# Bokeh on Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 II APO EX DG Macro



## LuckySo-n-So (Oct 24, 2009)

Not bad.
Nikon D90
F2.8
1/100 sec
ISO 400
LSU v. Auburn, October 23, 2009


----------



## Ub3rdoRK (Oct 25, 2009)

hand held?


----------



## PatrickHMS (Oct 25, 2009)

Ahhhhhh!

Fall colors...


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Oct 25, 2009)

Ub3rdoRK said:


> hand held?


 

Yes.


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2009)

Ya, not very nice at all on the bokeh, all squared off and nowhere near round, soft, and creamy.

I count that the lens has an aperture with only 6 blades. To bad. The best bokeh comes with around 9 blades like Nikon's Cream Machine, the 85 mm f/1.4.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Oct 25, 2009)

FML


----------



## Sinister_kid (Oct 26, 2009)

What the hell is Bokeh?


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 26, 2009)

Spend 5 minutes and learn.


----------



## Ub3rdoRK (Oct 26, 2009)

..interesting i didnt know different amount of blades made different shape bokeh. Now im glad im getting the 80-200 f2.8 D fron Nikon!


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 26, 2009)

You can make your own bokeh shapes if you want...

DIY - Create your own Bokeh | DIYPhotography.net


----------



## Montana (Oct 26, 2009)

I am sorry, but that out of focus background is not very "pleasing" to me.  Of course, its largely due to whats IN the background that is so distracting.   Fantastic subject though!


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Oct 26, 2009)

Montana said:


> I am sorry, but that out of focus background is not very "pleasing" to me. Of course, its largely due to whats IN the background that is so distracting. Fantastic subject though!


 
Hmm.  Thanks for all of your helpful replies.  I guess it's just my LSU homerism coming through, but I love the way the purple, gold(yellow), and white are rendered behind the cheerleader, kind of like a Seurat painting. However, once you get out of the stands, and see the people on the sidelines, I can understand how that may not be so pleasing to someone.

I also understand that a Sigma is not going to produce the results of a Nikkor 1.8 prime or a Canon "L" series lens.

It seems I may be missing the boat on the elusive "Bokeh."  I'm less than a year into this endeavour, so I'll take any help I can get.

How about an example to show me where my eye is lacking?

How about this photo?  I have been led to assume that this is not bokeh, but just a shallow depth of field.
Shot with a $150 Sigma 70-300.






Thanks again for your comments! :cheers:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 26, 2009)

That's bokeh to me!

Bokeh is essentially a fancy name for the out of focus blur... Looks great in that last photo and I think the only reason it stands out so much in the first one is because of the heavy contrasting colors.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 26, 2009)

Did ANYone look at my link? :banghead:


----------



## Derrel (Oct 26, 2009)

I went and listened to Martin's post 181, but he did a poor job of describing bokeh--good job telling people how to pronounce the word, but not much real information. I posted this the other day...these links come from people who are kind of "into" bokeh, including the fellow who introduced the convept to the English-speaking work back in the late 1990's.

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

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights, Tale 32 : Ai AF DC Nikkor 135 mm f/2S
Nikon lens designer talking about the 135mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control lens and how undercorrected spherical aberration leads to an almost ideal out of focus blurring in the background areas. This and the Nikon 105mm D.C. lens have user-adjustable bokeh.


http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bokeh

Silverbased | Bokeh: What it is and isn&#8217;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


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 27, 2009)

KmH said:


> I count that the lens has an aperture with only 6 blades. To bad. The best bokeh comes with around 9 blades like Nikon's Cream Machine, the 85 mm f/1.4.



You're wrong. Both lenses have 9 aperture blades.


----------



## FidelCastrovich (Oct 27, 2009)

Gotta say i'm not loving the bokeh.
Seems busy and nervous, to use a word i recently learnt could be used to describe bokeh. The colors are nice, but it's nowhere near creamy.


----------



## Montana (Oct 27, 2009)

Background has a ton to do with how the out of focus area appears.  The first shot is very busy with similar repeating shapes.  (round heads of fans in the stadium)  Also many different colors as well.  As you read through the posts, you can almost catch a glimse of "bokeh".  Its a quality that is subject to ones personal opinion.  Some of the posters like the shot, some don't.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Oct 28, 2009)

Montana said:


> As you read through the posts, you can almost catch a glimse of "bokeh". Its a quality that is subject to ones personal opinion. Some of the posters like the shot, some don't.


 

I've read through all of the posts and most of the links.  After having done so, I've come to the conclusion that "bokeh" is _*PROBABLY*_ an overrated term that is mostly a bunch of bull**** that gives snooty photography snobs one more thing to ***** about.  I kind of liken it to comparing "Two Buck Chuck" wine to a '62 Lafitte--"The best bokeh can only come from a Mamiya RB67 using a 90mm f/1.325 Sonnar lens made during the third week of August, 1959.  Therefore, bokeh from all other lenses is pure garbage.  You shouldn't even take photos." (this is not a direct quote...just a made-up example)

 The most important thing I read in the links was that," if you like it it's good bokeh.  If you don't like it, it's bad bokeh."

Well, I like it.  It pleases me!  :mrgreen:

Thanks again for all of your replies and the lively debate!

:cheers:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 28, 2009)

Don't take it so personally.

I think the vast majority like 'creamy' bokeh vs 'nervous' bokeh, so it's not overrated BS. It's what appeals to the masses.

If bokeh distracts from the main subject, it becomes an issue. If bokeh does it's job and makes the subject stand out against an otherwise distracting background, it becomes an asset.

That said, the end result is up to the photographer - if it turned out in a way that you intended, great. However being able to accept that it could have turned out better with other (usually more expensive) equipment is something a lot of us need to deal with.

Take this shot for example, the flowers in the background would have certainly messed up this shot - but with good bokeh I was able to blur it out and make the subject stand out more. With a lens like the cream machine it would have really popped, but I can't afford it so I make do with what I have.

Click to view if you wish, I don't want to post my photo in your thread.
http://photos.naumans.com/Photography/Photo-Walks/Rochester/DSC9217/651580888_c3qmi-L.jpg


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 28, 2009)

I think you're right that most prefer the creamy to the nervous bokeh... but then again I would suggest that a decent part of that is the background's shapes and colors etc. When you have all those different colors it is going to make the background look very as was said nervous because you'll get the roundedness around each image, however if what was in the background was much larger (than all the little people) I believe it would be a much smoother background. 

If the example Noyze had given had the same variations in the background it would have looked similar and people would probably still find it "nervous" but his has a much more neutral background which isn't as distracting and is thus to many eyes more pleasing.


----------



## Montana (Oct 28, 2009)

LuckySo-n-So said:


> The most important thing I read in the links was that," if you like it it's good bokeh. If you don't like it, it's bad bokeh."
> 
> Well, I like it. It pleases me! :mrgreen:
> 
> ...


 

Bingo


----------

