Bokeh on 17-40 vs 24-105

[Digbydriver]

How does the bokeh differ on these two lenses, if at all?

 

[mrsfotografie]

Well, with the 17-40 you get hardly any bokeh! ;D

What are you looking for? These are different lenses with different uses,

 

[Skirball]

I describe the bokeh on the 24 - 105 as nebulous, where as the bokeh on the 17-40 is more brumous.

 

[jdramirez]

both are not well known for bokeh, but at 105mm, you will have more blurring than at 40.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I describe the bokeh on the 24 - 105 as nebulous, where as the bokeh on the 17-40 is more brumous.

'brumous'! I haven't the foggiest... ;D

 

[Skirball]

I describe the bokeh on the 24 - 105 as nebulous, where as the bokeh on the 17-40 is more brumous.

'brumous'! I haven't the foggiest... ;D

It was difficult to try to find adjectives to describe bokeh

 

[Marsu42]

How does the bokeh differ on these two lenses, if at all?

Given the only slight backgound blur @ wide angle with the 17-40L the bokeh is fine, and up to f8 the lights are circular & no onion rings - but as mentioned by another post this lens isn't very sharp @f4 so you'll seldom see the bokeh...

 

[hodor]

the bokeh not too hot on the 24-105. very little as compared to anything sharper

 

[Dylan777]

How does the bokeh differ on these two lenses, if at all?

This must be a JOKE of the day ;D

Get a used 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 on CL.

 

[Zv]

Who buys a wide angle for bokeh? You're subject will have to be really close for any kind of blur but really? Come on! 17-40L or 24-105L is pretty obvious. 105mm f/4 will give the most amount of blur. As to the quality of the blur - it's alright, nothing special.

You'll get nice bokeh with - 50L, 85L, 135L or even the 85 1.8 which was designed with bokeh in mind. 50 1.8 will give you ugly pentagons when stopped down and 50 1.4 is kinda in the middle. The 70-200 lenses all produce nice round oof highlights too and at 200mm f/2.8 everything in the background melts away into oblivion. Bokelicious!

 

[mrsfotografie]

Who buys a wide angle for bokeh?

The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 does bokeh up-close, and creates photo's with lots of 'vertigo' ;D Mind, this is at f/8:

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Photo Zone has a short comment about the 24-105mmL. They don't bother rating the 17-40L because of the wide angle and small aperture.


http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1"Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) @ 105mmThe Canon EF 24-105mm L is capable of producing a pleasing bokeh for a zoom lens. The circular out-of-focus highlights show a slight halo effect at 105mm f/4. Stopping down to f/5.6 reduces the effect but it's not overly worrisome anyway. The out-of-focus blur is very smooth and nothing to worry about (at 105mm). However, regarding its rather moderate max. aperture the 24-105mm L isn't really suitable for shallow depth-of-field applications. "

 

[jdramirez]

Here's a photo I took at around 85mm with the 24-105mm at f4 and about 2 or 3 feet away. It not special, but there is a good deal of blur.

 

[Kernuak]

And this is the 24-105 at 24mm from about 1mm away from the subject.


The Blusher Wideangle by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

 

[tq0cr5i]

The 24-105 can make more bokeh than the 17-40. But both of the two lenses' bokeh are not good (enough).

 

[shashinkaman]

Well, with the 17-40 you get hardly any bokeh! ;D

What are you looking for? These are different lenses with different uses,

+1!!!!