Gulls pict with different bokeh

[danielchtong]

Supa Lao wrote:

Maybe I missed it, but what lens is this?

Harriet,

You are right. Like what dawg said, too many permutation.

Lao,

They all came from A300mmF4

Daniel, Toronto

[ennacac]

I think those are very nice for a f/4 lens. Were they taken wide open, since that is when my 300 f/4.5 does it's best bokeh.

Tom

[penolta]

danielchtong wrote:

This couple of in flight pictures have somewhat more appealing bokeh than earlier. I have no control whatsoever. Was it because of Exposure? Background? Iso?

THis may be unnecessary as you may already know this, but it is not clear from the question.

There used to be pocket-sized booklets with DOF tables that you could carry around with you, and that gave you the DOF for various combinations of distance, focal length,and aperture, which determine the DOF (bokeh of course results from DOF shallower than the objects in the background - the more out of focus they are, the "better" the bokeh). Shutter speed and ISO have no direct influence, except thatthey caninfluence aperture determination. DOF varies directly with the distance (the greater the distance, the greater the DOF, and the poorer the bokeh), and inversely with the aperture (the larger the aperture, the less the DOF, and the better the bokeh). The only control you have over bokeh is in your choice of lenses, aperture selection, camera to subject distance, and framing to use the background to the best advantage.

Some rules of thumb would be:

1) Photographing at theminimum distance with the widest aperture allows the best bokeh.

2) Shooting wide open gives the best bokeh possible forany distance.

3) Larger aperture lenses are capable of delivering better bokeh than those with smaller maximum apertures.

4) The greater the separation between the subject and the background, the better the bokeh.

[danielchtong]

penolta wrote:

There used to be pocket-sized booklets with DOF tables that you could carry around with you, and that gave you the DOF for various combinations of distance, focal length, and aperture, which determine the DOF (bokeh of course results from DOF shallower than the objects in the background - the more out of focus they are, the "better" the bokeh). Shutter speed and ISO have no direct influence, except that they can influence aperture determination. DOF varies directly with the distance (the greater the distance, the greater the DOF, and the poorer the bokeh), and inversely with the aperture (the larger the aperture, the less the DOF, and the better the bokeh). The only control you have over bokeh is in your choice of lenses, aperture selection, camera to subject distance, and framing to use the background to the best advantage.

Some rules of thumb would be:

1) Photographing at the minimum distance with the widest aperture allows the best bokeh.

2) Shooting wide open gives the best bokeh possible for any distance.

3) Larger aperture lenses are capable of delivering better bokeh than those with smaller maximum apertures.

4) The greater the separation between the subject and the background, the better the bokeh.

Wow got to memorize this rule of thumb. Sounds right as far as I can see. I have been searching for this rule of thumb for sometime. Good work and thanks for summarising/simplifying it for us.


ennacac wrote:

I think those are very nice for a f/4 lens. Were they taken wide open, since that is when my 300 f/4.5 does it's best bokeh.

Tom

Tom,
I looked at those pict again and the last one at F5 of a 300mm fits the good bokeh definition above (summarised by penolta)

Daniel, Toronto

[danielchtong]

Monza76 wrote:

Daniel, great shots again. I think I will have to resort to my 200mm f4 M-series lens and learn to focus and anticipate. Your shots have such great detail.

Ira

There was one (M200mm F4) just sold for $75 with 15 bids just now. A great lens. But given people's preference for AF, there is still deal around for great buys.
But one still has to reckon the days when MF will be out of fashion if the trend (for fast electrons like D300 or D30) continues. Also Pentax newer dslr may not even support older lens. Already K10d has persistent problem with metering for older lens.
I have been eyeing a 200mm as I have nothing between 135mm & 300mm. But the F or FA version of 200mm is just insanely priced. Or I just have to wait for the DA*200mm which is expected to be pricey.

Daniel , Toronto

[Monza76]

danielchtong wrote:

But one still has to reckon the days when MF will be out of fashion if the trend (for fast electrons like D300 or D30) continues. Also Pentax newer dslr may not even support older lens. Already K10d has persistent problem with metering for older lens.
I have been eyeing a 200mm as I have nothing between 135mm & 300mm. But the F or FA version of 200mm is just insanely priced. Or I just have to wait for the DA*200mm which is expected to be pricey.

Daniel , Toronto

I would prefer a fast AF lens but the prices are out of my reach, too bad the only F and FA long primes are * versions with outrageous price tags. I expect the DA* primes will also be out of my reach. I manage to sustain this hobby by doing occasional paid assignments like a wedding, some portraits or an event. None of these pay enough for me to invest in glass at this level. I guess the M-200mm f4 will have to do for now. As long as Pentax doesn't do away with the mechanical aperture linkage they should still work, I have a hand held meter to check exposures if necessary.

Ira

[NonEntity1]

Those are some great BIF shots Daniel, you are really doing great with your MF lens.

Tim