Canon Lens type

[gangnam93]

I was wondering if someone was familiar with the type of lens used in these photos. I know that the photographer uses a Canon 5D Mark ii. I was looking to achieve the beautiful blurry depth of field like in these images,
.
Any help would be appreciated, thank you!

 

[Big Mike]

What you are seeing is the result of a shallow depth of field.

A shallow depth of field is the result of a few different factors.
The first and most important factor is the aperture of the lens. A larger aperture (lower F number) will result in a shallower DOF.
The second factor is the distance from the camera to the subject (point of focus). The closer you are to your point of focus, the shallower your DOF will be.
The third factor is the focal length of the lens. The longer the focal length, the shallower your DOF will be.
Another factor is the size of the film/sensor. The larger the sensor, the shallower your DOF will be.

A 5DmkII is a 'full frame' DSLR, so it has a larger aperture than a typical (APS-C) DSLR camera, so it naturally gives you a shallower DOF.

The focal length and distance to subject tend to balance each other out, because if you zoom in (use a longer focal length), you may end up backing up to keep the same composition.

This leaves up with the most important factor, the lens aperture. When I see shots like this, I would guess that they were shot at an aperture of F2.8 or larger...maybe F2.0, or F1.8 or even F1.4.

This really narrows down what type of lens they might have used. The expensive, higher end zoom lenses often have a maximum aperture of F2.8. So these might have been shot with a 24-70mm F2.8 or a 70-200mm F2.8.

A typical prime (non zoom) lens will have a larger aperture than a typical (cheaper) zoom. So something like 50mm F1.8 or 50mm F1.4. There is a nice 85mm F1.8 and a really nice (expensive) 85mm F1.2. There is a 135mm F2 and several other options.

The point is, if you want to shoot photos with a similar DOF, you should be looking for something with a large max aperture (low F number).

 

[Derrel]

Two Canon lenses spring to my mind when looking at these. The Canon 135mm f/2-L, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L, of any vintage. I would say the last image, the one with the woman in the tank top with her hand on her hip...that looks like a 200mm or even a 300mm f/4 lens shot: see how totally blown out and virtually unrecognizable the background is, and see the SIZE of the bokeh circles? That's a long focal length.

The first, of the woman shown full-length, standing...see how the background is still recognizable, yet the focus band slides into defocus very close behind her? Easily done with the 135 f/2 lens at about f/3.5 to f/4 on a full-length figure.

The woman in the middle, in the two B&W images. One is from close-up, the other from farther away. The close one has much less DOF, the three-quarter length pose is from farther, and with a shorter focal length, making me think this was shot with a 70-200. Either way, the closer-up shot was made with a LONGER focal length than the one on the right, which has much more in-focus, more-recongnizable backdrop rendering.