Addicted to dof

[RS2021]

In a full manual lens, it should be easy enough to offer circular "aperture" at all apertures.
-h

what role if any, circular apertures play *wide open* (i.e) at f1.2 in 85mm is debatable.

Circular blades or more numerous blades may have more of an impact in OOF as you stop down...specifically in rendering more pleasing spectral highlights...think of those geometric pentagons one sees with the nifty fifty...

Wide open...say with 85L at f1.2 or 135L at f2... Blade curvature shape may not be a major contributor. 135L has just regular blades.  As one stops down yes it is useful...But both these lenses are used most often wide open.

On the other hand, intentional SA may have a lot to do with why 85L "holds" the bokeh longer at relatively the same level even as you stop down to some extent while the competitors start to show harsher and harsher bokeh...of course as you hit ~ f2.2 or ~f2.8 this advantage is lessened... But One doesn't buy an 85L to use it at f4.0

The trick is not to let the SA affect the sharpness, or find a balance... and this is where the canon designers did an excellent job with the 85... it is a sharp lens.

[RLPhoto]

Hi all.

I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.

I'm constantly on a quest for shallower dof. I do a lot of street photography.


My hesitations on upgrading to the L lenses are (other than cost):

Will I actually see a noticeable difference in dof?
The 50mmL has a pronounced focus shift narrower than f2.
The 85mm 1.2. is slower af than the 1.8

My question is will I see much difference between 1.4 and 1.2 @ 50mm and 1.8 and 1.2 at 85mm?
Also, does anyone know if the sigma 85 is any good? And similarly is it worth going from 85mm 1.8 to 85mm 1.4?

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

[Dantana]

I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.

[Studio1930]

I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.

If we want to get technical, it is the adjective "shallow" that is missing.  You can be addicted to DOF whether it is shallow or deep so the statement is not incorrect, it is just lacking a full description.   

Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?

[RS2021]

Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?

Well the former is unintended and typically movement based while the latter is a creative choice...same difference between slipping a BluRay in the player, sipping a dry Martini with your feet up and watching a movie you love and being forced to watch "Oceans 11" on Delta Airlines with a guy eating garlic bread in the next seat 

Not the same now, is it?

[neuroanatomist]

being forced to watch "Oceans 11" on Delta Airlines with a guy eating garlic bread in the next seat 

I presume you mean the recent one, not the Rat Pack version?  But maybe the destination is a tropical island paradise...that might make the odor of garlic breath for a few hours more bearable.   

[RS2021]

being forced to watch "Oceans 11" on Delta Airlines with a guy eating garlic bread in the next seat 

I presume you mean the recent one, not the Rat Pack version?  But maybe the destination is a tropical island paradise...that might make the odor of garlic breath for a few hours more bearable.   

Yes, the new one... The old version is enjoyable. No i was headed to NYC via Hoboken... Few years back,  but all I had to look forward to was being mugged. 

[STEMI_RN]

I don't own any of these lenses, but I have been a frequent borrower. I just wanted to mention one thing that seems to have not yet been mentioned.

What I really notice about the difference in the SHALLOW DOF of the 85 1.2L vs the 1.4 is the range at which you still notice the truly shallow DOF.  With the 1.2 you can get a noticeably shallow DOF even at further distances which you may not see in a slower lens.  I think this is why many wedding photogs consider the 85 1.2L the "Gold standard" for portrait lenses.  You can get extraordinarily nice results from a distance which might otherwise not be possible with a wider, slower lens.

[SteenerMe]

For street photography these lenses are too wide for a very shallow dof. Try using a fast, long zoom...

[RS2021]

For street photography these lenses are too wide for a very shallow dof. Try using a fast, long zoom...

One of the first lessons in street photography...within limits, don't draw attention to yourself. Smaller the gear the better. Long zooms are not ideal on that front.

Two, sometimes overly shallow DOF is counter productive in street shots. While in some cases you want to isolate your subject(s), in most cases you want wider fields with more DOF ...by that I mean not shallow DOF...sometimes I leave my fast primes at f5.6 or f8. Street work is not a studio portrait session...more often than not, you want context to the frame. That is provided by "more" DOF... more things in focus...not less.

[Dantana]

I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.

If we want to get technical, it is the adjective "shallow" that is missing.  You can be addicted to DOF whether it is shallow or deep so the statement is not incorrect, it is just lacking a full description.   

Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?

I suppose you could look at it that way, though if someone told me (without me looking) that an image had more depth of field than another, I would take that to mean that it had deeper focus, a larger depth of field.

Besides, blur is about motion, depth of field is about focus.

Not that this has anything to do with the original post. Sorry about that.

[7enderbender]

Like others have said, yes, there is a difference between the 50 1.4 and 1.2. I've been a decade long user of the various iterations of the 1.4. The EF version unfortunately is not built like the old FD versions. That's why I even looked at the 1.2 at some point.

What converted me, however, is the contrast of the 50L - with the shallower DOF and ever so slightly nicer bokeh as a bonus. The thing just puts out amazing colors wide open. My 1.4 was actually sharper between 2.8 and 4 (or so). I sold it anyway since I simply stopped using it. It's a trade-off that's not for everyone obviously. Is it worth the additional cost? Probably not for most people. I never regretted the extra grand or whatever it came down to.

[RGF]

Hi all.

I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.

I'm constantly on a quest for shallower dof. I do a lot of street photography.


My hesitations on upgrading to the L lenses are (other than cost):

Will I actually see a noticeable difference in dof?
The 50mmL has a pronounced focus shift narrower than f2.
The 85mm 1.2. is slower af than the 1.8

My question is will I see much difference between 1.4 and 1.2 @ 50mm and 1.8 and 1.2 at 85mm?
Also, does anyone know if the sigma 85 is any good? And similarly is it worth going from 85mm 1.8 to 85mm 1.4?

another way to shallow DOF is to have a very long lens - not exactly true since DOF for the same magnification is the same, regardless of the focal length.

Or you could go high magnification, e.g., macro.