More a confirmation then a question.

[Bram]

hey guys,

Alright so my last shoot was with a MM model ashley, can be seen on my second flickr, www.flickr.com/bramvandenboom
I shot with my kit lens, I know that's horrible but it's all I had. Well so I thought, I was looking at some portrait threads and thought to myself, DOF!
If I were to use my 55-200VR lens, zoomed in all the way I would have a better DOF and better Bokeh right?
I know a prime will be the smoothest and best but i don't have one right now, nor can I afford one (working student sucks)
Just curious if using my 200 lens will bring out a better picture.

 

[mwcfarms]

Depends on the lens really. I have heard that some of the kit lenses or cheaper zooms are not that great at full range on either end. Test it out on a doll or something and see what kind of quality you get. I know on my 18 - 105 kit lens fully zoomed in sucks monkey junk.

 

[raphaelaaron]

zooming in and keeping your lens wide opens gives a more pronounced bokeh, yes.

now, i'm not promising that will be a better picture, but considering it's all you have at the moment, you really don't have a choice.

 

[KmH]

Than, not then.

Bokeh is not the same as DOF.

I would also like to address one thing, I Hear photographers talking about an image having a shallow depth of field and calling it Bokeh. That is NOT Bokeh, that is just a shallow depth of field. Bokeh is a descriptor used to describe the QUALITY of the out of Focus areas of an image. And is used to describe the quality of a lens. "That lens has a very smooth and creamy Bokeh" But you cannot use it as: "I decreased my aperture to give the image more Bokeh"

You would have better DOF using the 55-200 at 200 mm. http://blog.groundupphotos.com/2009/06/26/photography-lesson-3.aspx

Subject distance and distance to the background also have to be considered for controlling DOF.

 

[Forkie]

Yes, zooming right in will give you more/better bokeh. Here's one of mine with my Nikon 55-200 (non-VR) zoomed right in - admittedly it's not a hot, half-naked girl, but the principal is still the same!


Grey Heron by Forkie, on Flickr

 

[mikehaugen]

...sucks monkey junk.

That's a new one... LOL

 

[Bram]

Thanks alot for the quick replies. Yes Keither I realized that it wasn't the same my apologies if it came off that way. MWC nice word usage, and also thanks for the quick reply I will definatly go home and put something up about 3ft in front of a background, and use it all the way zoomed it and see what we get :thumbup:

On a side note, to what Keith mentioned. ie: lets say youg to 10ft of length, you're at the 10ft. mark your background at 1ft. my subject would be at the 6ft. mark for better bokeh then if she were at the 3ft. mark correct?

 

[mwcfarms]

Are you looking for Bokeh or DoF. I honestly think your looking for better DoF not Bokeh.

 

[mikehaugen]

is there "better" DoF, isn't it a matter of how much? I'm confused.

 

[Bram]

I am looking for a better DOF technically, I would love to just get a creamy background and not have to worry about editing anything out you know? I mean if you look at the set from Ashley there are a few that have definate issues with the background, I am still a CS5 nub so.

 

[mwcfarms]

is there "better" DoF, isn't it a matter of how much? I'm confused.

Yes because if you had more range you can shoot from further away and its that subject to distance to background ratio. If your closer its going to give you a different DoF right? Maybe I am confused.

 

[Bram]

Going off of what Keith said, the closer your subject is to your background, the less shallow your DOF is? If your subject is further away from the background you have a better DOF.

I really hope I got that right.

 

[mwcfarms]

I can confidently say correct.

 

[mikehaugen]

The way I understand it is that DoF is the distance in front of and behind the subject that is "in focus", so I don't know how it can be better or worse, just more or less of it. whatever... maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself will step in here.

 

[mikehaugen]

sorry... that was late but I think we all get the point anyway.