# Frustrated with LACK of Bokeh. T2i Owners??



## AprilEye (Dec 5, 2010)

I am trying to attempt it but I can only adjust my aperture on my camera to f/4.0.  I cant adjust it any lower (in numbers) no matter what setting I am on.  I have only had my camera a few months so maybe that is as far as it goes and I dont know it. Does any one know any different?  The poor poor example is below.


----------



## Geaux (Dec 5, 2010)

All depends on your lense, not camera  your lense Only goes as low as 4. Prime lenses (non zoom) go as low as 1.2 or commonly 1.4 or 1.8


----------



## canonguy12 (Dec 5, 2010)

The reason you can't go any lower is because of your lenses. Lenses control the limitations of the aperture size, which is one of the factors that affects bokeh. If your using the 18-55, then at the widest zoom (18) you can make your aperture 3.5. At 55, your largest aperture will only be 5.6. Also, thats not terrible bokeh. One thing you can do is to increase the distance between the subject and the background.


----------



## AprilEye (Dec 5, 2010)

Geaux said:


> All depends on your lense, not camera  your lense Only goes as low as 4. Prime lenses (non zoom) go as low as 1.2 or commonly 1.4 or 1.8



Hmmm... ok.  THIS is why I am in the "Beginners" Forum.  SO my Canon (listed in my signature) are probably the reason why then.  Wow.  I could have saved myself a lot of frustration.  :scratch:  Thanks!


----------



## AprilEye (Dec 5, 2010)

canonguy12 said:


> The reason you can't go any lower is because of your lenses. Lenses control the limitations of the aperture size, which is one of the factors that affects bokeh. If your using the 18-55, then at the widest zoom (18) you can make your aperture 3.5. At 55, your largest aperture will only be 5.6. Also, thats not terrible bokeh. One thing you can do is to increase the distance between the subject and the background.



THIS is great advice as well and I will try it.  THANKS!


----------



## Jcampbelll (Dec 5, 2010)

Increase distance between what is in focus and what isn't in focus. And look into getting a prime lens if you want some bokeh. :thumbup:


----------



## reddau (Dec 5, 2010)

You might be interested in getting the canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, it is only 100 dollars. If you look on amazon they have some good deals, i believe theres also a 1.4 for 300, the lens has a much better body.

I just purchased the 35mm f/2.0 from canon. It was 325 I believe, compared to the 50mm 1.8 the build is much better and it proves more useful in everyday situations.

If you'd like to see the bokeh it produces here is a shot with it, shot on a t1i, the early version of your camera.

Miss Soto | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Not typical bokeh but im sure you can see the difference in depth of field from this photo.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Dec 5, 2010)

Get a prime for sure. Bokeh @ 1.8 is yummy


----------



## KmH (Dec 5, 2010)

What you're asking about isn't called bokeh, it's called depth-of-field.


----------



## meccalli (Dec 5, 2010)

Yeah bokeh really just describes the quality of the out of focus areas and its paticular qualities..I'm all for creamy bokeh  

You could also try zooming in your lens to its maximum focal length while at the lowest aperture possible, this kinda makes out of focus items really blurred.


----------



## Infidel (Dec 5, 2010)

Geaux said:


> All depends on your lense, not camera



What about sensor size (physical dimensions)?


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 5, 2010)

Infidel said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > All depends on your lense, not camera
> ...



Sensor size has nothing to do with max aperture of the lens.  Max aperture of the 50mm 1.8 lens is still 1.8 regardless of whether it is on a FF or a crop body.


----------



## chito beach (Dec 5, 2010)

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens will give you your best Bokah.  compose your picture at max zoom 250mm and F5.6 this will give you the best bokah with what you have.  The longer the telephoto and lower the number o the Fstop the shallower the Depth of field so the more out of focus your back ground


----------



## Edsport (Dec 5, 2010)

mjhoward said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux said:
> ...


But a FF camera with the same aperture will give less DOF...


----------



## chito beach (Dec 5, 2010)

Edsport said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Infidel said:
> ...



 how do you figure that?


----------



## KmH (Dec 5, 2010)

Depth-of-field is affected by 4 factors:


subject to image sensor distance
subject to background distance
*apparent* lens focal length (which is where the difference between P&S, APS-C, and full size image sensors comes into play)
lens aperture
See Online Depth of Field Calculator and/or http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm


----------



## Sachphotography (Dec 5, 2010)

LOL I opened this thread and chuckled a little.....


----------



## Infidel (Dec 5, 2010)

chito beach said:


> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 5, 2010)

I think they explain it pretty good here:
Depth of Field and the Small-Sensor Digital Cameras - photo.net


----------



## Infidel (Dec 5, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I think they explain it pretty good here:
> Depth of Field and the Small-Sensor Digital Cameras - photo.net



Yes, I like the phrase "depth of field is inversely proportional to format size".

It's not that hard to follow/understand for the mathematically shy.

All this talk reminds me of when I learned about the f/64 group.


----------



## AprilEye (Dec 6, 2010)

chito beach said:


> Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens will give you your best Bokah.  compose your picture at max zoom 250mm and F5.6 this will give you the best bokah with what you have.  The longer the telephoto and lower the number o the Fstop the shallower the Depth of field so the more out of focus your back ground



Excellent... I will try this, especially with all the Christmas lights around. Thanks :thumbup:


----------



## AprilEye (Dec 6, 2010)

erose86 said:


> AprilEye said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux said:
> ...



Ah there is no attitude here... just a "duh" moment for myself.  And thanks for the tip on the 50mm.  Makes perfect sense.


----------



## AprilEye (Dec 6, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I think they explain it pretty good here:
> Depth of Field and the Small-Sensor Digital Cameras - photo.net



You're right... a perfect explaination.  Thanks!


----------



## RosarioX (Dec 6, 2010)

AprilEye said:


> I am trying to attempt it but I can only adjust my aperture on my camera to f/4.0.  I cant adjust it any lower (in numbers) no matter what setting I am on.  I have only had my camera a few months so maybe that is as far as it goes and I dont know it. Does any one know any different?  The poor poor example is below.



Yeah i have the 550D which is the British equivalent to the rebel t2i (I think)
Anyways i'm PRETTY satisfied with the Bokeh i'm getting, i just started a C&C thread for some of my pics one of them might be of interest to you (Bokeh)
If you're looking for bokeh i suggest you buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens, i got it for around $728 HKD which is around 99$ US?
(although i'm pretty sure all of this was mentioned above, just wanted to provide a visual example )

Heres the thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/226868-my-first-3-shots-c-c.html


----------



## enzodm (Dec 6, 2010)

RosarioX said:


> Yeah i have the 550D which is the British equivalent to the rebel t2i (I think)
> Anyways i'm PRETTY satisfied with the Bokeh i'm getting, i just started a C&C thread for some of my pics one of them might be of interest to you (Bokeh)



again, is the lens that makes the difference. I saw your pictures (nice) and I suppose they are taken with 50/1.8. Camera could have been a 400D, 450D, 550D, and so; not much difference, in particular after resizing. (this note just not to perpetuate the initial mistake  ).


----------



## RosarioX (Dec 6, 2010)

enzodm said:


> RosarioX said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah i have the 550D which is the British equivalent to the rebel t2i (I think)
> ...



Do you (or anyone) know if getting to 50 / f1.4 will make a huge difference?
I'm considering the 50/1.4 atm.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 6, 2010)

RosarioX said:


> enzodm said:
> 
> 
> > RosarioX said:
> ...


The 1.4 has more aperture blades (8 vs. the 5 of the 1.8), and the edges of the blades are curved (they might be on the 1.8 too - I don't know).

That will generally give you smoother and more pleasant bokeh.

The overall build quality of the lens is better too.  Not to mention better AF.

There's more to it than just the extra 2/3 of a stop.


----------



## RosarioX (Dec 6, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> RosarioX said:
> 
> 
> > enzodm said:
> ...



Ok thanks, I appreciate the help as always


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 6, 2010)

Edsport said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Infidel said:
> ...



So?  You quoted 'Geaux' as saying "All depends on your lense, not camera"... 

If you read the full original post and not just the title of the thread, then you would know that the OP asked why his *CAMERA* couldnt adjust the aperature to larger than f/4.0.  Geaux's,and my, response that it "All depends on your lense, not camera" is correct.  And to quote myself and re-iterate:



mjhoward said:


> Sensor size has nothing to do with max aperture of the lens. Max aperture of the 50mm 1.8 lens is still 1.8 regardless of whether it is on a FF or a crop body.



The depth of field of the same lens on different bodies is a different issue.


----------



## KmH (Dec 6, 2010)

Bokeh and DOF are not the same thing, and are only loosely related.

Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and to measure of Bokeh &#8594; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion



> The shape of the aperture has a great influence on the subjective quality of bokeh. For conventional lens designs (with bladed apertures), when a lens is stopped down smaller than its maximum aperture size (minimum f-number), out-of-focus points are blurred into the polygonal shape formed by the aperture blades. This is most apparent when a lens produces hard-edged bokeh. For this reason, some lenses have many aperture blades and/or blades with curved edges to make the aperture more closely approximate a circle rather than polygonal. Traditional "Portrait" lenses, such as the "fast" 85mm focal length models for 35mm cameras often feature almost circular aperture diaphragms, as is the case with Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2L II lens and Nikon's 85mm f/1.4D, and are generally considered exceptional performers. In contrast, a catadioptric telephoto lens displays bokehs resembling doughnuts, because its secondary mirror blocks the central part of the aperture opening. Recently, photographers have exploited the shape of the bokeh by creating a simple mask out of card with shapes such as hearts or stars, that the photographer wishes the bokeh to be, and placing it over the lens


----------



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 6, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I think they explain it pretty good here:
> Depth of Field and the Small-Sensor Digital Cameras - photo.net


 

From this article...

"If you use the *same* lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera and *crop* the full-frame image to give the same view as the digital image, the depth of field is *IDENTICAL."*

Things are getting crossed here, at least as I'm reading it.

A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens regardless of sensor size.  The DoF is going to remain constant.  The smaller sensor is still the same distance from the focusing element as the full frame sensor.  See the above statement.

What changes is the Field of View, not the Depth of Field.  A 50mm lens has the same aparrent Field of View as an 85mm lens.  You've not made the image on the sensor any bigger, you've simply captured a smaller area of it.

Unless you start moving the focal point around, the DoF stays the same.


----------



## LightSpeed (Dec 6, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Because a FF will take my 50mm f/1.4 lens and see it as a 50mm f/1.4 lens.  On my T2i, which is a crop body (x1.6), the 50mm is actually an 80mm lens.
> 
> So 80mm at f/2.8 is going to have more background blur than a Full Frame using the same lens that actually see it as 50mm at f/2.8... because assuming that everything in the scene is EXACTLY THE same *except* for the bodies of the cameras... since the focal length is longer on my T2i than on the full frame, the blur will be more on the image taken by my T2i.



That's a good explanation, but I don't think that's what he meant. The difference is very slight , almost too slight to see. Maybe one stop. What is, however, noticeable is the vast difference in field of view. Not to be confused with depth of field. There are endless arguments and debates about this. If lens focal length is the same the difference in depth of field from a cropped sensor to a full frame sensor is negligible, very negligible.  This might help.

Full Frame vs Crop Sensor Depth of field myth


----------

