A larger lens like the Sigma 35 1.4 or 1.2 for L-mount has a much easier time producing nice background blur. Size limitations of M lenses limit the potential for an optical design that delivers smooth backgrounds. You're fighting the lower compression of the 35mm focal length compared to a 50mm or longer lens. Fast aperture is not a requirement at all, and budget isn’t too much of a consideration, either (although I’m dreading a little hearing that the answer is the FLE!). So: what’s the 35mm lens with the out of focus rendering that works best against complicated backgrounds? I’m open to almost any lens, new or old, although I’d like it to be small, since 35mm is my everyday focal length. My current lens, the CV Ultron 35/2 v2, is excellent in every way except for its somewhat nervous and distracting bokeh when shot against the leaves and tree branches that seem to surround my home in all directions and appear in the background of every family photo I take. My main lens is 35mm, and I live in a wooded area with lots of trees. So once again, as I said my point was to only share what I found and that was the fact that busy bokeh can be found with any lens depending on how you shoot.The longer I’ve spent with the M system, the more I’ve realized what my personal, specific needs are. This is true even in Canon system where a lens like 135mm or 35mm is quite a different tool than 70-200. But I find 50-140 very versatile much like 70-200 is also versatile on FF system. For portrait that lens is my first choice than 50-140. If I share some facts based on some shots / experiences, that should be good enough to learn from rather than going on negativity of things like this lens does this and that lens does that. I simply cannot understand why people are always trying to prove/disprove others. Once again guys, my point is not to start war about lenses here. And I did not come across that behavior by THIS LENS ONLY. Just because you get busy bokeh with one lens and you have few photos to show does not mean that lens is prone to producing busy bokeh. Also a few users pointed to websites where people had shown images with busy bokeh. For someone this lens could be the best for some others it may not fit the bill whether IQ wise or any other reasons.Īnd again the reason I felt that busy bokeh can happen with any lens is simply due to the shots I came across that were not even taken by 50-140 whereas I heard few claiming that 50-140 produces busy bokeh. That depends on what is the use of this lens to a given user. I am not comparing 50-140 with any lens or trying to say 50-140 is better than 56 or 90 or even better than 70-200 or 135. My only point is to convey that busy bokeh can happen with any lens. Well in this thread, I am not talking about 56 or 90. If you want to show that the 90 is just as likely to have nervous bokeh as the 50-140, then you have to compare the 50-140 to the 90, not to a Canon lens. In other words, I think you are defending the lens with a rather irrational argument. Given that, how can it NOT be the lens formulation causing the differences? It may not always be obvious but in some cases, it is. I may be able to achieve the same amount of blur with the 50-140 as the 90 (by stepping back a bit and zooming in more) but the 90 will be smoother for the same background. People ask the question "How is the 50-140 from a bokeh perspective relative to the 90?" and some of us who have experience with both say "It can be a little busy sometimes." Then you jump in and say "It's not the fault of the lens!" Well, guess what, it is. It really does not matter what the Canon lenses do. You seem to be unwilling to accept the criticism of the 50-140 that it is more likely to create busy bokeh than some of it's contemporaries, like the 56 and 90. I did not say anything negative about the lenses I actually gave examples of. There's really nothing wrong with acknowledging that not all lenses are created equal. This thread seems to whitewash that fact. While it's true that the background has a significant impact on the bokeh, it's also true that there are lenses that give more desireable bokeh than the 50-140. That's where this thread is a classic "half step ahead and half step behind" from an "inform the new user" perspective. But it is also true that there are some things you just can't do with a kit lens, no matter how well you know how to use it.Īnd, it's also true that not all lenses create the same bokeh for a given aperture/focal length/focus distance. Gear is only part of the equation, and not the most important part. It's common for people to ask what camera and lens I am shooting with (I'm sure many others here have had a similar experience), as if that is what makes the photograph work.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |