# Bokeh or not?



## ecphoto (May 13, 2012)

I notice that some people go nuts and some use hardly any bokeh.

What's more important?  Isolating your subject or getting tack sharp focusing?

I have a copy of focal point2 so I can always add it later if the picture seems to need it.

Just wondering what other think about it.


----------



## ann (May 13, 2012)

Perhaps your thinking of depth of field rather than bokeh. Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus area which is a product of the specific lens.

Use the combination of lens, fstop and focusing distance that gives you the "look" you want.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 13, 2012)

ecphoto said:
			
		

> I notice that some people go nuts and some use hardly any bokeh.
> 
> What's more important?  Isolating your subject or getting tack sharp focusing?
> 
> ...



Computer generated DoF is nothing like doing it in camera.


----------



## rpm (May 13, 2012)

tack sharp focusing?....technically you can achieve tack sharp with a 1.4 lens...if you nail the DoF and your focus point correctly. the use of 'bokeh' depends on what you're trying to achieve with it and if it add to the look you're after...


----------



## Patriot (May 13, 2012)

I didn't even know you could do that out of camera. Why spend that much money on a program when you can do it yourself.


----------



## Garbz (May 13, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> What's more important?  Isolating your subject or getting tack sharp focusing?



Isolating the subject is not important. Directing the eye of the viewer is important. You can do that in many different ways. Drawing converging lines is one way, using someone else's eyes to draw the viewer to try and find where they are looking is another. Even a busy and sharp background can still allow you to draw attention to a subject for instance if it is a repeating pattern and the subject is a stand out. Bokeh happens to be one of the easier ways when the background is completely out of control.


----------



## rpm (May 13, 2012)

if you're using Photoshop....you already have a program that can do it. its not a 'dedicated' bokeh program...assuming you use anything beyond Lightroom to do your edits you can create a fake sense of bokeh but really its just blurring the background. it wont look anywhere near the real thing


----------



## KmH (May 13, 2012)

Bokeh is not adjustable. It's an inherent quality of a lens design. There are 2 kinds of bokeh - cream cheese bokeh and hollywood bokeh. Cream cheese bokeh is very smooth and uniform. Hollywood bokeh is nice very round  specular highlights.

The number and shape of the lens aperture blades and the blade edges has a lot to do with the quality of the bokeh a lens produces. Optical design also plays a part.

Canon's inexpensive, 5 blade (straight), 50 mm f/1.8 II lens is renouned for the low quality, nervous, garring, jittery bokeh it produces, while Nikon's 9 blade (curved), AF 85 mm f/1.4 is nicknamed "The Cream Machine" because of the silky smooth, cream cheese type bokeh it produces.


----------



## caseysrt (May 13, 2012)

I've not read all of the replies so sorry if this has already been said.

For me, when I use bokeh depends on two things:

1: Do I want the background to be a part of the overall mood of the photo.

2: Is the background busy (distracting) such as random branches, a bright sign behind the subject, etc.


----------



## ecphoto (May 13, 2012)

KmH said:


> Bokeh is not adjustable. It's an inherent quality of a lens design. There are 2 kinds of bokeh - cream cheese bokeh and hollywood bokeh. Cream cheese bokeh is very smooth and uniform. Hollywood bokeh is nice very round  specular highlights.
> 
> The number and shape of the lens aperture blades and the blade edges has a lot to do with the quality of the bokeh a lens produces. Optical design also plays a part.
> 
> Canon's inexpensive, 5 blade (straight), 50 mm f/1.8 II lens is renouned for the low quality, nervous, garring, jittery bokeh it produces, while Nikon's 9 blade (curved), AF 85 mm f/1.4 is nicknamed "The Cream Machine" because of the silky smooth, cream cheese type bokeh it produces.


Thanks KMH, you've explained it really well. I've never really understood it before now. I'm on a tight budget, what would kind of prime would you recommend to get those cream cheese results? I shoot canon(APSc).


----------



## KmH (May 13, 2012)

Define 'tight budget' in dollars, but it will depend on the prime lens focal length you want. Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

You won't likely get superior bokeh from *any* consumer grade (tight budget) prime lens, because the best consumer grade lenses usually only have 7 aperture blades.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 13, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Bokeh is not adjustable. It's an inherent quality of a lens design. There are 2 kinds of bokeh - cream cheese bokeh and hollywood bokeh. Cream cheese bokeh is very smooth and uniform. Hollywood bokeh is nice very round  specular highlights.
> ...



The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good choice. Pretty high optical quality, and it has 8 aperture blades which produces far more pleasing renditions of out of focus areas. The lens can be had for ~$350, and is very worth it when compared to the 50mm f/1.8. It was the first prime lens I bought, and I still use it regularly.


----------



## table1349 (May 13, 2012)

KmH said:


> Bokeh is not adjustable. It's an inherent quality of a lens design. There are 2 kinds of bokeh - cream cheese bokeh and hollywood bokeh. Cream cheese bokeh is very smooth and uniform. Hollywood bokeh is nice very round  specular highlights.
> 
> The number and shape of the lens aperture blades and the blade edges has a lot to do with the quality of the bokeh a lens produces. Optical design also plays a part.
> 
> Canon's inexpensive, 5 blade (straight), 50 mm f/1.8 II lens is renouned for the low quality, nervous, garring, jittery bokeh it produces, while Nikon's 9 blade (curved), AF 85 mm f/1.4 is nicknamed "The Cream Machine" because of the silky smooth, cream cheese type bokeh it produces.



You are correct in what you say, except you contradict yourself.  There are 3 types of Bokeh.  Cream Cheese Bokeh, Hollywood Bokeh, and the cheap 50mm crap Bokeh that you describe.  There are only two desirable forms of Bokeh.


----------



## Steve5D (May 13, 2012)

My favorite is the Canon 85mm f/1.8.

I love that thing...


----------



## Dao (May 13, 2012)

I like my Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 as well. One of my favorite lens.


Photo taken with aperture set at f/2.8


----------



## Steve5D (May 13, 2012)

Yeah, it's hard not to completely dig that lens...


----------



## ecphoto (May 13, 2012)

KmH said:


> Define 'tight budget' in dollars, but it will depend on the prime lens focal length you want. Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
> 
> You won't likely get superior bokeh from *any* consumer grade (tight budget) prime lens, because the best consumer grade lenses usually only have 7 aperture blades.


 
I need an EF-S lens and can spring between 300-400 at the moment.

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ecphoto (May 13, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


 
Would you say that 50 or 85mm is better for portraiture?

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## o hey tyler (May 13, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > ecphoto said:
> ...



They're both usable for portraiture. The 50mm will be a more versatile focal length for everyday shooting, but the 85mm will have a shallower DoF due to the focal length. I usually shoot portraits with an 85mm on a full frame camera. 

Why do you say you need an EF-s lens?


----------



## ecphoto (May 14, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


 
I'm shooting with a 550D with the 1.6x crop factor. I could us an EF lens, but I had a bunch of problems in the past when I went from Minolta to Sony digital...I had 35mm lenses with a crop sensor. My experience would probably be thousand times better since its Canon, but I'm chicken and don't want to risk barrel distortion or CA lol


----------



## Buckster (May 14, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > ecphoto said:
> ...


You won't have those kinds of problems at all using EF lenses on crop cameras.  In fact, just the opposite because those problems happen on the outer edges, and the crop sensor will isolate thoes problems away by using the middle of the EF lenses only.

Eventually, you may want to step up to a full frame camera, and then those EF-s lenses will no longer work for you on the new camera, and you'll wish you'd gotten the full frame EF lenses instead.


----------



## ecphoto (May 14, 2012)

Buckster said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


 
Buck,
I've seen a lot of used EF lenses that are older from even before digital selling for cheap. Think if I went that route I'd have slow focusing issues?


----------



## Dao (May 14, 2012)

All Canon EOS series cameras (Digital or film based) works with all EF mount lenses.  In addition to the EF mount, those EOS digital cameras with a cropped sensor can also works with Canon EF-S mount lenses.   (EDIT: there are exception in some old cropped digital body that it use EF mount lens only)

In your case, your camera will take both EF and EF-S lenses.


As for lens selling for cheap.  The price usually reflects the quality of the lens whether it is old or new.   I used to have a EF 50mm f/1.8 MK1  lens made in the 80's.  Of course it works on all my cropped Canon EOS digital cameras.  And I sold the lens for higher than a new EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII.  It is because the market price of that lens is higher because of the lens build quality as well as few other things, even it is old and used.

Slow focus or not, it depends on the lens.  You can buy a new lens in EF-S mount without USM while some old EF lenses has USM.  Of course, those has USM (Ultra Sonic Motor, I believe) should focus faster.

For example, the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens were introduced back in 1992 while the EF-S 18-200mm IS lens (introduce in 2008) use micro-motor only.  I am pretty sure that the EF 85mm is must faster in AF than the EF-S 18-200mm lens.


----------



## Buckster (May 14, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> Buck,
> I've seen a lot of used EF lenses that are older from even before digital selling for cheap. Think if I went that route I'd have slow focusing issues?


As Dao said, it's really going to depend on the lens.  Cheap lenses are cheap for a reason, and it's usually because they're slow - either optically or mechanically or both.

If it's way too cheap for what it is, it's probably damaged, though there is always the possibility that the person selling doesn't know the worth of it, or just needs immediate cash.


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 14, 2012)

KmH said:


> Bokeh is not adjustable. It's an inherent quality of a lens design. There are 2 kinds of bokeh - cream cheese bokeh and hollywood bokeh. Cream cheese bokeh is very smooth and uniform. Hollywood bokeh is nice very round  specular highlights.
> 
> The number and shape of the lens aperture blades and the blade edges has a lot to do with the quality of the bokeh a lens produces. Optical design also plays a part.
> 
> Canon's inexpensive, 5 blade (straight), 50 mm f/1.8 II lens is renouned for the low quality, nervous, garring, jittery bokeh it produces, while Nikon's 9 blade (curved), AF 85 mm f/1.4 is nicknamed "The Cream Machine" because of the silky smooth, cream cheese type bokeh it produces.



MMMMMM, tasty!


----------



## ecphoto (May 15, 2012)

Buckster said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Buck,
> ...


 
Very true, I can't cheap my way to quality LOL. When I used to shoot Minolta A-mount I would check the quality of new or used lenses on dynax digital, is there a website like that for Canon ?


I'm also looking into getting a telephoto lens

http://www.adorama.com/SG5020045EOS.html

Or

http://www.adorama.com/TM75300EOS.html

Are either any good?

P.s. thanks for all the help and advice everyone.


----------



## Dao (May 15, 2012)

If you looking for low cost telephoto zoom lens, you can take a look at the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS lens.


Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Retest @ 15mp / Review


----------



## sovietdoc (May 15, 2012)

Using DoF is just like using any other "technique."  It has a number of uses, if photographer understands what it does and how to use it, he will be able to use it as a tool to get the result he has envisioned.  There are too many shots when people use DoF poorly.  Too much or too little can quickly ruin the shot.



> As Dao said, it's really going to depend on the lens.  Cheap lenses are  cheap for a reason, and it's usually because they're slow - either  optically or mechanically or both.



Well, Canon's 85mil f/1.2L isn't really "cheap" but it's pretty darn slow to focus


----------



## Dikkie (May 16, 2012)

rpm said:


> if you're using Photoshop....you already have a program that can do it. its not a 'dedicated' bokeh program...assuming you use anything beyond Lightroom to do your edits you can create a fake sense of bokeh but really its just blurring the background. it wont look anywhere near the real thing



Exactly, a blur with photoshop looks totally different. Example:


----------



## Dikkie (May 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> They're both usable for portraiture. The 50mm will be a more versatile  focal length for everyday shooting, but the 85mm will have a shallower  DoF due to the focal length. I usually shoot portraits with an 85mm on a  full frame camera.


Exactly.

I just made an example to show a nice difference:

This one is a 85mm Nikkor F1.8, shot at F2.2:






While this one is shot with a Sigma 30mm F1.4 at F2.2 aswel:






They're shot a different day, with different light conditions, but about  the blur or bokeh or whatever... I'm more happy with the 85mm lens.
The advantage of the 30mm lens is that you're more flexible...  for example to shoot streetphotos.


----------



## Buckster (May 16, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> rpm said:
> 
> 
> > if you're using Photoshop....you already have a program that can do it. its not a 'dedicated' bokeh program...assuming you use anything beyond Lightroom to do your edits you can create a fake sense of bokeh but really its just blurring the background. it wont look anywhere near the real thing
> ...


The settings in the aperture shot gave the lighting on the tower more brightness, and there's even a slightly different white balance that took that light from a magenta to a red, so it's tough to really compare the two in a true apples-to-apples way.  Still, at least a better attempt could have been made in Photoshop, IMHO.  I used the lens blur tool:






Don't get me wrong - I agree that nothing beats the natural aperture use for a great bokeh, but in a pinch, Photoshop can be used to achieve quite a bit, and most people would never detect it's a fake.


----------



## Dikkie (May 17, 2012)

You're such a partypooper 
Didn't know that you could do thát with photoshop. Anyway, it's too much work (for me) to photoshop these things afterwards, than that your lens can do it at the time pushing the release button on your camera.

Maybe others won't happen to see, but I can see clearly that this one is a fake right here, because the sharp lines of the moving train are bold aswel. While when shooting this picture with a high aperture, the shutter goes faster and the lines are not visible (see picture bottom left).


----------



## Buckster (May 17, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> You're such a partypooper


LOL!  Somebody's gotta do it!  



Dikkie said:


> Didn't know that you could do thát with photoshop.


Always good to learn more about one's tools.



Dikkie said:


> Anyway, it's too much work (for me) to photoshop these things afterwards, than that your lens can do it at the time pushing the release button on your camera.


Like I said, when in a pinch.  Also, the point was that it _can_ be done in post, not that it _should_.



Dikkie said:


> Maybe others won't happen to see, but I can see clearly that this one is a fake right here, because the sharp lines of the moving train are bold aswel.


I'll boldy suggest that you only know it's a fake because you already know it's a fake, not because there's evidence of it in the processing.  Nobody but you even knows it _IS_ a moving train (because you were there), let alone how far away it is or whether it should be focal blurred or to what degree.



Dikkie said:


> While when shooting this picture with a high aperture, the shutter goes faster and the lines are not visible (see picture bottom left).


Again, you were there, so only you know what it is and whether it should be moving or not.  Unfortunately for your theory, in a night shot like this, apertures are usually not wide enough to stop the motion of a moving train, and therefore light would still leave a streak, so it's expected, and not evidence of a fake, and that's even if the viewer had any clue that it was a moving train.

I think you're just making up excuses at this point.


----------



## ecphoto (May 21, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Dikkie said:
> 
> 
> > You're such a partypooper
> ...


 
Thanks Buck


----------



## daarksun (May 25, 2012)

Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.  

Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less. 

With the cheap and free software today that is what you need to learn. How to use a photoshop, photoimpact or photopaint program and get some plugins from a serif, topaz, machinery hd effects or others.  These aid you with cropping photos, enhancing the colors, sharpness, hue, saturation and so on.  

Spend the money you have wisely. Prime lenses for amatuers is not... unless you have money to throw at the craft.  Good luck with your photography.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 26, 2012)

daarksun said:
			
		

> Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.
> 
> Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less.
> 
> ...



Saying the Canon 50mm f1.8 has "great Bokeh" is just totally false. You get what you pay for, and prime lenses are not specifically geared towards people making an income on photography. You have some pretty far out ideas.


----------



## CaptainWolfe (May 26, 2012)

daarksun said:


> Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.
> 
> Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less.
> 
> ...



I disagree, I would argue that primes, are the best way to learn about composition and the camera. With zoom lenses perspective changes, thats why 85mm is portrait length, and hugely different to 24mm  held closer to the subject. Learning composition and considering the perspective changes, and the flattening or exaggerating properties of different parts of a zoom range on the fly I think brings more variables into the mix and that means a distraction from the image at hand. With a few primes images will be sharper, more likely than not better contrast, more control over DOF, and better low light ability. 

For the used cost of a 28, a 50, and an 85, It's probably worth having both a zoom (for the kids birthday party), and primes (for tripod stuff) really. Just a thought.


----------



## Patriot (May 26, 2012)

daarksun said:


> Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.
> 
> Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less.
> 
> ...


 
What is this crap!? Primes are great for making you learn composition. You always have to move closer to "zoom" and think how your going to make the picture work. What if your doing street photography and cant get too close to a subject(homeless person) without offening them? You now have to think outside the box. You have to think about everything else around your subect because you cant isolate him/her anymore by zooming in. I like all of my primes and do believe that you can use it in every day photography.


----------



## rpm (May 26, 2012)

Patriot said:


> daarksun said:
> 
> 
> > Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.
> ...



totally agree. i started off with the 18-55... got a 50mm 1.8D...the amount i learnt with the prime dwarfed what the 18-55 could teach me in many regards. from aperture control (total fluid control from 1.8-22 is very diff from working from the 'widest' available at a given range) all the way to composition as previously mentioned you had to think, movie and consider a lot of limitations surrounding the lens being used. it came to a point where i sold the 18-55 to aid in my next prime purchase the 85mm 1.4D (second lens in my bag. two primes and no zooms.). to say its only for those making a living from photography is absurd (to which i dont). in that line of thought id hope to not see a f2.8 lens or wider in your bag and only see at best an f4 constant zoom lens....a prime is valuable for anyone knowing what they want to achieve with it. its not the most versatile purchase but its probably one of the most valuable (for those who know what they want from it)


----------



## Tee (May 26, 2012)

caseysrt said:


> I've not read all of the replies so sorry if this has already been said.
> 
> For me, when I use bokeh depends on two things:
> 
> ...



I think you may have bokeh and depth of field confused.  Your 2 points listed above is depth of field.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2012)

daarksun said:


> Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.  Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less. With the cheap and free software today that is what you need to learn. How to use a photoshop, photoimpact or photopaint program and get some plugins from a serif, topaz, machinery hd effects or others.  These aid you with cropping photos, enhancing the colors, sharpness, hue, saturation and so on.  Spend the money you have wisely. Prime lenses for amatuers is not... unless you have money to throw at the craft.  Good luck with your photography.





o hey tyler said:


> daarksun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





CaptainWolfe said:


> daarksun said:
> 
> 
> > Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.  Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less. With the cheap and free software today that is what you need to learn. How to use a photoshop, photoimpact or photopaint program and get some plugins from a serif, topaz, machinery hd effects or others.  These aid you with cropping photos, enhancing the colors, sharpness, hue, saturation and so on.  Spend the money you have wisely. Prime lenses for amatuers is not... unless you have money to throw at the craft.  Good luck with your photography.
> ...





Patriot said:


> daarksun said:
> 
> 
> > Don't waste money on a prime if your on a budget.  Get the canon 50mm f1.8 for a great bokeh, if that is what you want. The lens is very sharp and around $100.   Learn to take great pictures with the cheap lenses.  A prime lens will make a ****ty photography take great ****ty images.  Learn the camera, how to use the lenses and learn composition.  If you can take the most beautiful pictures but the composition sucks then the photograph sucks.  Prime lenses are really for the guy who's making a living off of his photography. It's not for the weekend photo warrior, or someone trying to learn to get better at the craft.  Not for the guy taking photos of his kids birthday parties.  The cost comes in when you want a fast lens and you can get those without purchasing a prime lens. Use the prime lens money to get more lenses that cost less. With the cheap and free software today that is what you need to learn. How to use a photoshop, photoimpact or photopaint program and get some plugins from a serif, topaz, machinery hd effects or others.  These aid you with cropping photos, enhancing the colors, sharpness, hue, saturation and so on.  Spend the money you have wisely. Prime lenses for amatuers is not... unless you have money to throw at the craft.  Good luck with your photography.
> ...





rpm said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > daarksun said:
> ...


Thanks Tyler, Wolfe, Patriot, & Rpm.  You have saved me a lot of trouble of responding to such drivel.  You guys said it all.


----------



## photfor666 (Nov 26, 2012)

I do not intend to come back to this forum ever again, because it is full of nonsense. Bokeh is not something you choose. It is a result of the background object shapes, the aperture setting, the zoom point (if using a zoom lens), and the lens element design. Aperture blades are not the main cause. Bokeh (or "boke" in the original westernization of the Japanese term) is the appearance we notice in the out-of-focus area of a photo. There is no level, such as "a lot of bokeh" or less bokeh. There is only some impression you get from looking at it. When the out of focus elements seem duplicated, like a series of layers of the background were place one over the other but slightly out of position, we say it looks nervous. When the out of focus area seems well-blended with no obvious duplicated shapes, we say it looks buttery.

All oddities that were considered faults in photography 50 years ago (poor focus, tilted horizon, nervous bokeh) are cheered by some modern photographers as artistic expression. Back in the old days, buttery bokeh was great and nervous bokeh was awful. A lens maker has no trouble achieving nervous bokeh. He must know his stuff and use a great (and usually expensive) design to achieve buttery bokeh.

If you want to know about depth of field, that is unrelated, except that if the depth of field is great, we have little or no out-of-focus area to talk about, and thus no bokeh to consider.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2012)

photfor666 said:


> I do not intend to come back to this forum ever again, because it is full of nonsense.


You forgot to say, "_*SO THERE!!!!*_"

Hey, it's probably for the best anyway.  If you don't have the temperament to help educate here, you'll just be frustrated all the time, and that's no fun for anyone.

Best of luck on your journey to find a forum where everyone already knows everything and agrees with you 100%.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 26, 2012)

photfor666 said:
			
		

> I do not intend to come back to this forum ever again, because it is full of nonsense. Bokeh is not something you choose. It is a result of the background object shapes, the aperture setting, the zoom point (if using a zoom lens), and the lens element design. Aperture blades are not the main cause. Bokeh (or "boke" in the original westernization of the Japanese term) is the appearance we notice in the out-of-focus area of a photo. There is no level, such as "a lot of bokeh" or less bokeh. There is only some impression you get from looking at it. When the out of focus elements seem duplicated, like a series of layers of the background were place one over the other but slightly out of position, we say it looks nervous. When the out of focus area seems well-blended with no obvious duplicated shapes, we say it looks buttery.
> 
> All oddities that were considered faults in photography 50 years ago (poor focus, tilted horizon, nervous bokeh) are cheered by some modern photographers as artistic expression. Back in the old days, buttery bokeh was great and nervous bokeh was awful. A lens maker has no trouble achieving nervous bokeh. He must know his stuff and use a great (and usually expensive) design to achieve buttery bokeh.
> 
> If you want to know about depth of field, that is unrelated, except that if the depth of field is great, we have little or no out-of-focus area to talk about, and thus no bokeh to consider.



Congrats on your first post!!! Bye bye you haven't been here long.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 26, 2012)

photfor666 said:


> I do not intend to come back to this forum ever again, because it is full of nonsense. Bokeh is not something you choose. It is a result of the background object shapes, the aperture setting, the zoom point (if using a zoom lens), and the lens element design. Aperture blades are not the main cause. Bokeh (or "boke" in the original westernization of the Japanese term) is the appearance we notice in the out-of-focus area of a photo. There is no level, such as "a lot of bokeh" or less bokeh. There is only some impression you get from looking at it. When the out of focus elements seem duplicated, like a series of layers of the background were place one over the other but slightly out of position, we say it looks nervous. When the out of focus area seems well-blended with no obvious duplicated shapes, we say it looks buttery.
> 
> All oddities that were considered faults in photography 50 years ago (poor focus, tilted horizon, nervous bokeh) are cheered by some modern photographers as artistic expression. Back in the old days, buttery bokeh was great and nervous bokeh was awful. A lens maker has no trouble achieving nervous bokeh. He must know his stuff and use a great (and usually expensive) design to achieve buttery bokeh.
> 
> If you want to know about depth of field, that is unrelated, except that if the depth of field is great, we have little or no out-of-focus area to talk about, and thus no bokeh to consider.



Well aren't you the smart cookie! You get a gold star for giving me my first "no s**t" moment of the day.

Can't...resist...posting...Nicholas Cage meme...

You don't say?


----------



## BrianV (Nov 26, 2012)

My first post, one of my favorite subjects...

Bokeh- out of focus qualities of a lens, tend to be caused by the trade-offs of the optical design. Over/Under correction for spherical aberration, astigmatism, field-curvature, shape of the aperture when stopped down. It's usually a "side-effect" of the lens designer trying to get a sharp image at the point of focus and everything else falling where it will. Hard to get an accurate simulation without ray-tracing. I'll post some pictures with some custom "hacked' lenses.

Trying the Attachments...

A Canikon 50/1.5 on the Leica M8. Made from a left over parts from a Canon 50/1.5 and Nikkor 50/1.4. RF Coupled. I was happy to get the focal length correct, and the lens to RF couple across the full focus range. Everything else- Bokeh. I have another "Sonnar" made from parts of German and Russian lenses, made for my Nikon SP, that gives much less harsh out-of-focus highlights. Changed out the optics and spacing between the optics until it looked nice.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2012)

Isn't that pretty much the definitive "nervous bokeh" everyone dislikes?


----------



## BrianV (Nov 26, 2012)

Not everyone dislikes it. Bokeh is subjective. "Good" or "Bad"- personal taste, and knowing how to employ it in an image. Sometimes images need to look nervous, sometimes calming. If I want a calm image, go for the pre-war 5cm F1.5 Sonnar.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2012)

It's your photograph, so far be it from me to judge.

To my taste, a photograph of fall leaves feels soothing and calm. The idiom I am familiar with is a sort of Zen meditative feeling, which the bokeh work against, in this one. But that's just my personal reactions.


----------



## BrianV (Nov 26, 2012)

This is another "hacked lens", focal length changed to the Leica standard by moving the rear optic, then set in a new focus mount.

After hacking a lens- I test them to get a feel for the "bokeh". This one is much smoother. I made the "Canikon" for fun, for halloween. "Dead zombie Lenses Rise from the Parts Bin".

This is a 1950 Jupiter-3 5cm F1.5, formerly in Contax Mount. I've been "experimenting" with spacing the optics in lenses. Shots like this: lens wide-open, minimum focus, with lots of background structure- good way to characterize a lens at it's extreme.


----------



## Kolia (Nov 26, 2012)

Rebuilding lenses sounds like fun.

The Zombie-Fall-Leaf picture is interesting from a purely artistic point of view.

For the second picture, I'm having a hard time differentiating the subject from the back ground.


----------



## BrianV (Nov 27, 2012)

Both images are made with modified lenses, converted to a Leica rangefinder. The focal length of the two lenses have to be set by moving the optics in the barrel and then fixing them into place. The second lens was not originally in Leica mount and had to be positioned "just right" to be able to focus correctly- within 0.02mm in the mount. These are my form of "test images" that show the lens is the correct focal length, positioned in the mount correctly, and characterize the out-of-focus background and color rendition. It's an example of Bokeh being more of a side-effect of a lens, something that can be characterized and utilized. Both of these lenses are Sonnar formula 5cm f1.5 lenses. 7 elements in 3 groups, same basic formula. An example of how Bokeh can be changed dramatically with small tweeks to the optics.

On the second image- the point of focus is the right side of the leaf just off-center.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 27, 2012)

Isn't this obvious that BrianV == Photfor666 ? 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/283828-bokeh-not-3.html#post2779113

Both new here and registered around the same time?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2012)

photfor666 said:


> I do not intend to come back to this forum ever again, because it is full of nonsense. Bokeh is not something you choose. It is a result of the background object shapes, the aperture setting, the zoom point (if using a zoom lens), and the lens element design. Aperture blades are not the main cause. Bokeh (or "boke" in the original westernization of the Japanese term) is the appearance we notice in the out-of-focus area of a photo. There is no level, such as "a lot of bokeh" or less bokeh. There is only some impression you get from looking at it. When the out of focus elements seem duplicated, like a series of layers of the background were place one over the other but slightly out of position, we say it looks nervous. When the out of focus area seems well-blended with no obvious duplicated shapes, we say it looks buttery.
> 
> All oddities that were considered faults in photography 50 years ago (poor focus, tilted horizon, nervous bokeh) are cheered by some modern photographers as artistic expression. Back in the old days, buttery bokeh was great and nervous bokeh was awful. A lens maker has no trouble achieving nervous bokeh. He must know his stuff and use a great (and usually expensive) design to achieve buttery bokeh.
> 
> If you want to know about depth of field, that is unrelated, except that if the depth of field is great, we have little or no out-of-focus area to talk about, and thus no bokeh to consider.



"*Boke-dokey, been nice knowin' ya'!!!*" (that's an ancient Japanese send-off...)

I really do appreciate lenses that deliver good bokeh. I happen to own a few that do, and I really DO LIKE lenses that *do NOT* have nervous, harsh, hashy, or ugly bokeh.


----------



## BrianV (Nov 27, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> Isn't this obvious that BrianV == Photfor666 ?
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/283828-bokeh-not-3.html#post2779113
> 
> Both new here and registered around the same time?



You don't know me, I don't know you, I don't know the guy that registered with "666" in his name, and I don't like accusations based on nothing. I've been around forums for a long time, this one came up in a google search with Bokeh and Photography. I probably know more than most about Bokeh: I make custom lenses to get the look i want. 

If I am wasting my time here, let me know.


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 27, 2012)

Eh, I like the "nervous" bokeh occasionally. 




flower1

That's pushing it, anything else would be much too distracting. This was taken with the older Canon 28-105mm lens. Not a bad walk around lens @ ~$100.


----------



## BrianV (Nov 27, 2012)

If they remake the X-Files, I have the lenses for them to use. 

Another "purely for fun" lens, a Nikkor-O 55/1.2 missing the rear optics which were replaced with the optics from a Leica 50mm F1.5 Summarit. I've made a couple like this, given a few away. Most lenses: the front and back sections each form a complete image, each have there own focal length. Most lenses- the two halves are designed to cancel aberrations. You can usually find a spacing to  make two halves from different lenses into a the desired focal length. aberrations- all over the place.

This 50mm lens is made from left-over parts of three Russian and German lenses, wide-open at F1.5:


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 28, 2012)

BrianV said:


> Dikkie said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't this obvious that BrianV == Photfor666 ?
> ...



I'm not accusing you, I'm just experiencing that there are 2 new users at the same time registered, coming up in the same thread discussing the same thing kind of the same way. Both of them pretending to know much about bokeh and lenses. 

The first one didn't want to reply on this forum ever again, because it is full of nonsense. Why would he post in the first place? And maybe the replies would get him triggered to reply, but than not anymore with the same user.
The second one seems to have the same attitude and doubts if he's wasting his time.

Still, not accusing, but it all makes sense to me, as it looks like a total coincidence.

I've ben on many forums myself too, and I know lots of users that have multiple accounts on 1 forum. Why? That does not matter, it's just a fact that some people do have multiple accounts.

I'm just not surprised of it, and I don't blame you for doing something wrong. I was just interested if it was true or not.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 28, 2012)

BrianV said:


> I probably know more than most about Bokeh: I make custom lenses to get the look i want.


Yes, you probably know more than most about Bokeh.

But do you aswel make better photos than most, with your custom made lenses? 

A good composition isn't made with a custom lens, for example.

I'm curious to see your work in the Galleries on this forum.


----------



## BrianV (Nov 28, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > Dikkie said:
> ...



Well, I had "3" likes on my first day here. Good enough for me. I used to hang out on RFF. There are some good books on lenses in photograhy, "Photographic lenses" by Neblette and "Lenses in Photography" by Kingslake. Good reading for anyone that wants to make sense of "Bokeh". Or, buy some junk lenses, a mirrorless camera, and have some fun. It's like Lego Lenses.


----------



## BrianV (Nov 28, 2012)

1943 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnar "T" on the Canon P, 1/15th at F1.5, ISO 400 film.

Completely rebuilt, the optics were loose in the barrel when received. Worth the effort.

Whether people like my composition or not, they've liked the lenses enough to pay for an M9 and M Monochrom. I can't complain.


----------

