Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎09-28-2014

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

im not so good in English, but if i understood your saying, I've already taken pictures with depth of field and bokeh as well, so i don't think what you said is accurate..
and I'm 16, so i must be wrong, but that what i was taught so maybe our definitions are a little bit different.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,982
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

[ Edited ]

@gsbuah wrote:
im not so good in English, but if i understood your saying, I've already taken pictures with depth of field and bokeh as well, so i don't think what you said is accurate..
and I'm 16, so i must be wrong, but that what i was taught so maybe our definitions are a little bit different.

I assure you that you are far better at English than I am at your native language. But let me try to clarify a bit:

 

A lens's depth of field (i.e., the range of distances between the subject and the focal point at which the subject will be perceived to be in focus) varies with its focal length and with the size of the aperture used. It's greatest for a short focal length and a small aperture and least for a long focal length and a large aperture. In many (perhaps most) cases a large depth of field is desirable; it makes it easier to keep major elements of the image in focus.

 

But a small depth of field has its own advantages. If you want to emphasize one element of a picture and get rid of other elements that may serve as distractions, one way to do it is to focus on the important element and throw the rest out of focus. That usually requires a small depth of field, so you use a longer lens and/or a wider aperture to achieve it.

 

The term "bokeh" (a word supposedly adapted from the Japanese language) is a measure of the attractiveness of the out-of-focus portion of the image. Different lenses handle them differently, and what is considered attractive in such circumstances varies from person to person, so "bokeh" is a highly subjective term. But there's enough agreement overall to allow many lenses to be categorized as having good or bad bokeh without too much argument.

 

In your case, it sounded as though you were looking for both good bokeh and a large depth of field. But in a way, that's contradictory. If the entire image is in focus, the term "bokeh" doesn't apply. If almost all of the image is in focus, the bokeh doesn't matter much. So if you want to be sure that we understand what you're looking for, you need to be more precise about how you're using the terms "depth of field" and "bokeh".

 

When I was 16, I got my first adjustable camera, an Argus C-3. I'm now almost 77, and I've had a long, sporadic relationship with photography. The advent of the digital camera rekindled my interest, and I'm now a serious photographer for the first time in my life. You're lucky to be starting out with a range of available technology that I couldn't have dreamed of. Work hard at photography, and it will likely bring you great satisfaction all your life.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA
VIP
Posts: 11,206
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

" If the entire image is in focus, the term "bokeh" doesn't apply."

 

Oh, but it does, Bob from Boston.  All lenses have 'bokeh'.  It is simply the degree that seems to be afftected by DOF.

It may be easier to say bokeh is either soft (pleasing) or harsh (unflattering).

 

Bokeh happens in parts of the scene that lie outside the DOF.  It is most often seen around background highlight points.

 

It is caused by aberations in the lens, aperture shape and number of aperture blades and other parts of the lens' design.

 

DOF simply moves it's appearence closer or farther away in the photo.

 

All this is tied together.  It has a great deal to do with where you stand in relationship to your subject.  Along with focal length and aperture.

This young photographer probably wants a large aperture medium focal length lens.  The 50mm f1.8 is giving him what an 80mm f1.8 will see basically.  Considering cost this may be as good as it gets for him.  The 85 mm f1.8 could be a choice (close to 135mm in relationship).

 

(BTW, I got my first real 35mm camera in 1955.  It was an Argus C3 and I still have it.)

 

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,982
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" If the entire image is in focus, the term "bokeh" doesn't apply."

 

Oh, but it does, Bob from Boston.  All lenses have 'bokeh'.  It is simply the degree that seems to be afftected by DOF.

It may be easier to say bokeh is either soft (pleasing) or harsh (unflattering).

 

Bokeh happens in parts of the scene that lie outside the DOF.  It is most often seen around background highlight points.

 

It is caused by aberations in the lens, aperture shape and number of aperture blades and other parts of the lens' design.

 

DOF simply moves it's appearence closer or farther away in the photo.

 

All this is tied together.  It has a great deal to do with where you stand in relationship to your subject.  Along with focal length and aperture.

This young photographer probably wants a large aperture medium focal length lens.  The 50mm f1.8 is giving him what an 80mm f1.8 will see basically.  Considering cost this may be as good as it gets for him.  The 85 mm f1.8 could be a choice (close to 135mm in relationship).

 

(BTW, I got my first real 35mm camera in 1955.  It was an Argus C3 and I still have it.)

 


I guess yiou're lumping coma, chromatic aberration, and other aspects of sharpness and distortion under the rubric of bokeh. Which is fine, although virtually every instance of the term that I've ever seen was a reference to the OOF portion of an image. So I guess I'll stand by my definition while acknowledging the validity of yours.

 

As I recall, I got my C-3 for my 16th birthday in 1953. And yes, I still have it. I think I may even have a telephoto lens for it. It may be worth more now than my Nikon F-2, since it's more of an antique.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA
VIP
Posts: 11,206
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

"... was a reference to the OOF portion of an image."  Smiley Happy



It does.  And, yes, all the characteristic of a lens contributes to the bokeh.



Bob from Boston, you do know how many C3's Argus made? Plus all the various models and variations of it? But it does make a nice paper weight!

 

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,861
Registered: ‎12-02-2012

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

If you adjust the shooting distances to create equivalent subject framings, the 85 will give more of what you are thinking of as bokeh than the 50. The 135 will give more than the 85. Be aware of how far back you would need to be to shoot 135 on a crop body though. Probably could not get the framing you want in most indoor rooms and you might find that frustrating unless you shoot outdoor portraits most of the time. Or in big auditoriums or something.

See if you can try out a lens at 85 and at 135 just to experience the length. Maybe just borrow someone's 55-250 zoom lens. You won't see the bokeh because those lenses don't have the wide apertures but you can see how practical it is for framing your subjects.

Good luck and enjoy shooting! I wish I had started at 16.
Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,861
Registered: ‎12-02-2012

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

As for the bokeh, you say it goes away when you back up. That may be a problem with an 85 or a 135 if you are not careful to make the background far behind the subject, and make sure you are as close to the subject as possible. Positioning of camera close to subject and background far from subject increases the bokeh on any lens. No lens will give you much bokeh if the subject is leaning on a wall (or standing right in front of one) and the camera is far in front of the subject.
Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 11,206
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

Scott you are spot on with that advice.  Smiley Happy

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement