[HopelessTogger]

You may have a focussing problem. That said AF system are not perfect with f/2 and larger lenses
DoF is the reason why you buy these lenses today. The whole FF ideas is based on DoF concept, ...

DoF is already razor thin by f/2, I can't see the point of f/1.4 for the most part.

[D1N0]

DoF is already razor thin by f/2, I can't see the point of f/1.4 for the most part.

Shots like this:


From this article: http://digital-photography-school.com/17-beautiful-images-with-shallow-depth-of-field/

[unixrevolution]

DoF is already razor thin by f/2, I can't see the point of f/1.4 for the most part.

I can totally understand that. Personally, I think the DoF on my 90mm f/2.8 is more than adequate for portraits, so I see where you're coming from.

I just saw an opportunity to shed more light on a subject and decided to go for it.

---------- Post added 08-04-16 at 09:09 PM ----------

Shots like this:


From this article: 17 Beautiful Images with Shallow Depth of Field

This kind of depth of field from a long way away (I.E. Further than a head and shoulders or upper body portrait) is part of what I love so much about Medium and Large formats.

I was doing a head and shoulders portrait with an 8x10, and had to apply f/22 and front swing to get the subject in focus. The background was still creme brulee.

[beholder3]

Shots like this:
From this article: 17 Beautiful Images with Shallow Depth of Field

While I concur with the general direction that background blur can be nice to have, most shots people refer to and that explicitly includes the above sample, can actually quite easily be done using an Galaxy phone plus 2 Minutes of postprocessing in PS, because the depth map is so simple.

And if you actually have an original image already taken with some larger aperture and DSLR it gets even easier to add the effect.

[D1N0]

While I concur with the general direction that background blur can be nice to have, most shots people refer to and that explicitly includes the above sample, can actually quite easily be done using an Galaxy phone plus 2 Minutes of postprocessing in PS, because the depth map is so simple.

And if you actually have an original image already taken with some larger aperture and DSLR it gets even easier to add the effect.

That just takes all then fun out of it and it looks like crap. These algorithms never get the sharpness to blur transition right. Like saying to a painter. Look i have an app that makes art. Why bother with that messy paint and stuff.

[beholder3]

That just takes all then fun out of it and it looks like crap. These algorithms never get the sharpness to blur transition right. Like saying to a painter. Look i have an app that makes art. Why bother with that messy paint and stuff.

I agree it does take the same fun out as you take out when you have to use a cheap plastic feeling Sigma lens (the 85 feels like an overweight $50 kit lens like the F-series) compared to an all metal Pentax limited lens. That is the issue with all Sigmas btw.

Does it look crap? Certainly not if the transition is so simple as the one on your sample image.

The whole Dof/blur thing is exactly the same as any digital filter used in smartphones or other cameras, it's an image effect you can use. Nothing more. You can achieve it via physical glass or by using software. There are dozens of visual effects and it is just one.

Just to be clear: I happen to use both a Sigma 84/1.4 and a Canon 85/1.2 partially for the background blur reason and I am happy with them. But it is not a religion and there are other means to the same end.

If the subject is not moving, stitching slower lens images gives the exact same results. And most samples actually were not dynamic subjects.

[D1N0]

The whole Dof/blur thing is exactly the same as any digital filter used in smartphones or other cameras, it's an image effect you can use. Nothing more

That is just nonsense. I am not even going to try to explain it to you.

[beholder3]

That is just nonsense. I am not even going to try to explain it to you.

Quite revealing, D1N0.

[HopelessTogger]

Shots like this:


From this article: 17 Beautiful Images with Shallow Depth of Field

Had a look, but can't see where they've stated what apertures these were taken with.

[D1N0]

Quite revealing, D1N0.

Yeah it reveals I do not suffer fools

---------- Post added 05-08-16 at 13:23 ----------

Had a look, but can't see where they've stated what apertures these were taken with.

That wasn't the object of the article I guess.

[HopelessTogger]

Yeah it reveals I do not suffer fools

---------- Post added 05-08-16 at 13:23 ----------



That wasn't the object of the article I guess.

When the sun finally comes out I'll do a DoF test with the Zeiss Planar 1.4/85 on the K-1. f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8 . . .

[Kerrowdown]

Truth is, f/1.4 is pretty useless on modern full frame digital. The DoF is so, soooo thin and modern sensors so much better at high ISO performance and noise reduction software advanced, that ultra fast lenses are fairly pointless.

For me who only uses manual focus lenses, the brighter the viewfinder offered by fast lenses, certainly makes it easier to focus with, especially wide open for the narrow dof as you've already mentioned.

[Kerrowdown]

However I don't tend to give my lenses nicknames as that would be a bit strange .... wouldn't it?

Oh dear, that puts me firmly in the "strange" camp then.

[HopelessTogger]

For me who only uses manual focus lenses, the brighter the viewfinder offered by fast lenses, certainly makes it easier to focus with, especially wide open for the narrow dof as you've already mentioned.

I can't. Hard as I try I always screw it up.

[Kerrowdown]

I can't. Hard as I try I always screw it up.

I guess I'm lucky as it's all I've known and I always work this way no matter what kit or brand I'm using.

A Scottish dinosaur, extinction just around the corner.