Bokeh on Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 II APO EX DG Macro

[MrLogic]

I count that the lens has an aperture with only 6 blades. To bad. The best bokeh comes with around 9 blades like Nikon's Cream Machine, the 85 mm f/1.4.

You're wrong. Both lenses have 9 aperture blades.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Gotta say i'm not loving the bokeh.
Seems busy and nervous, to use a word i recently learnt could be used to describe bokeh. The colors are nice, but it's nowhere near creamy.

 

[Montana]

Background has a ton to do with how the out of focus area appears. The first shot is very busy with similar repeating shapes. (round heads of fans in the stadium) Also many different colors as well. As you read through the posts, you can almost catch a glimse of "bokeh". Its a quality that is subject to ones personal opinion. Some of the posters like the shot, some don't.

 

[LuckySo-n-So]

As you read through the posts, you can almost catch a glimse of "bokeh". Its a quality that is subject to ones personal opinion. Some of the posters like the shot, some don't.

I've read through all of the posts and most of the links. After having done so, I've come to the conclusion that "bokeh" is PROBABLY an overrated term that is mostly a bunch of bull**** that gives snooty photography snobs one more thing to ***** about. I kind of liken it to comparing "Two Buck Chuck" wine to a '62 Lafitte--"The best bokeh can only come from a Mamiya RB67 using a 90mm f/1.325 Sonnar lens made during the third week of August, 1959. Therefore, bokeh from all other lenses is pure garbage. You shouldn't even take photos." (this is not a direct quote...just a made-up example)

The most important thing I read in the links was that," if you like it it's good bokeh. If you don't like it, it's bad bokeh."

Well, I like it. It pleases me! :mrgreen:

Thanks again for all of your replies and the lively debate!

:cheers:

 

[PhotoXopher]

Don't take it so personally.

I think the vast majority like 'creamy' bokeh vs 'nervous' bokeh, so it's not overrated BS. It's what appeals to the masses.

If bokeh distracts from the main subject, it becomes an issue. If bokeh does it's job and makes the subject stand out against an otherwise distracting background, it becomes an asset.

That said, the end result is up to the photographer - if it turned out in a way that you intended, great. However being able to accept that it could have turned out better with other (usually more expensive) equipment is something a lot of us need to deal with.

Take this shot for example, the flowers in the background would have certainly messed up this shot - but with good bokeh I was able to blur it out and make the subject stand out more. With a lens like the cream machine it would have really popped, but I can't afford it so I make do with what I have.

Click to view if you wish, I don't want to post my photo in your thread.
http://photos.naumans.com/Photography/Photo-Walks/Rochester/DSC9217/651580888_c3qmi-L.jpg

 

[NateWagner]

I think you're right that most prefer the creamy to the nervous bokeh... but then again I would suggest that a decent part of that is the background's shapes and colors etc. When you have all those different colors it is going to make the background look very as was said nervous because you'll get the roundedness around each image, however if what was in the background was much larger (than all the little people) I believe it would be a much smoother background.

If the example Noyze had given had the same variations in the background it would have looked similar and people would probably still find it "nervous" but his has a much more neutral background which isn't as distracting and is thus to many eyes more pleasing.

 

[Montana]

The most important thing I read in the links was that," if you like it it's good bokeh. If you don't like it, it's bad bokeh."

Well, I like it. It pleases me! :mrgreen:

Thanks again for all of your replies and the lively debate!

:cheers:

Bingo