Bad bokeh limits it's usefulness.

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Not a problem, actually. You shoot a bunch of different representative scenes with the same camera, lens, and settings, and compare. What are the odds, then, that the real life scenes you shoot are not only way different, but systematically favor one lens over the other?

Huge. When I got my 35L I did just that. Everything was perfect. Then I started using it and realized that I did I had a very poor idea of what a representative set of scenes meant.

Well, that's why it's important to shoot representative scenes.  For example, if you test a lens by shooting a brick wall, don't be surprised if the real life photos have characteristics not revealed in the tests.

There is no substitute for real life experience.

Not every situation can be accounted for by a set of test photos, of course, but if you take some time to think of some representative photos, you can get the info you need to know.

NottsPhoto wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

I haven't noticed the bokeh as "bad" at all. Granted, I'm shooting it on a 70D so I'm cropping off the outer edges... I just took mine outside for a couple of minutes as the sun set and my dog did her business and snapped some pics of her at the edge of the frame and with the foliage of a live oak in the background (recipe for nasty bokeh from what I understand) and I didn't see anything "bad". Maybe I didn't do it right...? I've never "tested" bokeh before. But again, nothing has stood out as negative in the past.

Here are 2 snaps that are basically awful but I wasn't worried about anything other than trying to get "bad bokeh". Again, I don't know how to setup shots that are supposed to demonstrate the flaws of a lens so if this ain't it, don't lose your marbles over it

Oh, and pardon the lack of grooming. She's blowing her coat. I just brushed her for half an hour on Wednesday and she's already got (what we call) "chunks" coming out of her fur. They're so large we just grab them with our hands - they're about the length and density of a cigarette filter when you peel the paper off of it - it's NUTS! Such is life with a Siberian Husky. She's got another date with the brushes tomorrow! Anyway... pics...

i think those are pretty good examples... As you move from the center of frame you can see how the bokeh becomes more distinct and "in your face". It's not rendering across the frame the background as smoothly or evenly as I would like, and it's this shift in the nature, as well as the decrease in, for want of a better term, "smoothness" that I don't like.. Now for some this won't be a issue, for some it will be a bonus... But for me and how I want my Work to look, its a bad thing...

I think you are confusing the change in scene to the change in rendering, here. Yes, where the bright sky comes through the leafs at the border, you get less smooth bokeh. But that is a function of the change in the scene, not the lens being worse at the border.

Any 35mm lens will have a problem with the leafs against the sky part, only maybe the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 will smooth it over a bit better.

we have a quality control system in our office, so the work is PP'd by the photographer, some retouching and all the captioning is done by my assistant, and then it's reviewed by the customers account manager just prior to upload to the customers online facility... When I did my first job with that lens were I was shooting wide open (a prospectus), the account manager pulled all the shots and brought them back to me under the impression that there was something wrong... So it was a really visible difference to material we had shot previously, And it clashed with our expectations..

Then don't shoot with any 35mm lens unless you stop it down a lot, if that is your office's taste. You can't make a focal length be different than it is.

as as I have said elsewere, if it works for you, then that's a great thing... But It doesn't work for us as it's so distinctly different and distracting.

-- hide signature --

www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.

Suave wrote:

I put my 35 on, walked outside and shot what I think is one of the more challenging backgrounds - sky through mixed foliage. What's not to like?

It's not sharp, for one. 

Where's my new 50, Canon?

Sigma's holding it for you. 

Suave wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Sigma's holding it for you.

I demand 85/1.8 focusing, and weight under 400 g. I also would not mind it being priced below $600.

I think you'd have better luck holding an Al Queda fighter hostage and demanding the US pay you $1,000,000 to release him. 

Suave wrote:

Hard to argue with that. But one can hope right?

Shoot, if I'm gonna hold out hope for something, it's hooking up with Jessica Alba.

For 7D2, new 100-400, decent 50.

The "decent 50" will likely be a reality very soon, in the form of a Canon 50 / 1.8 IS.  Hopefully that will be followed with an 85 / 1.8 IS and 135 / 2.8 IS.

In my opinion, an ideal (as opposed to "the" ideal) setup for FF and/or crop would be a 17 / 2 IS + 24 / 2 IS + 35 / 2 IS + 50 / 1.4 IS + 85 / 1.8 IS + 135 / 2.8 IS + 200 / 2.8 IS.  The 24 IS loses a stop from the ideal and the 50 IS loses 2/3 of a stop from the ideal -- neither of which would be deal-breakers (although the 24 / 2.8 IS does vignette more than it could, even stopped down).  A 17 / 2 IS, of course, is probably a silly thing to even mention, much less wish for -- f/2.8 will be the fastest for a 17mm prime).  On FF, you get a bit wider, on crop a bit longer.

Suave wrote:

I know I won't be able to justify buying 85 IS...

In my opinion, an 85 / 1.8 IS would be a huge hit.  Not saying that the current 85 / 1.8 will not serve most "well enough" or that an 85 / 1.8 IS with updated optics would be "worth" double the price for many, but I'm thinking it would be a very profitable lens for Canon to put out.

...and I haven't been taken even by the current 135 2.8.

I assume you mean 135 / 2L, but I'm not sure what you mean by "taken by".  Do you mean that you can't "justify" adding it to your kit?  Sure.