Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 26, 2005, 2:33 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Are you guys claiming the 70-200 f/4L has a better bokeh than the 70-200 f/2.8L by the look of the MTF chart?:

-> which is clearly not the case "The closer the meridonial and sagital (dotted/dashed) lines are, the better bokeh".

BTW the Sigma meridionial and sagittal are very close (regardless of focal lenght):

... at least closer than any of the Canon's :blah:

and yes I try to exploit the f/2.8 as much as I could (in full sun):


... Are you guys smoking something???
This comparison clearly shows the f/2.8 has a better bokeh than the f/4: and the MTF shows the Sigma closer meridionial and sagittal as well according to your own quotes from the luminous landscape.

Do you all have to hate Sigma that much? :idea:
You seem determined to completely miss the point.

If you were prone to saying "Sigma EX lenses generally have better bokeh than their Canon counterparts." - I'd have to agree with you, the MTF evidence and that of the photos seems clear.

If you were prone to saying "The shallow DOF at f2.8 is simply fantastic for separating the subject from its background." Then once again I'd have to agree, although how much separation is appropriate for a given shot is largely a matter of taste. I generally like a larger DOF because I find context important. But in the two photos you have posted above it works exceptionally well, and is a perfect example of why you might want to do it.

But you don't, you say instead "Faster lenses have better bokeh" which is wrong, and misleading when given as a reason for choosing one lens over another.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 5:32 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
You seem determined to completely miss the point.

If you were prone to saying "Sigma EX lenses generally have better bokeh than their Canon counterparts." - I'd have to agree with you, the MTF evidence and that of the photos seems clear.

If you were prone to saying "The shallow DOF at f2.8 is simply fantastic for separating the subject from its background." Then once again I'd have to agree, although how much separation is appropriate for a given shot is largely a matter of taste. I generally like a larger DOF because I find context important. But in the two photos you have posted above it works exceptionally well, and is a perfect example of why you might want to do it.

But you don't, you say instead "Faster lenses have better bokeh" which is wrong, and misleading when given as a reason for choosing one lens over another.
I don't know why you have to be so specific on my wordings, but don't you want both (A) the shallow DOF of a fast lens so the (B) 'bokeh' can be more noticeable?

May be I could err in my choice of words - but not in my recommenfations: In all the lenses that I've recommended so far, the faster lenses all have the better bokeh than their Canon slower counterpart (according to the MTF criteria that both you and BoYFrMSpC have selected), including:

1. The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX vs the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
2. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX vs EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
3. ... and of course the 70-200 f/2.8 EX over all the Canons 70-200 regardless of lens speed!

The "Faster lenses have better bokeh" both (A) and (B) in all thoses cases, where did I go wrong or mislead???
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 9:40 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Whats wrong with this thread ? I have to scroll a page on each line to read this nonsence.

Anyone elso got this problem?
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 10:16 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Nothing wrong with the thread, working as designed.
Width sized to match lagrest image inserted into it. :idea:

The thread is also very good, I have acquired some info-links I did not have before.
Thought I will not attempt to touch the bokeh discussion portion with a 33.1/2 foot pole. :blah:

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 10:53 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I did touch the subject!

It was fun...

I still think the quality of the lens is an important factor to bokeh. If aperture was the only factor, why would a Canon lens at f4 be better than another brand lens at f3.5 from peripatetic's second link?

It's just insane...

But still, what happened to the good ol' happy days when people worried about the subject in focus rather than the blurry feature in the background?

If there's one thing I learned in this thread, it's that bokeh is evil.


BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 11:05 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Sure, the subject being in focus generally matters.
But having an appealing background makes a big difference. And can take a "good" shot and make a much better.

So discussing which lenses produce a better bokeh is important to some people.

And I agree with PeterP. I'm not wading into these waters.

Well, ok. I'll stick my toes in. An f2.8 lens will let me have more separation between the subject and background, which will help create bokeh, but it won't make it inherenetly better or worse. At least, I don't think so (as opposed to know so.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 5:50 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52
Default

NHL and Peripatetic, please keep it up. I truly enjoy reading your posts! By the way, fantastic pictures NHL.

Personally, I'm all for Sigma, Tokina and Tamron providing the competition that affords us all better products at better prices.

My problem so far is that I'm still bogged down with that image sharpness thing as a primary criteria with bokeh somewhat further down the list.

I couldn't really see that much difference in the bokeh examples provided in one of the early links in this thread.

NHL you do seem to push Sigma over anything else (bokeh or no bokeh). Your advice is appreciated but it always favors one brand. I haven't been so lucky with Sigma.

I've tried 3 different Sigma lenses which were all poor. I'll admit, two of them were fairly cheap, (55-200 and 18-125) but I finally tried an EX version (24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro).

Maybe it's the photographer but all three were considerably softer than any of my Canon lenses (except for the kit 18-55). That list by the way includes a 70-200 f/4 L, 17-40 L, 50mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.8 macro, 17-85 IS and 70-300 DO IS.

My other problem is that I always find f/2.8 noticeably softer than f/4 - f/8. It seems the sweet spot for all these lenses tends to be around f/5.6 (at least on my 20D)regardless of the maximum aperture of the lens.

I guess the bottom line is that I'm willing to trade off the minimal difference in bokeh for the more significant difference in sharpness attained at smaller apertures. The ISO capabilities of the 20D seem to provide other means of handling exposure.

I'm not buying the aperture=bokeh argument. I'm also not buying the Sigma vs. Canon MTF chart comparisons since they don't compare the same values and they are measured by the respective manufacturers. (Sigma doesn't offer the maximum aperture and f/8 values).

My previous Sigma failings aside, I'm still really tempted to try that Sigma 100-300 f/4. Please continue!
Humrme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2005, 9:20 PM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Humrme wrote:

Quote:
NHL you do seem to push Sigma over anything else (bokeh or no bokeh). Your advice is appreciated but it always favors one brand.
I guess you're new to this forum... In my former life I used to "push" Minolta, and some posters also accused me to work for Minolta then:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_...e7_firmup.html

and I'm still at it: :-)
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...82&forum_id=87



I owned Canon for a long time and still collect them: FT, FTb, F1, A1 and lots of FD lenses including their L then. I switched over to Minolta during the AF craze, but now also happen to collect a few Nikon bodies so I'm open to all brands (BTW I also have both the Hasselblad and the Bronica medium format). IMO what I have noticed is there's a big EGO problem with some Canon (and Nikon) owners: If a lens doesn't say Canon (or Nikon) on it, it has to be junk, and have to be put down - Check the Minolta forum both here and on dpreview: their owners are very open to 3rd party lenses... even though their 'G' lenses are also white and as good as any others but no one brags about them (They also happened to have the best 'bokeh' too)

I tend to defend Sigma because they have features closest to the Canon - HSM/USM which I highly valued and selected over the Canon brand, but many other 3rd party don't offer... also I have clearly pushed the Tokina here: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...72&forum_id=65

... and here: :-)
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...97&forum_id=65


Canon have their own marketing machine - just open their brochure/catalog and get the highest cost lens, where's the fun in 'pushing' for the L (BTW I have the 85mm f/1.2L among other for the 'bokeh')??? :blah:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2005, 11:44 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52
Default

NHL wrote:

Quote:
I guess you're new to this forum...
You're right, I'm new to this forum but I enjoy it, especially the exchange between you and peripatetic. I also respect your work.

Not all of us are stuck up on Canon. In by brief experience with DSLR, I've simply found, so far, that I get consistently better results with Canon lenses than either Sigma or Tamron although I've only tried a few. I think next maybe I'll try a Sigma with HSM. Fortunately the used lens maket seems very hot. I've managed to sell lenses for close to what I pay, making it easy to buy and try rather than just asking for advice on this board. I look forward to future posts.

Humrme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 10:05 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

After all the books have been put away - the computers have been shut down for the night- isn't it always the same...

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

How often does your customer say "Nice Bokeh"?

I generally get "Nice print, how much"?
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:39 PM.