website that compares BOKEH for canon lenses

[Gothmoth]

i can´t count how often i am asked how is bokeh of lens XY compared to lens XZ wide open.

like "has the 50mm f1.4 better bokeh then the 100mm f2"... "does the 135mm f2 looks smoother then the 85mm f1.8" etc.

is there a website that "tests" bokeh and has "bokeh test scene" it uses for all lenses?
i mean a single motive so that it´s easier to compare the lens bokeh.

i know photozone does it in some reviews.. but a bit more "in-depth" would be nice.
maybe with a way to compare images side by side.

i think there must be something like that on the web?

 

[sandymandy]

Bokeh is subjective so no wonder u didnt find an objective review anywhere Perhaps you can check "Battle of the bokeh" on youtube

 

[risc32]

I don't feel that it's all that objective. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/aps-c_port/bokeh.htm this is the best i've found for canon lenses. I found something with all sorts of lenses one time, but I can't remember where it was. i can't find it now, but i do remember the take away was that things like 9 aperture blades that are supposed to be the end all of bokeh, aren't, and how OOF objects in front of the focus point might show radically different behavior than OOF objects behind the focus point.

 

[Gothmoth]

Bokeh is subjective so no wonder u didnt find an objective review anywhere

that´s why i put "test" into quotation marks above.

i did not asked for a "review" of the bokeh... i asked for example images.

so i can point my customers to that website to compare the bokeh.

 

[Gothmoth]

I don't feel that it's all that objective. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/aps-c_port/bokeh.htm

thx but all i get on that site is 404.

 

[risc32]

Above I meant to say subjective, not objective. that link link and everything on the page it takes you to still work for me.

lenses used in the comparo are-

50mm lenses
EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L@50mm, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS @50mm
85mm lenses
EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS @ 85mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 85mm
135mm lenses
EF 135mm f/2L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS @ 135mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 135mm
200mm lenses - All at f/2.8
EF 200mm f/2.8L I, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS @ 200mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 200mm

It's a pretty good source of info, i just wish it would get some updates. some good astro work info there as well.

 

[crasher8]

This topic is only 2nd to 'How do you pronounce 'Bokeh'

 

[DB]

This topic is only 2nd to 'How do you pronounce 'Bokeh'

Well this particular website listed above states that Bokeh originates from the Japanese word Boke, so would mean that it should be pronounced like the Japanese rice wine 'Sake' (Sah-kay), thus Bo'keh ought to be spoken as 'Bow-Kay'

 

[DB]

Above I meant to say subjective, not objective. that link link and everything on the page it takes you to still work for me.

lenses used in the comparo are-

50mm lenses
EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L@50mm, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS @50mm
85mm lenses
EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS @ 85mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 85mm
135mm lenses
EF 135mm f/2L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS @ 135mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 135mm
200mm lenses - All at f/2.8
EF 200mm f/2.8L I, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS @ 200mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 200mm

It's a pretty good source of info, i just wish it would get some updates. some good astro work info there as well.

Notwithstanding the subjective-ness of what the beholder may see, the authors of this site do provide an operational definition of 'Good Bokeh' (symmetrical shapes) as opposed to 'Bad Bokeh' (irregular shapes). A case in point would be to look at the difference between the 200mm f/2.8L versus both the 70-200mm f/2.8L lenses - the discs of light are perfectly round in the case of the fixed focal length lens but are oval-shaped or almost chestnut shaped for the tele-zooms.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Bokah is not really defined in a precise manner, and there is likewise no standard test. Some people invent their own, but you can't compare from one persons test to another. You also cannot compare between camera bodies, but some will try.
So far. photozone is pretty good about showing images of their test setup for the more recent lens tests, I haven't seen any sites markedly better.

 

[PackLight]

I have often wondered what would give a better bokeh. My 24mm f/1.4L shoot at F/4 or my 100mm f/2.8 shoot at f/4. With such a site to compare bokeh I would be able to compare and know which would be the best.

 

[Loswr]

I have often wondered what would give a better bokeh. My 24mm f/1.4L shoot at F/4 or my 100mm f/2.8 shoot at f/4. With such a site to compare bokeh I would be able to compare and know which would be the best.

...exactly. Because, when choosing between framing a shot at 24mm vs. 100mm, bokeh is usually the deciding factor for the choice.

 

[JBeckwith]

pixel-peeper.com is the best site I know to compare real-world lens samples. Sure it's not going to be perfect but it provides some nice comparisons from different lenses.

 

[DB]

btw the Bokeh on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 @ 2.8 looks really funny, like tiny small balls of light and not like expanded discs of reflected light

 

[DB]

I have often wondered what would give a better bokeh. My 24mm f/1.4L shoot at F/4 or my 100mm f/2.8 shoot at f/4. With such a site to compare bokeh I would be able to compare and know which would be the best.

You forgot your 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II at f32 - to ensure that your bokeh is sharp, detailed and in-focus

 

[jdramirez]

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

 

[PackLight]

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

:-\ I thought the creamy bokeh of the 180mm was just the best. What is the implication?

 

[jdramirez]

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

:-\ I thought the creamy bokeh of the 180mm was just the best. What is the implication?

I guess I wasn't clear. Bokeh's mimic subconscious sexual desire. And since the iris is perfectly round, people gravitate to lenses which have more blades and again mimic a perfectly round blurring effect.

 

[DB]

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

:-\ I thought the creamy bokeh of the 180mm was just the best. What is the implication?

I guess I wasn't clear. Bokeh's mimic subconscious sexual desire. And since the iris is perfectly round, people gravitate to lenses which have more blades and again mimic a perfectly round blurring effect.

@jdramirez You were crystal clear, in every respect. Perhaps PackLight by name is no coincidence, so if he is packing light, then perhaps the long lens is compensatory, personally I favor the EF 14mm f/2.8

 

[PackLight]

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

:-\ I thought the creamy bokeh of the 180mm was just the best. What is the implication?

I guess I wasn't clear. Bokeh's mimic subconscious sexual desire. And since the iris is perfectly round, people gravitate to lenses which have more blades and again mimic a perfectly round blurring effect.

@jdramirez You were crystal clear, in every respect. Perhaps PackLight by name is no coincidence, so if he is packing light, then perhaps the long lens is compensatory, personally I favor the EF 14mm f/2.8

But the 14mm f/2.8 has very little if any Bokeh at all. With jdramirez's theory you would be gravitating to a lens that would mimic no sexual desire whatsoever. There are many commercials about this problem on late night television.