portrait at the same focal length with the same camera and the same lens at the same distance of your subject and take a portrait shot at f2.8 and i do the same thing at the same settings only set my aperture at f7 lets say i'm going to get a much sharper image.
and Bokah isn't going to matter either in studio because if you use a nice gray or white or black backdrop you don't need to get bokah..

even in an outdoor situation you can get good bokah all you have to do is change your focal length and distance to your subject and still get a bokah at f5.6  or even f7 depending on your focal length and distance....
With portraits i tend to stay away from my lowest aperture numbers because i can get much sharper images at f5.6 and higher.. now they are situation where you might want to go to 1.8 or 2.8 if your in low light situations like a church or indoors, or at dusk yeah, but, if you can help it and want the sharpest images possible then click your aperture to f5.8 and higher and you will notice a great improvement in image quality..


NOTE: there is always a sweet spot to your aperture settings , meaning if you go too high your sharpness will decrease, meaning there is a limit to the aperture number before you start to decline in sharpness again.

alot of lenses range from f5.6 to f11 and once you get higher then that it starts to get softer again..

it's like anything else in zoom lenses your best range is normally your mid range, like barrel distortion starts at the wide end and gets better to the middle then starts to pincushion zooming in further then the mid range..
same type of thing with aperture....

NOTE: if all your looking for is good BOKAH in a portrait, then you can get that with out spending $1,000.00 + buy going out and get a 50mm F1.8 Prime, this lens is very sharp and you can get it for $100.00 or less... you can get better bokah with that lens then you would with the expensive 70-200 lens.  If bokah is all you care about.

they are advantages to the 70-200 because you don't have to change your distance to your subject like yo would with the 50mm prime, , but that is the cost of convenience...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 17, 2016)

Yet not one mention of the number and/or shape of the aperture blades.

C-.


----------



## Bebulamar (Jul 17, 2016)

Does a good portrait have to have shallow depth of view and Bokeh?


----------



## goodguy (Jul 17, 2016)

Bebulamar said:


> Does a good portrait have to have shallow depth of view and Bokeh?


Depends about what you are trying to do in picture, if you are shooting a person and the back ground is beautiful and you want to show it then you want to have background in focus, if you just want the person in the shot and see as little as possible of the background then its good to shoot open and be close to your subject.

NOTE-in my opinion 50mm lenses make shitty close head shots portraits on full frame cameras so I wouldn't recommend them, even at 70mm I still see some distortion. For me 85mm is a minimum but honestly I love a portrait at well above 100mm on my 70-200mm lens.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 17, 2016)

I think you're confusing bokeh with dof. Bokeh is a term used to describe the _character_ of the OOF and not the limits of dof.

It is a property of lens design and nothing to do with sensors, (though dof is affected by sensor size), and certainly nothing to do with the rubbish spouted regarding the amount of light hitting the sensor, sorry. 

The nature of the background including contrast and specular reflections affect it. And it is a property of lenses that has been understood since well before digital cameras (a bit past the fad stage ). See this article about the forerunner of the classic Nikkor portrait lens designed in 1949 that was specifically under-corrected for certain aberrations to create a softer bokeh:

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights: Tale 45: - The superior lens hidden in the shadows of more celebrated lenses -  The NIKKOR-P.C 10.5cm f/2.5 By Haruo Sato

Here is an image shot with the gauss version of that lens, a Nikkor PC 105/2.5 (1973-4), on film (way before digital ). Notice how even in strong contrast the oof in both the foreground and the background retain a very soft nature:





As for sharp images, it depend on a lot more that just aperture settings. Here's a shot I've shown before, shot handheld on my D600 at 3200iso and f2.8 with a 1966 sonner version of the Nikkor 105/2.5:





Sharp images have nothing much at all to do with aperture but rather understanding the nature of your subject, the nature of visual images, the characteristics of you lens, and a basic understanding of camera settings. Even though most of this image is actually out of focus I challenge you to produce one of f7 that appears to be sharper. Knowing what you're doing produces sharp images, not settings or technology, to be honest your point of focus is far more important.

I'd like to show you the difference in bokeh when I use my Micro-Nikkor PC 55/3.5 because that has a really choppy character to the oof. But it is so choppy that I also carry my 50/1.4 (MF) specifically because it's much better wide open than the 55/3.5. For what it's worth I found the 50/1.8D does not have a great bokeh with contrasty backgrounds and sold it a long while ago.

Sorry to be contradictory, but you present the post from a position of authority about bokeh and all you explain is the basics of dof with some misguided internet 'wisdom' regarding the properties of lenses and IQ.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2016)

50mm f1.8 Bokeh Background shot. 

50mm f1.2 Bokeh Background shot.

As the song goes on Sesame Street:

_One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the other
By the time I finish my song?
_
If you picked the 50mm f1.2 then you would be right.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> many people go out and buy an expensive lens for the wrong reasons,  many will go out and buy lets say a Nikon 70-200 2.8 thinking ok they are oging to get sharp pictures and good bokah..
> Bokah is a FAD  people getting all hyped up thinking the only good portrait is a bokah one, meaning blur the background,  but that is simply not true.
> 
> First off let me tell you the reason a background may get bokah, (blur)  it has to do with many factors, not just a small number aperture like 1,8 or 2.8    it's about how close you are to your subject, and how close your subject is to the background as well, and also your focal length is if using a zoom lens and not a prime lens such as a 50mm 1.8..



First it's bokeh not bokah. Bokeh is not background blur as Tim has already noted. You're trying to write about a photographic phenomenon and you don't know what it is. The wiki definition is good: In photography, *bokeh* (originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ _*BOH*-kay_ — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ _*BOH*-kə_,[2] Japanese: [boke]) is *the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image* produced by a lens. Bokeh is not the blur it's the visual character of the blur. This will help: Kiev Cameras



donny1963 said:


> .....Now another factor that you need to know about Bokah  , (blur) the background, is the sensor size, a full frame camera will be able to blur the background easier then using an APSC camera..
> 
> that is one of the reason that the background gets soft is because of the amount of light hitting the sensor, so if you got a full frame sensor then more light is factored in the image, rather then a APSC sensor. that is why lower aperture numbers give you a narrower depth of field, it lets more light in the image.  so if you use f 3.5 on full frame sensor and use an f 3.5 on APSC sensor the full frame image is going to have more blur even at the same aperture setting.



This is incoherent nonsense. You don't get more blur from a FF sensor versus a crop sensor because the FF sensor "factors" more light in the image.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Yet not one mention of the number and/or shape of the aperture blades.
> 
> C-.



Can't help but think of the term deaf ears.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> I think you're confusing bokeh with dof. Bokeh is a term used to describe the _character_ of the OOF and not the limits of dof.
> 
> It is a property of lens design and nothing to do with sensors, (though dof is affected by sensor size), and certainly nothing to do with the rubbish spouted regarding the amount of light hitting the sensor, sorry.
> 
> ...


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > many people go out and buy an expensive lens for the wrong reasons,  many will go out and buy lets say a Nikon 70-200 2.8 thinking ok they are oging to get sharp pictures and good bokah..
> ...




of course you would get more blur in the background with full frame vs crop sensor, 
if i shoot a portrait using 2.8  with APSC and you do the same thing with 2.8 with a full frame the image with the full frame will have more exposure in it  (more light)   

your a liar if you say different , and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this..

Others can decide for them self what is correct..  lol

and yes sensor size effects the image differently at any aperture..



The Bokeh Effect: How Sensor Size Affects Background Blur


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Yet not one mention of the number and/or shape of the aperture blades.
> ...



I know maybe you should really listen and you would not be so miss-informed..
like i said i got proof that your wrong..
but hey don't have to let others take our words for it , they can read it for them self. 

The Bokeh Effect: How Sensor Size Affects Background Blur


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Yet not one mention of the number and/or shape of the aperture blades.
> ...


how every my main point was about sharpness in given aperture settings,   but i did mention full frame vs APSC when it comes to back ground..

and it's mention here by en expert here about the sensor size having a great deal to do with it as well.






time frame 11:00 of the video


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2016)

Mixing Apples and Oranges will not give you Peaches.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 17, 2016)

You guys are all spelling it wrong. It's bouquet and I have no idea how flowers have anything to do with my background blur.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> You guys are all spelling it wrong. It's bouquet and I have no idea how flowers have anything to do with my background blur.


That is easy. If you give the wife/girlfriend a nice bouquet once in a while she may blur you background.


----------



## dennybeall (Jul 17, 2016)

Bokeh is a tool used by photographers just like their other tools. When you know your tool you can use a background that looks right for the shot you want. One color or many with lights or not and select the distance.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Did I say otherwise? Read carefully what I wrote and then show me where I said there isn't more blur. I said your reasoning for the difference is incoherent nonsense.



donny1963 said:


> if i shoot a portrait using 2.8  with APSC and you do the same thing with 2.8 with a full frame the image with the full frame will have more exposure in it  (more light)



You're saying that exposure at f/2.8 FF is different than exposure at f/2.8 crop sensor (ambient light and shutter speed the same). That would be nonsense. And that this supposed difference is somehow the cause for the difference in background blur. Which would also be nonsense.



donny1963 said:


> your a liar if you say different , and here bokeh



Good job -- you got the spelling right.



donny1963 said:


> is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this..



Yep, your error has lots of company. Supporting your error with a reference to someone else making the same mistake just means you're both wrong.



donny1963 said:


> Others can decide for them self what is correct..  lol
> 
> and yes sensor size effects the image differently at any aperture..
> 
> ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 17, 2016)

Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh.  You never want to post anything about it to TPF.  If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge.  There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.

So, the first rule about bokeh?  Don't talk about bokeh.  

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this..
> 
> The Bokeh Effect: How Sensor Size Affects Background Blur



I gave you a reference to a good article that defines bokeh correctly: Kiev Cameras
Here are definitions:
Oxford dictionary: 
*bokeh *
Pronunciation: /bōˈkā/  

* noun*
_ Photography_
The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens

Dictionary.com:
noun
a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image.

So now that we know the blog you referenced is also wrong you'd be advised to hold everything else they say suspect as well.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...




Not an error,  full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation ,  or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation.     same with full frame vs apsc ..

Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh.  You never want to post anything about it to TPF.  If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge.  There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.
> 
> So, the first rule about bokeh?  Don't talk about bokeh.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk



It's not rocket science, it's just simple stuff misunderstood by a vast army of Youtube vloggers and bloggers.

Joe


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> your a liar if you say different , and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this



1) Calling someone a liar over a disagreement in terms is really rude.
2) bokeh is not about the amount of blur but its quality.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 17, 2016)




----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh.  You never want to post anything about it to TPF.  If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge.  There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.
> 
> So, the first rule about bokeh?  Don't talk about bokeh.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


yeah people are always trying to flex there vast technical knowledge, they think they are some sort of legend in there own time, more like Legend in there own mind lol..


i've posted proof to correct there inaccurate reply but they will just turn around and say something to defend it, like yeah they are many people wrong like you lol that was so funny. it's fun to watch some one in desperation fumble with a totally stupid remark,, lol

How ever any one with an IQ over 60 can determine reality vs ego fantasy lol


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > your a liar if you say different , and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this
> ...



well if they lie, then the words fit.. any one who knows anything about how photography works, knows that sensor size does effect how much light your getting.. to say that is not true is a lie,,   i call it as i see, it, and i say lie because he has enough experience with photography to know what is true and a lie.

to be mistaken is one thing but to know what the truth is and to say other wise would be lie am i not right??
this is taught in general photography for beginners, and explained so many times and so many places to say otherwise is crazy.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

480sparky said:


>


see these guys think they win every argument even when they are clearly wrong..

if there is a red pen sitting on a table and you draw a line to prove it's red they will still say it's blue.... 
these guys egos are so messed up that they believe there own inaccurate statements...


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Not an error,  full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation ,  or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation.     same with full frame vs apsc ..



And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?

Joe



donny1963 said:


> Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
> pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this..
> ...



yeah and that reference says exactly in other terms what i said, lol

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh.  You never want to post anything about it to TPF.  If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge.  There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.
> ...


And yet it generates a massive amount of snark whenever anything gets posted on the subject.  Everyone dives for their professor hat and the conversation goes from nasty to nastier, with tons of condescension tossed in for good measure.

So yup, my advice to the op, walk away from this thread and don't post about bokeh in the future.  


I suggest you avoid crop factor discussions as well, they seem to have a similar effect

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Not an error,  full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation ,  or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation.     same with full frame vs apsc ..
> ...



yes the same everything try to make the situation exactly the same, but with one sensor larger then the other..

An APS-C sensor is about 24x15mm, while a Full Frame (FF) sensor is 36x24mm. In terms of area, the APS-C sensor is about *360mm^2*, and the FF is *864mm^2*. Now, calculating the actual area of a sensor that is functional pixels can be rather complex from a real-world standpoint, so we will assume_ideal sensors_ for the time being, wherein the total surface area of the sensor is dedicated to functional pixels, assume that those pixels are used as efficiently as possible, and assume all other factors affecting light (such as focal length, aperture, etc.) are equivalent. Given that, and given that our hypothetical cameras are both 8mp, then its clear that the _size of each pixel_ for the APS-C sensor is smaller than the size of each pixel for the FF sensor. In exact terms:

*APS-C:*
360mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000045mm^2/px
-> 0.000045 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 45µm^2 (square microns)
-> sqrt(45µm^2) = 6.7µm

*FF:*
864mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000108mm^2/px
-> 0.000108 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 108µm^2 (microns)
-> sqrt(108µm^2) = 10.4µm

In simpler, normalized terms of "pixel size", or the width or height of each pixel (commonly quoted on photo gear web sites), we have:

APS-C Pixel Size = 6.7µm pixel
FF Pixel Size = 10.4µm pixel

In terms of pixel size, a FF 8mp camera has _1.55x_ larger pixels than an APS-C 8mp camera. A one-dimensional difference in pixel size does not tell the whole story, however. Pixels have two-dimensional area over which they gather light, so taking the difference between the *area* of each FF pixel vs. each APS-C pixel tells the whole story:

108µm^2 / 45µm^2 = *2.4*

An (idealized) FF camera has 2.4x, or about 1 stop worth, the light gathering power of an (idealized) APS-C camera! That is why a larger sensor is more beneficial when shooting in low light...they simply have greater light gathering power over any given timeframe.

In alternative terms, a larger pixel is capable of _capturing more photon hits_ than a smaller pixel_in any given timeframe_ (my meaning of 'sensitivity').

SNow, the example and computations above all assume "idealized" sensors, or sensors that are perfectly efficient. Real-world sensors are not idealized, nor are they as easy to compare in an apples-to-apples fashion. Real-world sensors don't utilize every single pixel etched into their surface at maximum efficiency, more expensive sensors tend to have more advanced "technology" built into them, such as microlenses that help gather even more light, smaller non-functional gaps between each pixel, backlit wiring fabrication that moves column/row activate and read wiring below the photo-sensitive elements (while normal designs leave that wiring above (and interfering with) the photo-sensitive elements), etc. Additionally, full-frame sensors often have higher megapixel counts than smaller sensors, complicating matters even more.

A real-world example of two actual sensors might be to compare the Canon 7D APS-C sensor with the Canon 5D Mark II FF sensor. The 7D sensor is 18mp, while the 5D sensor is 21.1mp. Most sensors are rated in rough megapixels, and usually have a bit more than their marketed number, as many border pixels are used for calibration purposes, obstructed by sensor filter mechanics, etc. So we'll assume that 18mp and 21.1mp are real-world pixel counts. The difference in light-gathering power of these two current and modern sensors is:

7D APS-C: 360mm^2 / 18,000,000px * 1,000,000 = 20µm^2/px
5DMII FF: 864mm^2 / 21,100,000px * 1,000,000 = 40.947 ~= 41µm^2/px

41µm^2 / 20µm^2 = 2.05 ~= 2

The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera. That would translate into about one stops worth of additional native sensitivity. (In reality, the 5DII and 7D both have a maximum native ISO of 6400, however the 7D is quite a bit noisier than the 5DII at both 3200 and 6400, and only really seems to normalize at about ISO 800.

See: Canon EOS 7D Review) In contrast, an 18mp FF sensor would have about _1.17x_ the light gathering power of the 21.1mp FF sensor of the 5D MkII, since fewer pixels are spread out over the same (and larger than APS-C) area.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...




Yeah only because people who can't afford FF vs APSC gets offended because they realize they clearly can't get the same image quality with APSC as they can with FF & MED format...
lol


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



You said; "Bokah is a FAD people getting all hyped up thinking the only good portrait is a bokah one, *meaning blur the background*, but that is simply not true." [emphasis mine] Bokeh is not blurring the background.

Referenced article said; "Suffice to say that different lens designs have an *effect on the appearance* of the out-of-focus areas in photographs." [emphasis mine] This is a correct understanding of the term bokeh. It is not what you said in other terms.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

once they read that last reply i'm sure there eyes are going to go cross eyed,, but that's ok..

lol


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



The above is irrelevant. I asked two questions. Any chance you can answer them. I'll repeat them:

You said, "Not an error,  full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation ,  or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation.     same with full frame vs apsc ..

And I asked, "And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?"

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 17, 2016)




----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
However,  you keep stick with your own idea of what you think is reality, i'm sure it works for you..

lol


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...


Please explain in your own words the physics of your plagiarized post.  Why are larger sensors better at low light?

The physics of a lens is simple. The same lens will transmit the same amount of light given the exact same conditions no matter what size the sensor.  PERIOD!   Sensor size has NOTHING to do with the amount of light being transmitted.  Only with what it can record.   I repeat "Mixing Apples and Oranges will not give you Peaches."


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
> However,  you keep stick with your own idea of what you think is reality, i'm sure it works for you..
> 
> lol



It wasn't your formula you copied it from here: Why are larger sensors better at low light?

And that article topic is unrelated to what you have no idea about is being discussed.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Jul 17, 2016)

Debating about Bokeh is like debating Santa's criteria for the naughty or nice list.

It's subjective and largely imaginary.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



simple terms the size of the sensor that is capable of gathering that light, doesn't matter, if you got the same amount that is transmitted  and the final source where it gets transmitted is larger then it's going to collect more isn't it? the smaller source will just collect the limit it's capable of collecting.
the larger source will get MORE which is light where talking about..
when the smaller sensor reaches it's limit of what it can collect, then the rest is just not used..

If you have  2 buckets one hold 20 gal of water and the other only 10, and you throw 50 gals at each one, then the one holding the 20 gal  bucket is going to walk off with more water then the one holding the 10 gal..  OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
> ...


yes but it's my formula that i presented doesn't matter where i got it,  i posted the link earlier and you said yes they are others who are with you that are wrong like you are lol


----------



## unpopular (Jul 17, 2016)

Donny, you are mistaking signal strength over sensitivity. All sensors of similar technology capture light at the same rate. What changes is the amount of signal is present relative to noise inherent to analog circuitry.

Simply increasing the sensel area does not make analog voltage greater, which is always a fraction of the sensor's control voltage, rather a larger sensel will result in a greater proportion of that voltage reflects the image.

This allows the user to increase analog gain or make post exposure corrections without visible noise.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Donny, you are mistaking signal strength over sensitivity. All sensors of similar technology capture light at the same rate. What changes is the amount of signal is present relative to noise inherent to analog circuitry.
> 
> Simply increasing the sensel area does not make analog voltage greater, but rather a greater proportion of that voltage reflects the image.


not true sorry..  you didn't read the formula.. that is not what the formula shows..

and it even said
"The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera"

end results ff camera gets more light in each shot the aps-c  bottom line,
end of argument..
stop trying to twist the point to cover your error..


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



And it has nothing to do with the questions at hand. You posted irrelevant material. You still haven't answered my questions.

Joe


----------



## Tee (Jul 17, 2016)

Am I the only one who cringes when a poster attempts to make their opinion as fact yet doesn't even know what bokeh is? Yikes!


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


i told you the answer earlier. not going to keep this going..


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...


Lets try a REAL bucket scenario instead of a partial.

55 gallon drum of water = light
1/2 inch diamater hose = f stop
Tall narrow bucket = APS C sensor
Wide shorter bucket = FF sensor

Place the tall narrow  bucket under the 55 gallon drum and release water through the 1/2 inch hose for exactly 1 second.
Now place the wide shorter bucket under the the same 55 gallon drum and release water through the same 1/2 inch hose for exactly 1 second. 

Now measure the water.  Same amount.  The way the different size buckets spread the water is the only difference.  That water surface is the sensitivity.  

NONE of which has anything to do with your original premise about BOKEH.  

I quote from YOUR original post:
_"many people go out and buy an expensive lens for the wrong reasons, many will go out and buy lets say a Nikon 70-200 2.8 thinking ok they are oging to get sharp pictures and good *bokah.*.
*Bokah* is a FAD people getting all hyped up thinking the only good portrait is a bokah one, meaning blur the background, but that is simply not true._

_First off let me tell you the reason a background may get *bokah*, (blur) it has to do with many factors, not just a small number aperture like 1,8 or 2.8 it's about how close you are to your subject, and how close your subject is to the background as well, and also your focal length is if using a zoom lens and not a prime lens such as a 50mm 1.8.."
_
Later on
_
"that is one of the reason that the background gets soft is because of the amount of light hitting the sensor, so if you got a full frame sensor then more light is factored in the image, rather then a APSC sensor. that is why lower aperture numbers give you a narrower depth of field, it lets more light in the image. so if you use f 3.5 on full frame sensor and use an f 3.5 on APSC sensor the full frame image is going to have more blur even at the same aperture setting."_

Horse Apples.  There are only 4 factors that effect DOF.

f/stop 
CCD *pixel size *
distance of the object from the lens
 focal length of the lens
Depth Of Field

The Amount of light hitting the sensor has nothing to do with DOF.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Do you mean this; "yes the same everything try to make the situation exactly the same, but with one sensor larger then the other...?

OK, so I'll assume that "yes" at the beginning of that sentence fragment is your answer to this question: "Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?"

You're wrong. The exposure would be the same for both sensors. Sensor size is not an exposure determinant. Exposure = ambient light + f/stop + shutter speed.

And, now that that's settled we can move on to how you explain that the same exposure, using the same f/stop and shutter speed, applied to two different sensors can be responsible for a difference in DOF.

Joe


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 17, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Not an error,  full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation ,  or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation.     same with full frame vs apsc ..
> 
> Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
> pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...



This doesn't make sense.  The same amount of light is hitting each diode, and the same amount of light is coming through the lens. More surface area doesn't mean that every pixel is somehow getting more light.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 17, 2016)

I don't need to read whatever formula you're talking about.

Sensors do not gather light. They do not convert light into energy like a photo-voltaic does. It simply does not matter how large the sensel is, the output will never be greater than the reference.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 17, 2016)

rexbobcat said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Not an error,  full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation ,  or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation.     same with full frame vs apsc ..
> ...



Exactly. If I took two photo diodes of the same material and applied a reference voltage to one leg of each, the measured voltage on the opposite side would be the same under similar lighting conditions.

I could get a reading under lower light with the larger sensor, true, but with an amplifier on the recording side this is no different than adjusting ISO. Yes, the signal is "there" with the smaller sensor (to a point), but it will be drowned out by noise.

But this applies only to the pixel/sensel/photosite (whatever you want to call it), not the overall size of the sensor.


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2016)

If different sized sensors changed the exposure independent of aperture and shutterspeed then handheld light meters wouldn't work 

This whole "larger sensor = more light = changed exposure" is a false truth that has arisen in the last few years (glares at people like that Tony chap off youtube).


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 18, 2016)

Donny, you're making a number of false assumptions here that are leading to a lot of false conclusions.

Exposure is not the 'total light collected by a sensor' it is the 'light per sq mm falling on a sensor'. To get identical exposures from two sensors then the light per sq mm has to be the same which means shutter speed and aperture has to be the same. The sensor with more sq mm collects more total light but has the same exposure.
_
If you measure rainfall on a field then you measure depth only or 'per sq mm'. So regardless of whether your field is 1m sq or 50 acres it still has the same rainfall though the total rain collected by each field is different.
_
It is a quirk of 'equivalence argumentatives' who say that because noise is a random event you have to assess it as a percentage of the 'total light hitting the sensor' and compare sensors by using equivalent 'total light hitting the sensor' which of course means both cameras will be set for a different exposure.
_
When comparing our two fields for 'odd shaped raindrops' we can only compare the small field in a downpour against the larger one in light drizzle. _

It's purely a way of levelling the field when comparing the noise performance of sensors across different formats. But given that all cameras, well exposed, will give images where you can't see any noise it's kind of a pointless argument, (the effect is invisible to the naked eye).

But this total light argument is being used to 'prove' a number of false ideas.
_
Like with our fields, it's easy to say that our small field gets wetter and therefore the larger one has the advantage when it rains because it collects more water._

Which is of course ludicrous because you get the same results if you use the same field but compare different capture area sizes, (the same field can be better than itself and all we have to do to get a better crop yield is change the area we measure).

There are a number of really talented pros an amateurs alike on this site, look at some of the posted images. Do you really think they can achieve these results without knowing what they're doing?

_EDIT: A lot of this confusion comes from using 'equivalent f-stop' rather than 'f-stop'. There are a lot of relationships between aperture, focal length, sensor size, dof, fov, etc. These relationships change in an exact proportion to one another, and this is what makes exposure, dof, etc predictable._

_The whole concept of equivalent f-stop is based on setting constants. Constants that have no bearing or relevance to actual photography and are set exclusively because doing so cancels out a lot of variables and allows you to compare noise performance across different formats. To compare noise performance you keep total light constant along with fov and dof, which means keeping the effective aperture diameter in mm constant (equivalent f-stop), but holding this condition true results in progressive under exposure in exact proportion to increasing sensor size. In reality you cannot take equivalent photos on different formats because all the variables are related, change one and another will change as well. Equivalent f-stop only holds true if exposure *varies in exact proportion to sensor size*, but exposure is the one thing we keep *constant* in photography.
_


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2016)

Mostly I see this argument used to help push that crop sensor cameras are "better" than fullframe (within the same sensor generation)' which goes against the grain of understanding and thus gets talked about a lot. Which gets those saying such a lot of attention - ergo clicks on their videos/sites - ergo money from ads. It also bolsters the view that crop sensor isn't "lesser" and thus lots of people who have crop sensors flock to such stats as a way to defend their camera against the big evil fullframers.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 18, 2016)

Yeah, but after you apply some misleading made-up bell curves, the crop sensors looks really good on paper!


----------



## fmw (Jul 18, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> of course you would get more blur in the background with full frame vs crop sensor,



Maybe.  It would depend on the lens focal length of the lens, camera to subject difference and the aperture.



> if i shoot a portrait using 2.8  with APSC and you do the same thing with 2.8 with a full frame the image with the full frame will have more exposure in it  (more light)



Not at the same aperture.  The amount of light that reaches the sensor is the same on any lens or format at the same f stop.



> your a liar if you say different , and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this..



I must be a liar then.  Bokeh is about the blur in the out of focus areas.  But it is about the appearance of that blur not the amount of it.



> Others can decide for them self what is correct..  lol



They always do.  No need to be belligerent.  You may have the right concept and simply don't explain it properly.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## fmw (Jul 18, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> and it's mention here by en expert here about the sensor size having a great deal to do with it as well.



I would suggest that it doesn't have a great deal to do with it.  It has a little to do with it.  What has a great deal to do with it is the requirement to have a shorter lens in order to achieve the same image size and subject distance in the crop camera.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 18, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> if i shoot a portrait using 2.8  with APSC and you do the same thing with 2.8 with a full frame the image with the full frame will have more exposure in it  (more light)
> 
> your a liar if you say different...




Dear Sir,

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Signed,
Truth.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 18, 2016)

wow, just wow.

Carry on ...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 18, 2016)

There is any interesting phenomenon that, once certain kinds of people commit to a certain stance, then facts that show the opposite just make their commitment stronger.


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2016)

Actually its more that humans in general are very believing in the first bit of information we receive regarding something. Thus it takes considerable effort to change our viewpoint away from that first impression.



However there are indeed people who are very hard to move on subjects; part of it is because most people don't study photography; they pick up bits here and there online and in chat and through their own experiences. Cobbled together understanding often leaves huge gaps (esp in theory) which lets any number of wrong ideas slip into place - sometimes (many timeS) they are simply simplifications from teaching theory without the remainder of the theory applied; so they kind of make sense but don't if you actually know what is really going on.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jul 18, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh.  You never want to post anything about it to TPF.  If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge.  There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.
> ...



No, you have quoted another *opinion* that's not the same thing as proof.

When I use a FF camera to meter a scene and then use my medium format camera to meter the scene, the exposure will be pretty much the same.  The only difference being the RGB exposure processor each camera has, provided you are using the same reference point to meter from.

Edited to Add:

What's really sticking at me is that you have posted this erroneous post in the beginner's section.  I don't think it's the section to have an entrenched position on something as controversial as bokeh.  You come over as if you are trying to educate the beginners yet when faced with criticism you call those that level the criticism at you as liars.

That's how to educate beginners?  Not very helpful.  Perhaps this thread should be moved to photographic discussions as I don't think it belongs here in beginners.  Two reasons: it's too technical, and secondly it's so full of inaccuracies and argumentativeness that it won't help any beginner.


----------



## goodguy (Jul 18, 2016)

Why do I love my constant f2.8 lenses ?

First let me tell you I mostly shoot them wide open at f2.8

1.I get to shoot wide open thus my ISO is lower, thus my image is cleaner
2.At f2.8 these lenses are already very sharp
3.I shoot open to get blurry background, yes if you can get closer then that's great but what if you cant ?

Slower lenses can be very good in some condition, fast lenses offer you flexibility you cant get with slow lenses.
Looking at one fact is a lens is nice for theoretical debate, what you really need to do is look at all the pro's and con's of a lens and decide if its the tool for you are not.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 18, 2016)

I use f/2.8 to isolate my subjects from the background.
The Bokeh, then dependent upon the lens, may be nice and smooth or maybe jagged. This is more lens dependent and requires a thread on it's own.

What exact lens are we talking about .. the Nikon 70-200/2.8?  which version of it ?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 18, 2016)

Ok, have a feeling I'll probably regret this, but here goes.  So as GG points out, one of the big reasons for buying a faster lens is flexibility.  I use a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 myself, and so far at least even though it is an older model without the OS features I get results that I consider to be very satisfactory.

My reason for buying such a lens is, like GG says, flexibility.  On it's own the lens allows me to shoot out to 200mm at 2.8, and if I need more DOF I can always stop down the lens.  Even handheld it is possible to get very good, sharp pictures at 2.8 as long as you understand how your DOF will affect the final outcome.

This shot, for example, was taken wide open at 2.8.  It still appears sharp because the subject is mostly perpendicular to the camera's point of focus, so a shot like this really doesn't require a deeper DOF:




20160703_2547 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

Now if I wanted to I could stop down the lens but in this case I'm shooting at ISO 6400 because of a lack of good lighting.  So my other option would be to drop my shutter speed, but at 1/200 on a non-OS lens then I might start introducing camera shake or motion blur if the critter decides to move.  So by shooting at 2.8 I maximize my potential for getting a nice, sharp shot even in bad lighting conditions.

So we move on to sample 2, and another reason why a 2.8 telephoto can be so darn flexible.  In this case I'm a good distance away from a small, fast moving subject.  So I add in a 2x teleconverter, and my 200 mm lens now becomes a 400 mm lens.




20160717_4592 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

The TC costs me 2 F-stops, so my 2.8 now becomes a 5.6, but that still allows me to have enough light to maintain autofocus on the camera.   I couldn't do that if my lens were a 5.6 to start with.  So now I'm shooting at 400mm, ISO 1100.  I could open the lens a bit but instead I decided to stop it down, I've got a big, flat fluffy target and I'd like a little more DOF - and since I have enough available light I decide to stop down to 7.1.  I've got a nice fast shutter speed of 1/800 so I don't have to worry if Mr. Squirrel suddenly darts off one direction or another:

I carry both a 1.4x and 2x TC with me, so my 70-200 mm can be a 280mm F4, or a 400mm F5.6 just by adding one of the two TC's.  This makes it incredibly flexible and gives me a ton of options without forcing me to carry a lot of different lenses.

So yes, if I want more separation between my subject and the background one of my options is to open the aperture, but it's not my only option.  I can also change my distance to the subject, or when possible (and for what I shoot it's almost never possible) change the distance between the subject and the background.

But truthfully for me and a lot of other folks that separation is not the real reason to buy fast, 2.8 lenses.  It's the flexibility they provide in a variety of shooting situations.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 18, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, have a feeling I'll probably regret this, but here goes.  So as GG points out, one of the big reasons for buying a faster lens is flexibility.  I use a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 myself, and so far at least even though it is an older model without the OS features I get results that I consider to be very satisfactory.
> 
> My reason for buying such a lens is, like GG says, flexibility.  On it's own the lens allows me to shoot out to 200mm at 2.8, and if I need more DOF I can always stop down the lens.  Even handheld it is possible to get very good, sharp pictures at 2.8 as long as you understand how your DOF will affect the final outcome.
> 
> ...


Definitely,
The increased flexibility of a modern FF sensor and f/2.8 or faster lens in anything but optimum lighting is utterly fantastic as you found out.   When I had my d7000 (which was the top of the low light APS-C camp at the time) compared to my d600 wasn't really comparable.  I was sold at that point.

Many will use f/1.8 or f/2.8 simply because they have it and not understand why they would use it.  Once you understand the flexibility that you have it's just pure awesomeness


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2016)

Tell you what people - how about we treat this thread and those in it with some respect. Lets accept that some people might be wrong and seek to educate them through approved sources, detailed replies and conversation.

If you want to act childish go down to off-topic.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 18, 2016)

It's a fairly complex topic that includes a lot of variables, making it difficult to discuss.   I don't think it helps matters that there are several terms that are commonly misunderstood involved, like bokeh.  

I guess the thing I notice is that so many folks out there try so hard to "equate" a crop sensor camera to a full frame camera, and that's where a lot of the confusion seems to start occurring because in truth you really can't equate the two.

I see so many folks saying things like a "35mm lens on a 1.5 crop sensor is the same as an 50mm lens on full frame" but that isn't really true.  They will both give you roughly the same FOV, but that's pretty much where the "equivalence" ends.  They are different lenses, so they have different characteristics that will all have an effect on the final outcome.  You can't really "equate" the two - just like you can't really equate a 50mm D model lens to a 50mm G model - there are differences in their design and construction that will cause variations in the final output.

Start adding in "equivalent F-Stop" and you get an extremely confusing morass that turns into a Gordian knot situation almost instantly.

So yup, I stick with my original assessment.  The first rule of Bokeh, don't talk about Bokeh.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 18, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> There is any interesting phenomenon that, once certain kinds of people commit to a certain stance, then facts that show the opposite just make their commitment stronger.


You're wrong about that.
And I am sure of it and there's nothing you can say to change my mind !!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 18, 2016)

As I've said before, Bokeh is largely a myth. There are, indeed, different lens designs that affect how OOF portions are rendered, but the assertion that one lens design does it "better" than any other isn't true. I have seen lenses that when looking at the "bokeh balls" or whatever the technical term might be for them, they have all the hallmarks of "bad" bokeh.

The rendering of OOF regions is the sum of very complex parts, of which aesthetics is of many; Frequently what many may hail as "creamy" i personally see as "mushy".


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 18, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> You're wrong about that.
> And I am sure of it and there's nothing you can say to change my mind !!



Well of course I'm wrong about that.. but you really missed out on a golden opportunity to tell me how ugly I am and how my mom dresses me so funny.

Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 18, 2016)

unpopular said:


> As I've said before, Bokeh is largely a myth.



Kinda like the loch ness bigfoot?



> I have seen lenses that when looking at the "bokeh balls" or whatever the technical term might be for them, they have all the hallmarks of "bad" bokeh.



Hey, my eyes are up here buddy... sheesh...


----------



## chuasam (Jul 18, 2016)

I love my 70-200 f/2.8 but i'm starting to use it less and less and favour my 85mm F/1.8
I find that the smaller my camera/lens combo is, the more playful and spontaneous my images.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 18, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I love my 70-200 f/2.8 but i'm starting to use it less and less and favour my 85mm F/1.8
> I find that the smaller my camera/lens combo is, the more playful and spontaneous my images.


I guess a lot depends on what you shoot and where.  I had an 85mm for a while but ended up  selling it.

I needed more reach in a lot of places, but that wasn't so much it.. the CA at least on the one I had was horrible.  I mostly used it indoors at the zoo, and the only way to prevent the CA from being overwhelming was to stop down the lens to the point where I might as well be using a slower lens.  So, sold mine.

Get a ton of use out of the 70-200, I can throw it on the camera and take a couple of tcs along and it covers about 95% of what I need.  Only really need shorter than 70 in a couple of places, so I can always head back to the car and swap for the 28-75 at that point.  Works pretty well for me at least

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## thereyougo! (Jul 18, 2016)

I think the one point I agree with the OP on is that bokeh does tend to be a fad.  It's overused by gear-heads to show off their f/1.4 lenses and showing how awesome they are shooting wide open even if the shot is poorly composed and poorly exposed.

"I shot this wide open.  Woah, man, look at that bokeh!  I'm an awesome photographer!"

At the end of the day it can be used as a composition device when used correctly, but shooting wide open just to get a bokeh is as cliche as a red sun over an ocean, except less perrrty.

All this is opinion of course, not fact, YMMV and all that...


----------



## otherprof (Jul 18, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > many people go out and buy an expensive lens for the wrong reasons,  many will go out and buy lets say a Nikon 70-200 2.8 thinking ok they are oging to get sharp pictures and good bokah..
> ...


Not to be confused with "Bokar" which was a coffee sold by A&P years ago.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 18, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> many people go out and buy an expensive lens for the wrong reasons,  many will go out and buy lets say a Nikon 70-200 2.8 thinking ok they are oging to get sharp pictures and good bokah... [continued nonsensical gibberish]



This ol'e boy's got a whole lotta stupid in him...

Got to be a troll, just trying to yank people's chains. Or a first year photography student from one of those online diploma mills that sat through a few classes and then came in here to 'school' us poor, ignorant amateurs.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 18, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> I think the one point I agree with the OP on is that bokeh does tend to be a fad.  It's overused by gear-heads to show off their f/1.4 lenses and showing how awesome they are shooting wide open even if the shot is poorly composed and poorly exposed.
> 
> "I shot this wide open.  Woah, man, look at that bokeh!  I'm an awesome photographer!"
> 
> ...



Not sure I quite agree, though excessive use of very limited dof does seem to be an early phase that hopefully can be gotten over quickly (along with the glowing globes of specular reflections). 

I find the way a lens renders to be quite important, and I do notice and value those with soft bokeh. Even in this thread there are examples of images shot with very narrow dof that are deliberately designed to look sharp, to fool the eye to a certain extent. It's kind of the opposite of the 'look at the oof' as they are saying more in the line of 'don't let it distract you, look at the subject'. So I find that the way certain lenses draw to be very important. It does not just apply to wide open either but affects when stopped down a couple of stops.

What I find over-rated though is the classification of bokeh on every lens as though it's a prime importance for wide open photography. It is true that there are some lenses that have a special character, and some that are quite distracting. But in the middle is a whole bunch of similar lenses who's bokeh is defined more by background choice than any special characteristic.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 18, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> I think the one point I agree with the OP on is that bokeh does tend to be a fad.  It's overused by gear-heads to show off their f/1.4 lenses and showing how awesome they are shooting wide open even if the shot is poorly composed and poorly exposed.



Tell me the images this lens creates is just a fad:

The 58mm F/1.4G Thread

looking at this thread again seriously makes me wanna smash my 50mm 1.8G.  The way it renders OOF area is amazing. the transitions are so smooth and pleasing forming into pillow clouds of color...ahhhhhh, i want to bathe in those clouds.

the 50mm 1.8G is harsh, nervous, and nasty in comparison.  Yeah it's also a sharp lens; big whoop.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 18, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> I think the one point I agree with the OP on is that bokeh does tend to be a fad.  It's overused by gear-heads to show off their f/1.4 lenses and showing how awesome they are shooting wide open even if the shot is poorly composed and poorly exposed.
> 
> "I shot this wide open.  Woah, man, look at that bokeh!  I'm an awesome photographer!"
> 
> ...



You seem to be making one of the same errors the OP made. Bokeh is not blur. The area in a photo that is not sharp due to DOF fall off behind and before the focus plane is not bokeh. Bokeh is the visual/aesthetic appearance of the blur but not the blur itself. This is a common misconception.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Jul 18, 2016)

I think you can describe bokeh in terms of subjective qualities: swirly, creamy, mushy, distracting, noisey - etc. But I don't think you can say "lens a has better bokeh than lens b". I don't think it's something that can be objectively defined like that.

There are aspects that contribute to each of these things that can be, things like chromatic aberration, coma, etc - things that accumulate into what we see as "bokeh" - but these things we knew of before some white dude misappropriated a Japanese term to mean something it doesn't in order to add mystique and false credence to a concept that was essentially fabricated.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 18, 2016)

bokeh  ==> Bokeh hounds, do not read this thread..... Gear Porn!


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 19, 2016)

For the record, this thread is a true horror trip. It starts by being a misnomer, since it claims to be about lens quality but really isnt, and then gets increasingly more awful after.


Depth of field (DOF) isnt very complex or hard to understand. It depends upon:

- Distance to subject/focus plane (larger distances increase DOF by square; double distance has approx 4x DOF)

- Focal length (longer focal length lowers DOF by square; double focal length has approx 1/4 DOF)

- Aperture (smaller apertures increase DOF by approx half square; one stop smaller aperture gives about 1.4x DOF)

- Sensor resolution (higher resultion/smaller pixel lower DOF in a linear way; a 12 Megapixel sensor will see 2x DOF of a 50 Megapixel sensor of same size)

See also online calculators such as Online Depth of Field Calculator


Bokeh as mentioned is the quality of the out of focus (OOF) areas. It has absolutely nothing to do with number or form of aperture blades, but depends upon the construction of the lens itself.

Ideally one wants a gaussian blurr which means the central point of an out of focus source of light has a maximum and will then decrease in intensity outside of this point. This would allow to mush the background into a pleasing pastel of colors.





Tim Tucker said:


> (though dof is affected by sensor size),


 Even if its often claimed otherwise - sensor size itself has nothing to do with DOF. Obviously a sensor can only record light - but wont manipulate it like a lens and thus wont have any influence about whats in focus and what isnt.

Sensor size instead specifies what viewing angle a certain focal length translates into. A full frame sensor ~36x24mm will require a 50mm focal length while an APS-C sensor ~24x16mm, crop factor 1.5, will require a 35mm focal length and a Micro Four Thirds sensor 17x13.3mm, crop factor 2.0, will require a 25mm focal length, all for the same viewing angle. Thus the same viewing angle with have less DOF on a larger sensor.





astroNikon said:


> bokeh  ==> Bokeh hounds, do not read this thread..... Gear Porn!


 Um ... IMHO "gear porn" requires actually *desireable* gear ... IMHO a no-name russian lens doesnt fit that bill.

And this obsession with tons of aperture blades is illogical too. If I want a lens with a lot of Bokeh, I will probably shoot it wide open. At which point the number of blades matters ZIP. It also hasnt much influence later on.

As a general rule, I want 9 or 7 aperture blades for best sun stars. They might be rounded for lower apertures, but at f/11 and upwards they should be straight because otherwise there wont be sunstars.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 19, 2016)

unpopular said:


> I think you can describe bokeh in terms of subjective qualities: swirly, creamy, mushy, distracting, noisey - etc. But I don't think you can say "lens a has better bokeh than lens b". I don't think it's something that can be objectively defined like that.



correct, it's subjective.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jul 19, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > I think the one point I agree with the OP on is that bokeh does tend to be a fad.  It's overused by gear-heads to show off their f/1.4 lenses and showing how awesome they are shooting wide open even if the shot is poorly composed and poorly exposed.
> ...



I phrased myself poorly.  I was talking about the effect.  Much like other effects, it _*can*_ be overused and become a cliché.  Certain clichés become trendy.  Much like the selective colour, it sometimes has a good look when used sparingly but can be annoying when overused.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 19, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> For the record, this thread is a true horror trip.



Yep.



Solarflare said:


> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> > (though dof is affected by sensor size),
> ...



Tim is correct. We've been through this before: I just learned about f-stop equivalency...

Industry standard definition of DOF and formula used to calculate DOF include sensor size as a determinant factor.






That's the standard formula for calculating hyperfocal distance. H is hyperfocal distance, f is focal length, N is f/stop and c is circle of confusion.  *The value for circle of confusion is calculated based on sensor size (see referenced thread).*

See: Online Depth of Field Calculator
A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator
Depth of Field (DoF) calculator | PhotoPills
Tools: Canon depth-of-field calculator - Canon Professional Network


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 19, 2016)




----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 19, 2016)

NOW I remember why I stopped participating on this forum a year or so ago... nothing has changed.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 19, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> > (though dof is affected by sensor size),
> ...



I agree with what you say. Except this, because you forgot to add that dof is calculated by viewing a standard 10"x 8" print so the degree of enlargement (magnification) has a direct effect as well.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 19, 2016)

Always a Flat-Earther out there...


----------

