Portrait Lens Side-by-Side with Bokeh

[Rodenmg]

The clouds kept moving over so I watched the shadows on my fence and tried to snap these when the light was close to the same. These examples, as noted in the other thread, shows greater differences. Especially in dof. In my opinion the 105 at f2.8 just doesn't do well here. Blur, Bokeh quality and how it makes everything too sharp. I think for most people this lens would require a lot of post processing to soften the image.

85

105

135



--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Mike,

Thanks for the comparison. I am quite surprised how all 3 of the lenses have much greater depth of field than I would have thought they would have at wide open apertures.

Personally, I would prefer a long lens with an attractive blurred background to highlight the subject in photos like these, but just perusal preference.

Best,

Den

 

[F786]

I am glad you did this comparison again, now with the background adding some better comparison.

The 85 is not so zoomed in as the 135 and so includes more of the background and the wonderful bokeh it is known for.

 

[Rodenmg]

Mike,

Thanks for the comparison. I am quite surprised how all 3 of the lenses have much greater depth of field than I would have thought they would have at wide open apertures.

Personally, I would prefer a long lens with an attractive blurred background to highlight the subject in photos like these, but just perusal preference.

Best,

Den

Other than focal length and aperture it’s all about the distances involved. In this case, with the 85, the distance from camera to the subject is about the same as the distance from subject to tree trunk.

 

[Bill Ferris]

The clouds kept moving over so I watched the shadows on my fence and tried to snap these when the light was close to the same. These examples, as noted in the other thread, shows greater differences. Especially in dof. In my opinion the 105 at f2.8 just doesn't do well here. Blur, Bokeh quality and how it makes everything too sharp. I think for most people this lens would require a lot of post processing to soften the image.

The extrance pupil diameters tell the story...

• 135mm f/1.8 Plena: 75mm
• 85mm f/1.4: 60mm
• MC 105mm f/2.8: 37mm

The Plena background is beautifully creamy.

 

[BasilG]

The clouds kept moving over so I watched the shadows on my fence and tried to snap these when the light was close to the same. These examples, as noted in the other thread, shows greater differences. Especially in dof. In my opinion the 105 at f2.8 just doesn't do well here. Blur, Bokeh quality and how it makes everything too sharp. I think for most people this lens would require a lot of post processing to soften the image.

Is this referring to the lack of blur in the background or to the in-focus areas? On my copies, the Plena is at least as sharp as the 105/2.8 for things that are in focus (at portrait distance).

 

[Rodenmg]

The clouds kept moving over so I watched the shadows on my fence and tried to snap these when the light was close to the same. These examples, as noted in the other thread, shows greater differences. Especially in dof. In my opinion the 105 at f2.8 just doesn't do well here. Blur, Bokeh quality and how it makes everything too sharp. I think for most people this lens would require a lot of post processing to soften the image.

Is this referring to the lack of blur in the background or to the in-focus areas? On my copies, the Plena is at least as sharp as the 105/2.8 for things that are in focus (at portrait distance).

Look at the area around the eyes, the focal point. True the Plena stopped down to f2.8 might be just a tad sharper than f1.8 but based on tests I’ve done not much.

I admit I'm really nit picking here. They are very close.

--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/