Best way to achieve DOF and Bokeh?

[shikha12]

What is the best way to achieve more depth of field? Which lens would suitable for that?
Are depth of field and bokeh are different? If so, how they differ?
What is best lens to get more depth of field? Should I go for a prime or a telephoto lens? I've seen somewhere here over the internet that telephoto lens are quite good to achieve depth of field. Please help me out. I decided to buy a lens and I'm pretty confused between these two and also 50mm prime lens and some telephoto lens cost almost same here in india. So please suggest me which one to have to get good depth of field.

I'm using a nikon d5200 with 18-55mm vr II lens right now. Saying bcoz just in case if anyone need info.

 

[jkjond]

wide angle narrow aperture = max dof (eg. 10mm @ f10)

tele with wide open aperture = min dof (eg. 200mm @ f2.8)

Do a search for hyperfocus and dof tables, the full equation needs to factor in your sensor size and finished print size, but the principle is as stated above.

Bokeh is the name given to the quality of blurriness of the out of focus areas in minimum dof shots. Every lens differs in this regard and some people are very fussy about what is good and what it bad bokeh. Don't turn up to a dof party with the wrong lens unless you don't mind being the but of all the jokes.

Kit lenses are built to be affordable and reasonably sharp. They're not too good for shallow dof but OK when it comes to maximum dof (hyperfocus).

 

[riveredger]

What is the best way to achieve more depth of field? Which lens would suitable for that?
Are depth of field and bokeh are different? If so, how they differ?
What is best lens to get more depth of field? Should I go for a prime or a telephoto lens? I've seen somewhere here over the internet that telephoto lens are quite good to achieve depth of field. Please help me out. I decided to buy a lens and I'm pretty confused between these two and also 50mm prime lens and some telephoto lens cost almost same here in india. So please suggest me which one to have to get good depth of field.

I'm using a nikon d5200 with 18-55mm vr II lens right now. Saying bcoz just in case if anyone need info.

Let's clarify a few things. More depth of field would mean more of your picture/subject in focus. Less (or more shallow) depth of field would mean less of your picture/subject in focus. Less DOF can help isolate a subject and blur a background (useful for a portrait, for example). Greater DOF can bring the background into focus (useful for a landscape photo, for example).

A more shallow DOF is obtained by using a wider aperture (f/2.8, for example) and a greater DOF is accomplished using a smaller aperture (f/8, for example). Additionally, you can achieve a more blurred background by creating more distance between your subject and the background. Other variables will impact your DOF as well, including your distance to subject and your sensor size.

Bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus (intentionally blurred) part of your photo.

Hope this helps.

 

[Brev00]

It sounds to me like you want less depth of field or more blur. If that is correct, one great way to achieve this is to get as close to your subject as possible. That is why macro photographers struggle to get more in focus. Macro lenses allow one to get very close to one's subject resulting in a shallow depth of field. Even stopping down to f 22 will often leave a lot of blur at such close distances. With your lens, shoot at 55mm and f 5.6 and find a subject at or close to the lens' minimum focusing distance. You will get a decent amount of blur. I like my Sigma 17-70 because it lets me get close to my subject and the blur is appealing to me--closer than most midrange lenses.

If you want more dof, ignore the above (or do the opposite).
--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[shikha12]

Rather than messing with subject distances, how can we control or get more blurrieness in background, DOF, if that's called as so. Then what's the use of primes regarding this? Help me out to invest my budget either in a prime or a telephoto.

Let me show you a picture of how the image should be of what I was expecting.

Loading…

khongthe.com

My question is simple. What should I opt for to get images similar to like the one shown above. Thanks

 

[Brev00]

Rather than messing with subject distances, how can we control or get more blurrieness in background, DOF, if that's called as so. Then what's the use of primes regarding this? Help me out to invest my budget either in a prime or a telephoto.

Let me show you a picture of how the image should be of what I was expecting.

http://khongthe.com/wallpapers/nature/depth-of-field-242907.jpg

My question is simple. What should I opt for to get images similar to like the one shown above. Thanks

I don't think it is so simple. I am no lens expert buy you also have to take into account the photographer's set up and post processing techniques. The background may be added in post or it could be a premade screen put into position or it could be a result of a certain lens. I would guess a telephoto. But, there are telephoto primes like the 300 f 4 that is so popular around here and was recently updated. Such long primes start to get costly especially compared to slower zooms. I use a Tamron 70-300 vc if I want to get this sort of effect. Not sure if it is what you are looking for:





In terms of value it is very good, but the more you spend on a fixed aperture, the better your results will be. You probably don't have to go beyond 300mm. 300mm, even with a slow f 5.6, does a pretty good job for me. Your mms may vary.

--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[jkjond]

Rather than messing with subject distances, how can we control or get more blurrieness in background, DOF, if that's called as so. Then what's the use of primes regarding this? Help me out to invest my budget either in a prime or a telephoto.

Let me show you a picture of how the image should be of what I was expecting.

http://khongthe.com/wallpapers/nature/depth-of-field-242907.jpg

My question is simple. What should I opt for to get images similar to like the one shown above. Thanks

I don't think it is so simple. I am no lens expert buy you also have to take into account the photographer's set up and post processing techniques. The background may be added in post or it could be a premade screen put into position or it could be a result of a certain lens. I would guess a telephoto. But, there are telephoto primes like the 300 f 4 that is so popular around here and was recently updated. Such long primes start to get costly especially compared to slower zooms. I use a Tamron 70-300 vc if I want to get this sort of effect. Not sure if it is what you are looking for:



In terms of value it is very good, but the more you spend on a fixed aperture, the better your results will be. You probably don't have to go beyond 300mm. 300mm, even with a slow f 5.6, does a pretty good job for me. Your mms may vary.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Note that if you are wanting to get short dof on small subjects such as butterflies you need to get a lens which will focus quite close. Most long lenses will not do this so check the specification carefully or see if it has a macro setting.

When composing a shot like this, to increase the blur to the background try varying the distance between the subject and background, the greater this distance the more blurred the background will be - too far and it will be so blurred that it may be counter productive and give no contextual sense at all, or maybe that is what you wish to achieve.

Some zooms have macro settings, but the better macro lenses are primes. For non-macro limited dof shots the best examples tend to be shot with fast prime lenses. This is because primes have larger max apertures, f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 being common. I don't know of any nikon zooms that go wider than f2.8. The number of blades in the iris affects the quality of the bokeh, and curved blades are also preferable. Cheaper lenses tend to have 5 blades, pay more for 7 or 9.

As with all things photographic, the more specialist the piece of kit, the more expensive it tends to be. 2nd hand lenses can make a lot of sense, especially macro where people buy them then three butterflies later decide macro isn't for them.



--
Wedding and fine art photographer based in the Lake District, UK

 

[David Lal]

As with all things photographic, the more specialist the piece of kit, the more expensive it tends to be. 2nd hand lenses can make a lot of sense, especially macro where people buy them then three butterflies later decide macro isn't for them.

It all went the other way with me: I got one butterfly and then 3 macro lenses: 90mm; 105mm and 180mm!



OP: To be honest, I'd probably fake the whole thing in postprocessing. One butterfly and flower against any kind of bland background and then slot in whatever blurry background you really want.

 

[atalwar]

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus area and varies with lens as their construction varies.

Two similar spec'ed prime lenses from different makers c

an vary in bokeh from one being pleasing and other unacceptably poor.

what you want is shallow depth of field, ie subject isolation which can be controlled by having distance to subject being much less than background to subject.

As distance of subject to background decreases, the larger the aperture needs to be for isolation.

medium to long lenses compress the background making the isolation effect more apparent even At aperture of f/8, however the subject to camera distance will be considerable with long lenses.

if you need a decent oof general prime lens then I would start at 85 1.8 or the much costlier 85 1.4 followed by 105 dc and 135 dc lenses. (DC= defocus control.) Depending on what you intend to shoot.

The photo you posted can be done with a lot of things, but if you want

A dedicated lens, get a 90mm macro to 105mm macro lens

Tamron 90mm

Tokina 100mm

Nikon 105 mm all are good to go lenses and give you

Enough working distance that you dont scare the creatures.

You can also try closeup filters or extension tubes with a normal prime lens.

With the 18-140 I would give some cheap 67mm closeup filters a try first . +2 and +4 stacked.

-amit