Huge in bokeh difference between f/1.8 and f/2?

[Derrel]

Here are some photos, shot at from f/2.5 to f/3.2, with a 200mm f/2 lens. Can you tell which is which in terms of background blurring? This is what 2/3 of an f/stop difference looks like on a fast 200mm prime lens. Note that the image quality is very high, even near wide-open on a fast prime.

 

[Destin]

To correct some terms, bokeh is not depth of field. It is a description of the appearance of out of focus highlights. Depth of field defines the range of the image that is in acceptable focus from front to back. It is not bokeh. the difference in depth of field between f 1/8 and f2 is meaningless. But understand that how meaningless it is depends on the focal length of the lens.

While this is true, as a general rule shallower depth of fields result in increased amounts of bokeh. This is because the smaller the DOF, the faster the focus of the background falls off behind the subject. Therefore comparing DOF at different apertures is a reasonable way to quantify the differences in bokeh one could expect to see.

Nope. Bokeh is not a description of the amount of out-of-focus highlights. I describes only the appearance regardless of amount. It appears the terminology has been misused a lot.

Well now you're arguing semantics to the extreme. At a larger aperture, you'll get better appearing or at least more pronounced bokeh, than you would at smaller apertures.

Simply stated: Bokeh is directly related to depth of field.

 

[table1349]

The local brick and mortar store owner and I have known each other for a long, long time. Both times when the lenses came in for trade he checked them out and called me first. Before they were offered to sale to the general public (they never were because I snatched both up) he let me take them and test them. They were both in 10 shape and in perfect working order. As I said I snatched them both up right away. I couldn't afford all three new and the 400 f2.8 was my must have sports lens.

It's the same place I picked up both the 200 f2.8 and 135 f2 used at great prices. I have no issue buying used, especially when I can see it, touch it and try it out first.

FYI the 200 f2.8 performs nicely for sports as well. I used it before I got the 200 f2.

 

[table1349]

To correct some terms, bokeh is not depth of field. It is a description of the appearance of out of focus highlights. Depth of field defines the range of the image that is in acceptable focus from front to back. It is not bokeh. the difference in depth of field between f 1/8 and f2 is meaningless. But understand that how meaningless it is depends on the focal length of the lens.

While this is true, as a general rule shallower depth of fields result in increased amounts of bokeh. This is because the smaller the DOF, the faster the focus of the background falls off behind the subject. Therefore comparing DOF at different apertures is a reasonable way to quantify the differences in bokeh one could expect to see.

Nope. Bokeh is not a description of the amount of out-of-focus highlights. I describes only the appearance regardless of amount. It appears the terminology has been misused a lot.

Well now you're arguing semantics to the extreme. At a larger aperture, you'll get better appearing or at least more pronounced bokeh, than you would at smaller apertures.

Simply stated: Bokeh is directly related to depth of field.

No. Bokeh is not semantics. It describes the quality of the OOF area. Period. Check out the DOF of the canon 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 at f2 and tell me that they are the same. The DOF and the Bokeh is totally different.

 

[Derrel]

Bokeh causes a LOT of semantics arguments; the word has come to have at least three different definitions. I think the most accurate definition comes from Mike Johnston, current editor at The Online Photographer (TOP). He introduced this word to English-speaking audiences in the 1990's in the photo magazine he was editor in chief of. He even added the "h" the end of the Japanese word boke.

A lot of people erroneouslty think bokeh is all about the diaphragm's blade count and roundness or lack of roundness, but there is more to it than that. Bokeh is the quality, the character, the look, the nature of, the out of focus areas. Things like spherical aberration, coma correction, diaphragm shape and placement within the lens, chromatic aberration correction levels, microcontrast, and more--all those things influence the character of the OOF areas; that is the original meaning of bokeh.

The other definitions of bokeh keep coming up from Wikipedia and from popular use; bokeh is now being used as a shorthand way of describing shallow focus, or selective focus type shots! Bokeh is also being used to mean, "A blurry background."

Bokeh has also begun being used to refer to bokeh balls, or the way a lens renders OOF point light sources.

YES, the semantics arguments are numerous, and common.

 

[table1349]

There are only 4 kinds of Bokeh. Great, Good, Poor, and OMG that Sucks!!! None of which have depth, just quality.

The problem with the idea that it is just semantics is the confusion and possible costs associated with using the wrong term. In a recent post on person replied that the OP should get some extension tubes to give more reach with his lens.

Semantics right, except extension tubes have no optics, and are designed for shortening the near focus distance allowing a standard lens to be used for closeup/macro photography.

The poster either was clueless or meant to say that the OP should get a teleconverter, which does have built in optics and is designed to provide image magnification at a cheaper cost than buying a longer focal length lens.

That reminds me, I probably ought to go back to that thread and add a post for the OP.

 

[fmw]

Any definition other than mine and Gryphon's is simply wrong. One of the characteristics of lenses that affects bokeh is the iris diaphragm. When the lens is wide open, the diaphragm isn't involved anything, let alone bokeh. Bokeh is not dependent on depth of field. They are not related.

 

[Derrel]

On TOP, the last discussion of bokeh took about a week, for hundreds of people to hash out and sort through!

Regarding bokeh; look into some of these terms: soap bubble bokeh; swirly bokeh; nervous bokeh; hard-edge bokeh; hashy bokeh; creamy bokeh; double-lining; cat's eye bokeh; onion bokeh; ring-edged bokeh. Look for some of the famous bokeh lenses, like the Nikkor 200/2, 85/1.4 AF-D,the Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 Noct~NIKKOR, The Leica Noctilux; the Eastern Bloc-era Helios 44-2 58mm f/2, and so on.

Other famous lenses with good bokeh are the Canon 85/1.2-L; most 300mm f/2.8 lenses; the Zeiss Biogon wide-angle series; the old and famous Petzval lens design, and on and on.

 

[Destin]

No. Bokeh is not semantics. It describes the quality of the OOF area. Period. Check out the DOF of the canon 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 at f2 and tell me that they are the same. The DOF and the Bokeh is totally different.

I'm not saying you'd see a difference in that case.

I'm saying that if you take an f/1.8 lens and stop it down to a smaller aperture, the out of focus area behind the point of focus is going to become less pronounced. So take that 50 f1.4 and compare an image at f1.4 with one at f4, and then another at f8... and then tell me that the bokeh is the same between the 3. It isn't: you'll have more pronounced bokeh wide open than stopped down. And therefore aperture affects bokeh. Period.

I'm not going to get tied up further in arguing the semantics of it or dragging this thread further away from the OP's question, so I'm leaving this thread following this post. I'll be out making photos while you all bicker about semantics.

Edit: I wanted to simply add that maybe this isn't how the term bokeh has traditionally been used. But in modern photography and language in general the meaning of *many* terms has changed over time. 99% of modern photographers use the term bokeh simply to describe the out of focus area that appears behind the point of focus.

 

[table1349]

No. Bokeh is not semantics. It describes the quality of the OOF area. Period. Check out the DOF of the canon 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 at f2 and tell me that they are the same. The DOF and the Bokeh is totally different.

I'm not saying you'd see a difference in that case.

I'm saying that if you take an f/1.8 lens and stop it down to a smaller aperture, the out of focus area behind the point of focus is going to become less pronounced. So take that 50 f1.4 and compare an image at f1.4 with one at f4, and then another at f8... and then tell me that the bokeh is the same between the 3. It isn't: you'll have more pronounced bokeh wide open than stopped down. And therefore aperture affects bokeh. Period.

I'm not going to get tied up further in arguing the semantics of it or dragging this thread further away from the OP's question, so I'm leaving this thread following this post. I'll be out making photos while you all bicker about semantics.

Really????

 

[Destin]

Really????

I literally just said that I wasn't debating that point.

Did you even read my post?

 

[table1349]

You look at the link and the Debate is OVER.

 

[Destin]

You look at the link and the Debate is OVER.

http://alikgriffin.com/sites/default/files/fuji_56mm_f1.2_r_bokah_test.jpg

How about you look at this link.

Certainly looks like the bokeh is different at different apertures, and more pronounced wide open.

You're right, look at the link and the debate is over.

 

[table1349]

You right it is. My link shows three different lens at the same focal length. Yours shows god only knows what lens or lenses used.

 

[Destin]

You right it is. My link shows three different lens at the same focal length. Yours shows god only knows what lens or lenses used.

Please show me *one* example of where I ever said that different lenses at the same settings would provide the same results.

Literally never said that.

I'll ask again.. did you even read my posts?