Did I make a mistake?

[Stacylouwho]

Okay.. So I have the Canon rebel t3i 600D. I also have the kit lens.EFS 18-55mm and the EFS 55-250 mm. I just purchased the 55mm f/1.8 II.online because it was cheap and I want to take portraits of my family and friends with it. After reading some reviews it seemed like it was a good idea. Today I shot with my 55-250mm and got some pretty stunning shots with it with that blurred background look that I desired. Do you think the lens purchase will still be worth it for portraits?

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Okay.. So I have the Canon rebel t3i 600D. I also have the kit lens.EFS 18-55mm and the EFS 55-250 mm. I just purchased the 55mm f/1.8 II.online because it was cheap and I want to take portraits of my family and friends with it. After reading some reviews it seemed like it was a good idea. Today I shot with my 55-250mm and got some pretty stunning shots with it with that blurred background look that I desired. Do you think the lens purchase will still be worth it for portraits?

That's not really a question that anyone can answer for you. That's really something you're going to have to decide for yourself once you get the lens.

that blurry background look you're talking about is known as "bokeh." The amount of bokeh present in your photographs is going to relate mostly on your depth of field. There are several variables that come into play when talking about DoF. I don't know why you would be "unhappy" with the 50mm 1.8. However, maybe the prime lens just won't appease you. I will say, that a 50mm at 1.8 is going to be much simpler to get that bokeh effect from, versus using a zoom lens with a smaller aperture value (higher f-number).

Once said before, no one can really answer this question except for yourself.

 

[Stacylouwho]

Okay.. So I have the Canon rebel t3i 600D. I also have the kit lens.EFS 18-55mm and the EFS 55-250 mm. I just purchased the 55mm f/1.8 II.online because it was cheap and I want to take portraits of my family and friends with it. After reading some reviews it seemed like it was a good idea. Today I shot with my 55-250mm and got some pretty stunning shots with it with that blurred background look that I desired. Do you think the lens purchase will still be worth it for portraits?

That's not really a question that anyone can answer for you. That's really something you're going to have to decide for yourself once you get the lens.

that blurry background look you're talking about is known as "bokeh." The amount of bokeh present in your photographs is going to relate mostly on your depth of field. There are several variables that come into play when talking about DoF. I don't know why you would be "unhappy" with the 50mm 1.8. However, maybe the prime lens just won't appease you. I will say, that a 50mm at 1.8 is going to be much simpler to get that bokeh effect from, versus using a zoom lens with a smaller aperture value (higher f-number).

Once said before, no one can really answer this question except for yourself.

Okay.. I'm guessing the 50mm will be a quick go to for those kind of shots I want. Thanks for your reply!

 

[cgipson1]

Okay.. So I have the Canon rebel t3i 600D. I also have the kit lens.EFS 18-55mm and the EFS 55-250 mm. I just purchased the 55mm f/1.8 II.online because it was cheap and I want to take portraits of my family and friends with it. After reading some reviews it seemed like it was a good idea. Today I shot with my 55-250mm and got some pretty stunning shots with it with that blurred background look that I desired. Do you think the lens purchase will still be worth it for portraits?

that blurry background look you're talking about is known as "bokeh."

The blurry background is not "Bokeh"... Bokeh is used to describe the quality of the blur, but the blur is not "Bokeh".

OP.. on that 50mm lens... just don't bump it against anything, it is famous for coming apart into two pieces (barrel separation)! Also known for very poor "BOKEH"!

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Okay.. So I have the Canon rebel t3i 600D. I also have the kit lens.EFS 18-55mm and the EFS 55-250 mm. I just purchased the 55mm f/1.8 II.online because it was cheap and I want to take portraits of my family and friends with it. After reading some reviews it seemed like it was a good idea. Today I shot with my 55-250mm and got some pretty stunning shots with it with that blurred background look that I desired. Do you think the lens purchase will still be worth it for portraits?

that blurry background look you're talking about is known as "bokeh."

The blurry background is not "Bokeh"... Bokeh is used to describe the quality of the blur, but the blur is not "Bokeh".

OP.. on that 50mm lens... just don't bump it against anything, it is famous for coming apart into two pieces (barrel separation)!

Wikipedia strongly disagrees with you:
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I quote:

"In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image."

I had even written an entire article about this entire subject on a photography blog I once had. It seems that over time, photographers seem to lose sight of the basic definitions of the terms we use. Bokeh is, in fact, the blur. In fact, it's derived from the Japanese word "boke," which directly means "blur."

 

[cgipson1]

that blurry background look you're talking about is known as "bokeh."

The blurry background is not "Bokeh"... Bokeh is used to describe the quality of the blur, but the blur is not "Bokeh".

OP.. on that 50mm lens... just don't bump it against anything, it is famous for coming apart into two pieces (barrel separation)!

Wikipedia strongly disagrees with you:
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I quote:

"In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image."

I had even written an entire article about this entire subject on a photography blog I once had. It seems that over time, photographers seem to lose sight of the basic definitions of the terms we use. Bokeh is, in fact, the blur. In fact, it's derived from the Japanese word "boke," which directly means "blur."

aesthetic quality of the blur i.e. Quality of the BLUR... not the blur itself! The Background is NOT Bokeh.. that was my point.... Bokeh is used to describe the quality of the blur caused in the background by selective focus and use of DOF.

 

[o hey tyler]

Wikipedia strongly disagrees with you:
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I quote:

"In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image."

I had even written an entire article about this entire subject on a photography blog I once had. It seems that over time, photographers seem to lose sight of the basic definitions of the terms we use. Bokeh is, in fact, the blur. In fact, it's derived from the Japanese word "boke," which directly means "blur."

It is indeed the aesthetic quality of the blur. For example, the 50mm 1.8II has 5 aperture blades which produces jittery and polygonal bokeh when stopped down. Shallow depth of field is often referred to as "the bokeh effect" which I've found to be a misuse of terminology and an oversimplification of what the properties of a lens produce.

I have seen the term misused and wrongfully implemented on a multitude of occasions.

Wikipedia isn't disagreeing with anyone, it is poorly worded however.

 

[cgipson1]

Here is a quote from KMH in another thread...

Many new to photography use the term bokeh incorrectly.

They use the word bokeh when they are really asking about, or discussing depth-of-field (DOF).

Depth-of-field is quantitative and is affected by:

• image sensor size
• lens focal length
• subject to image sensor distance
• subject to background distance
• lens aperture

There are DOF calculators online. You can plug in values for the different variable listed above, and the DOF calculator will describe the resulting DOF: Online Depth of Field Calculator

Bokeh is qualitative and mainly a function of the number and shape of the blades that are the lens aperture. More blades, rounded blade edges, and blades shaped to make an aperture opening as close to round as possible, usually produces the softest bokeh.

There are 2 main types of bokeh:

1. Cream cheese (very smooth)
2. Hollywood (nice round blotches of light)

A good example of a lens that can produce very high quality bokeh, is Nikon's AF 85 mm f/1.4D lens. It has been nicknamed the 'Cream Machine'.

The Cream Machine has 9, rounded edged, and carefully shaped lens aperture blades.

An example of a lens that produces poor quality bokeh is Canon's inexpensive EF 50 mm f/1.8. Canon's 'nifty-fifty' has only 5, sharp edged lens aperture blades.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

The blurry background is not "Bokeh"... Bokeh is used to describe the quality of the blur, but the blur is not "Bokeh".

OP.. on that 50mm lens... just don't bump it against anything, it is famous for coming apart into two pieces (barrel separation)!

Wikipedia strongly disagrees with you:
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I quote:

"In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image."

I had even written an entire article about this entire subject on a photography blog I once had. It seems that over time, photographers seem to lose sight of the basic definitions of the terms we use. Bokeh is, in fact, the blur. In fact, it's derived from the Japanese word "boke," which directly means "blur."

aesthetic quality of the blur i.e. Quality of the BLUR... not the blur itself!

It is the blur itself.

Charlie, you do realize there is a big fat OR in that definition, right? That means it can be used as either one.

I think you missed that part.

Listen, I'm not going to get in another argument on this forum. Over something that is written plain as day, in black and white.

Bottom line, the word can be used for the blur itself. You can try and wrap that wording to appease your brain all you want to. However, it still says the same thing.

 

[cgipson1]

Okay.. So I have the Canon rebel t3i 600D. I also have the kit lens.EFS 18-55mm and the EFS 55-250 mm. I just purchased the 55mm f/1.8 II.online because it was cheap and I want to take portraits of my family and friends with it. After reading some reviews it seemed like it was a good idea. Today I shot with my 55-250mm and got some pretty stunning shots with it with that blurred background look that I desired. Do you think the lens purchase will still be worth it for portraits?

That's not really a question that anyone can answer for you. That's really something you're going to have to decide for yourself once you get the lens.

that blurry background look you're talking about is known as "bokeh." The amount of bokeh present in your photographs is going to relate mostly on your depth of field. There are several variables that come into play when talking about DoF. I don't know why you would be "unhappy" with the 50mm 1.8. However, maybe the prime lens just won't appease you. I will say, that a 50mm at 1.8 is going to be much simpler to get that bokeh effect from, versus using a zoom lens with a smaller aperture value (higher f-number).

Once said before, no one can really answer this question except for yourself.

Okay.. I'm guessing the 50mm will be a quick go to for those kind of shots I want. Thanks for your reply!

The 50mm 1.8 is known for very poor quality Bokeh... so it may not make you happy! Now the Sigma 50mm 1.4? Makes lovely Bokeh!

 

[cgipson1]

Wikipedia strongly disagrees with you:
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I quote:

"In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image."

I had even written an entire article about this entire subject on a photography blog I once had. It seems that over time, photographers seem to lose sight of the basic definitions of the terms we use. Bokeh is, in fact, the blur. In fact, it's derived from the Japanese word "boke," which directly means "blur."

aesthetic quality of the blur i.e. Quality of the BLUR... not the blur itself!

It is the blur itself.

Charlie, you do realize there is a big fat OR in that definition, right? That means it can be used as either one.

I think you missed that part.

Listen, I'm not going to get in another argument on this forum. Over something that is written plain as day, in black and white.

Bottom line, the word can be used for the blur itself. You can try and wrap that wording to appease your brain all you want to. However, it still says the same thing.

WIKI is hardly a professional resource.. it is written by the users, not the experts. That OR you refer to just makes me think that whoever wrote that wasn't sure of the exact definition and waffled!

The word was brought into existence to describe the quality of the blur, and that had not changed.. no matter how many rookies use it incorrectly!

http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/

What is Bokeh?
Bokeh is a term, originally from Japanese (暈す-to blur; or ぼ&#12369, that has come to mean the subjective aesthetic quality of the out of focus area of an image. Two key terms in this definition are SUBJECTIVE and IMAGE. One cannot measure bokeh, as it is something that may be pleasing to one person and not another. I have my opinion of what makes for good bokeh, and, as I own this site, I get to define good and bad Bokeh for the purposes here! The other key term is “image.” Bokeh is a property of IMAGES, not a property of LENSES. Many people, myself included, even on the 1st version of this web page, get this confused, and this confusion contributes to a lot of misunderstanding in conversations in photography forums regarding this issue. What CAN definitely be said is that certain properties of lenses cause bokeh to be rendered differently by different lenses. When we refer to a “the bokeh of a lens” what we really mean is that particular lenses ability to affect the bokeh of an image for the better or worse. This is an important distinction. Many scenes will produce wonderful creamy bokeh with even the worst of offenders, like mirror lenses. Other scenes with harsh lighting, clothes lines running across the picture, specular highlights are much more difficult to get beautiful creamy blurred background images from. And here is where the qualities of the lens make a difference.

 

[Derrel]

Stacylou, The 50mm 1.8 is still a "faster" lens than either the 18-55 or the 55-200 zoom, meaning it opens wider, and allows in more light. That will allow the 50mm lens to be set, at let's say, f/2.2, not wide-open, but instead stopped down a tad, and that will give you shallow depth of field at portrait distances. Having a sharp subject, like let's say a man and woman posed together, and a seriously out-of-focus background is PROPERLY described as ,"using selective focus". Or , "a shot made with deliberately shallow depth of field," since you set the lens to f/2.2. If you had, instead, set the lens to f/22, the shot would have much,much deeper depth of field.

Bokeh is an Americanized version of the Japanese word boke. The term bokeh was first brought to American attention in the early 1990's in a short series of articles written by Mike Johnston, who currently is editor and owner of The Online Photographer blog site. He has qritten several article describing what the word means; I would say that it has two definitions.

Anyway...will the 50 be dead weight? I dunno...maybe, maybe not.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

aesthetic quality of the blur i.e. Quality of the BLUR... not the blur itself!

It is the blur itself.

Charlie, you do realize there is a big fat OR in that definition, right? That means it can be used as either one.

I think you missed that part.

Listen, I'm not going to get in another argument on this forum. Over something that is written plain as day, in black and white.

Bottom line, the word can be used for the blur itself. You can try and wrap that wording to appease your brain all you want to. However, it still says the same thing.

WIKI is hardly a professional resource.. it is written by the users, not the experts. The word was brought into existence to describe the quality of the blur, and that had not changed.. no matter how many rookies use it incorrectly!

About Bokeh

The last thing I'm going to say about this is the following... even your link says right at the very beginning:

Bokeh is a term, originally from Japanese (暈す-to blur; or ぼけ), that has come to mean the subjective aesthetic quality of the out of focus area of an image.

So, I gather two things from this.

1. The word is derived from, and is originally interpreted to the exact definition I proposed.
2. The definition has subjectively changed due to an extensive use in the photographic realm.

Once again, this still doesn't deter the fact that the word means, "Blur."

You can argue until you're blue in the face, that doesn't mean you're right. It certainly doesn't mean you're wrong. However, I'm certainly not either.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I would say that it has two definitions.

Ding Ding Ding. This is the correct answer.

 

[shelby16]

I mean, might as well had this disagreement over Pm and not change the direction of the OPs thread!