Best choice for boken/blurring


Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vince123123

Guest
#1
Hi there, i was just wondering, if i want to shoot outdoors, and i want to get a nice blur background, what kind of lens is good?

a 85 1.8?
85 1.4?
50 1.4?
80-200 f2.8?

as long telephotos give more bokeh, but yet the shorter fix lenses have larger aperture, which is actually superior?

if the fix lenses is superior, its better to get those as u dont have to stand a mile away to take the photo at 200 f2.8 rite?

all opinions welcomed.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#2
2.8 is ok

for more pronounced result, anythign f2 or faster will do :)
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#3
so would a 85 1.4 be better than a 200 2.8? or same? or?

clive said:
2.8 is ok

for more pronounced result, anythign f2 or faster will do :)
 

SniperD

Senior Member
#4
you forgot the 50 f1.8 :)

the 1.8 is good enuf for the extreme bokeh and DOF. Rather than the 50 f1.4 which is of coz better build but you dun really shoot 1.4 most the time so why not save the extra money?

jst my 2 rupiahs ;)
 

ratboy

New Member
Sep 10, 2002
661
0
0
www.singnet.com.sg
#5
my prev 85 f1.4
for a head & shoulder potrait
when focus on the eyes,
nose & ears already slightly blurr
very easy for auto focus to miss focus on nose
and end up eyes & ears blurr : )

so maybe a 85 f2.8 should do ...
 

Feb 3, 2002
1,741
0
0
Singapore
#6
Second the 50/1.8. Since it's so affordable, you can just buy it and sell it later for minimal loss if you find it unsatisfactory (very unlikely).
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#7
The aperture number alone doesn't tell the whole story. Different lenses render OOF regions differently; some are smooth-blends, some have weird shape highlights, some are just harsh (though blur). You have to dig around the net for sample pics decide for yourself.

Also, for 85mm, f2.2-f4 would a preferable range to shoot for normal portraits. The DOF is a bit too shallow if you go below f2.0, esp if you're close. Unless you like the eyes-sharp-nose-and-ears-blur type of pictures.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#8
how would the 50/1.8 compare to a 200mm f2.8 in terms of blurness? hmm
50 is much shorter than 200 so is the blurness less too? it does win in the 1.8 part though


imaginary_number said:
Second the 50/1.8. Since it's so affordable, you can just buy it and sell it later for minimal loss if you find it unsatisfactory (very unlikely).
 

2100

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2004
3,591
0
0
48
#9
vince123123 said:
how would the 50/1.8 compare to a 200mm f2.8 in terms of blurness? hmm
50 is much shorter than 200 so is the blurness less too? it does win in the 1.8 part though
Just go to dpreview and check out the DOF calculator, or search on the net for the tons of DOF calculators available.

Usually, focal length has a bigger effect in bokeh, for usual portrait usage.
Seriously, no need to bokeh too much sometimes also lar, depends on what you are after. Ultimately, you gotta find a nice background. :)

Kwanon and Nikkor 50 1.8 has good quality bokehs. More than enough for usual usage..
 

offspring

New Member
Jun 3, 2003
1,468
0
0
my.opera.com
#10
all the lenses you mentioned have good bokeh.

The best amongst the lot you mentioned is the 80f1.4, commonly called the bokeh champion from Nikon. If you do potraits, this is your lens.

While all large aperture lenses can be used for background blur, some connoisseur goes to the extent of comparing the presence of doghnut rings, smoothness of the blur, etc. How technically they do it, I don'y know. But there is a difference in the aesthetic appearance of the blur.

when I compared my 70@f2.8 between nikon 70-200vr and tamron 28-75di, the former produces blur that is smoother and pleasing. The latter seemed to produce "fake" blur. But again, I'm only bone-picking.

Then again, we can make blur using PS but it is quite unreal. :bsmilie:
 

Iceman27

New Member
Feb 27, 2004
268
0
0
#11
I hope this doesn't sound stupid... but what actually is "bokeh/boken"? Have come across it many times but don't know what you guys actually refer to... Please enlighten... Tks!

Cheers!
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#12
heh its bokeh, i misspelt it as boken :p

Iceman27 said:
I hope this doesn't sound stupid... but what actually is "bokeh/boken"? Have come across it many times but don't know what you guys actually refer to... Please enlighten... Tks!

Cheers!
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#17
too bad it doesn't show apertures less than f2.8.

however when i compare a 50mm at 2.8 , it seems to be less blur than a 200mm at 5.6. only 200 at f11 seems to be close...

hmm...


oeyvind said:
Please see

http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/active/index-j.html

Click on the 3rd option in the manual to see focal length and aperture affect on image.
 

oeyvind

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2002
3,828
1
38
www.oeyvind.org
#18
vince123123 said:
too bad it doesn't show apertures less than f2.8.

however when i compare a 50mm at 2.8 , it seems to be less blur than a 200mm at 5.6. only 200 at f11 seems to be close...

hmm...
50mm's bokeh is not nice... compare to 85mm or longer tele.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom