Advice on achieving better bokeh

Jimmy1983 · 24 May 2012 at 12:48

I feel iam slowly improving on my photography but one thing(well probably most people like myself)I want to improve is the bokeh in my photos. I currently have the 1.8 50mm and 24-105 L kit and another 70-300 mm Sigma lenses.

I guess in short the only way is to purchase a new lens, with an aperture of say min 2.8? Iam normally shooting my niece which is great and the 50mm is fantastic but when I want to shoot wider the 24-105 does achieve decent bokeh.

Is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM a good alternative?

Cheers all

Nexus · 24 May 2012 at 14:15

Some lenses will produce better bokeh than others, one of the biggest factors though is the number of aperture blades. The 50mm 1.8 only has 5 blades, where as the 50mm 1.4 has 8.

The 24-105 can produce some nice bokeh, but as it's f/4.0 you really need to be using it racked out and judge your distance to what you are shooting to best achieve it.

Personally I'd be looking at something in the longer range, like 70-200 as that gives you great separation of your subject against the background due to the compression.

You can usually find reviews of how bokeh looks on most of the camera/lens review sites.

GTRacer · 24 May 2012 at 14:41

50/1.4 or 85/1.8/1.4/1.2 are usually booooookeh cannons.

An Exception · 24 May 2012 at 14:46

5Dmk1 (if on a budget).

You 24-105 will be like an F2.5 lens and your 50, a F1.2 lens in comparison to what your crop camera can produce DOF wise...
Then you can also go for the 2.8 zooms or even faster primes...

dannyjo22 · 24 May 2012 at 14:52

The 17-55 2.8 is very good. I have the 50mm 1.8 and it's a paper weight since getting the 2.8. Yeah the nifty gives me greater dof but its awful. I'd rather have bokeh like butter than the effect the nifty gives. The 1.4 was slightly better but it's a dreadful lens. Slow poor build quality and unreliable. It's due an update.

The 85mm is a far better lens if you need to come under 2.8.

D.P. · 24 May 2012 at 15:44

Contrary to popular belief good bokeh has little to do with the aperture and is not synonymous with narrow DoF, but is a combination of elements such as lenses constructions and rendering characteristics, distance to subject, distance to background behind subject, highlights and contrast in the background, how many aperture blades the lens has, longitudinal chromatic aberrations, astigmatism of the lens, and how much ringing the out of focus heights suffer from.

You can get great bokeh from a f/5.6 on a crop sensor, or even a Nikon 1.

Prime lenses tend to give nicer out of focus rendering due to simpler lens design.
Modern aspherical elements can sometimes lead to increased ringing in secular highlights, which is why older lenses are often considered creamier although were not as sharp. Indeed, in general odler sim,pler lenses tend to produce smoother bokeh while more modern lenses are a little nervous. You should also make sure any VR/IS/Os is switched off as this has a big impact.

Slow kit lenses tend to produce a more nervous bokeh which is not pleasant but some fast zooms and primes can also. E.g., the sigma 24-70,m f2.8 produces horrible bokeh, and I saw an example posted here from the canon 35mm f2.0 that was nervous.

EDIT: and a general rule is that wider and faster aperture lenses are worse for bokeh which is why the 24mm f/1.4 are not always the best and even 35mm f/1.4 on a FF body is no champion. The converse is true in that longer focal length lenses lead to smoother backgrounds due to the perspective and stretching of the background scene. As an example I get very smooth pleasing bokeh from my Nikon 300mm f/4.0 with and without a 1.4tc, even stopped down to f/8.0 My 2 fast normal primes (35 & 50mm) actually give pretty bad bokeh despite their ability to get a shallow DoF.

here is an example of getting bad bokeh despite having a 50mm 1.2L lens due in part due to the elns complexity and also due to highlights in the background:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/squinza/2789336004/
The old Nikon 50mm 1.2 is also very bad for bokeh

here is an example showing the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 showing much better bokeh than the Canon 50mm f/1.4:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=943520&page=2

To summarize I think you will need to do some research to find what the best lenses are and be prepared to buy older lenses, maybe even manual focus lenses. Do not get fooled by fast apertures or FF sensors, the lens design and user technique is more important in getting a smooth bokeh. Have a look at some of the Zeiss primes, they are known for having nice rendition qualities.

Jimmy1983 · 25 May 2012 at 14:32

An Exception said:
5Dmk1 (if on a budget).

You 24-105 will be like an F2.5 lens and your 50, a F1.2 lens in comparison to what your crop camera can produce DOF wise...
Then you can also go for the 2.8 zooms or even faster primes...

Thanks guys a fair bit to take it. Iam not after a FF camera. I understand what your saying tho, I didnt bare that in mind.

Whats a common lens to a non-FF camera that gets good bokeh? The Canon 17-55 2.8 that I posted? Any Sigma equivalents?

D.P. · 25 May 2012 at 17:35

As I said above, you may want to look at older lenses and don't only consider fast primes.
Longer focal length lenses work well. My 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm does much better than my 35mm f/1.8, even if I shoot f/5.6 at 200mm.

Even the best lenses for bokeh only shine when you stop down a little so don't buy a 1.4 lens to shoot at f/1.4 to get the best bokeh.

Canon don't have a lens like the Nikon 105/135 f/2.0 DC lenses. these are bokeh machines with a special control to adjust the out of focus rendering. Sony have a similar 135mm lens that makes for very nice bokeh.

On Canon the sigma 50mm f/1.4 is quite good, the 85mm f/1.2 L of course (but again, probably not until you shoot at f/2.8 or f/4.0). The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 mk II should be good.