Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2013, 12:46 PM   #16
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 19
Original Poster
Great finds, VisualDarkness, thanks!

Abieleck, that is a good example, even with this kind of a raw background it separates nicely.
*50-135 F2.8 was the first option I had in mind (yeah, the price and might be a right candidate.

I am still curious can slower lens with a longer focal length make something comparable (not in terms of quality, but separation only).

06-10-2013, 01:02 PM   #17
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by abieleck Quote
I would go with the DA* 50-135 f/2.8 as well. Really nice lens with a very useful portrait zoom range. Here is a photo I took of my nephew. Little man on his own isn't full body sized....but with the bag on his head he is Either way, you can see the gradient of the OOF areas from foreground to background. This was shot on my K5 with a focal length of 65mm @ f/3.5. If you would back up, zoom in, and open it up you should get even better bokeh.
Nice portrait! That lens is really good and my brother use it as a walk around. You showed the main thing about getting backgrounds blurred out, simply watching out for distracting things behind the subject!
06-10-2013, 01:06 PM   #18
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,625
QuoteOriginally posted by d1pr3d Quote
Great finds, VisualDarkness, thanks!

Abieleck, that is a good example, even with this kind of a raw background it separates nicely.
*50-135 F2.8 was the first option I had in mind (yeah, the price and might be a right candidate.

I am still curious can slower lens with a longer focal length make something comparable (not in terms of quality, but separation only).
It has a little to do with how telephotos compress the background - removing objects/elements that are surrounding your subject and nearby.
06-10-2013, 01:09 PM   #19
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by d1pr3d Quote
Great finds, VisualDarkness, thanks!

Abieleck, that is a good example, even with this kind of a raw background it separates nicely.
*50-135 F2.8 was the first option I had in mind (yeah, the price and might be a right candidate.

I am still curious can slower lens with a longer focal length make something comparable (not in terms of quality, but separation only).
Well, if the magnification is the same (subject is the same size on the pic) the depth of field will be basically the same. Though the longer the focal length the more it will enlarge the background, often making it less distracting despite being just as blurry in reality. The problem is that you need to be really far from the subject if the lens is too long. Anything fast from 70mm and longer will give you a nice effect if max blurriness is what you want to achieve. So go as long and fast as you possible can without hitting the budget limit or run out of space to back off to.

06-10-2013, 01:12 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,841
QuoteOriginally posted by d1pr3d Quote
I am still curious can slower lens with a longer focal length make something comparable (not in terms of quality, but separation only).
Absolutely. I have a 500mm f8 mirror lens which has the typical donut rings in bokeh. If the background is far enough away, the details are small enough so the rings disappear and the bokeh looks quite smooth. Here the background is tall dead grass in the winter, maybe 30m away, and the lens is close to its minimum focus distance.

06-10-2013, 01:33 PM   #21
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,918
My vote is for the sigma 85mm f/1.4 -- its the best portrait lens I have. Shoot at f/1.8 for sharpness and you can throw the background oof very easily. I included a full body shot, almost full body shot, but if you stand closer and cut off some, you can really get great oof backgrounds.







06-10-2013, 05:47 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,395
When looking for pleasing bokeh, you need to consider background and magnification ratio of the lens being used. What many people forget is that die to the difference in magnification ratio of your lens on the subject, and lens on the background, the wider the lens the smaller the background is relative to foreground. As a result a wide angle lens may tend to make the background confusing, because the lens reduces the size of the background. This is because the magnification is the ratio of distance to focal length. The wider the lens, the greater the difference in magnification between foreground and background.

This is why most really pleasing bokeh is from long lenses..
06-10-2013, 06:51 PM   #23
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
When looking for pleasing bokeh, you need to consider background and magnification ratio of the lens being used. What many people forget is that die to the difference in magnification ratio of your lens on the subject, and lens on the background, the wider the lens the smaller the background is relative to foreground. As a result a wide angle lens may tend to make the background confusing, because the lens reduces the size of the background. This is because the magnification is the ratio of distance to focal length. The wider the lens, the greater the difference in magnification between foreground and background.

This is why most really pleasing bokeh is from long lenses..
Absolutely correct and this shows that in practice depth of field is only a part of how the lens captures the out of focus areas of the scene, since the depth of field is pretty much consistent when it comes to this type of shot no matter the focal length. When you find the right degree of depth of field and perspective distortion (compression) for the look you want to achieve you hit matters like optical corrections and aperture design.

I would say that the two first ones (FL and DOF) are the easy ones to research, the later ones are much harder and the best thing if you ask me is simply to look at pics taken with the different lenses. They are simply too subjective, too diffuse and too advanced to put into words most of the time.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
background, bokeh, camera, da, guys, height, lens, model, pentax help, photo, photography, photos, sample
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would be a good price for the PENTAX FA MACRO 100MMF2.8 LENS old version coreyhkh Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 04-23-2012 02:36 PM
Did the Zeiss Lens the Russians copied have a Swirly Bokeh? geekette Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 04-18-2012 11:46 PM
Bokeh. What's 'good' & bad' Bokeh Mychael Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 24 11-03-2011 12:55 PM
Whats a good autofocus prime lens for the kx < $200? RePete Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 21 07-12-2011 08:42 PM
need good bokeh fast lens for wedding spiritflare Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 12-13-2009 02:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top