mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

I will ansewr your exact questions to the best of my ability...

"Questions.
Are all F/1.4 lenses similar in bokeh effect at close range?
Maybe I should have tried the Sigma.
Anyone familiar with both?"

Yes! Most F/1.4 50mm's behave very, very even very similar and to distinguish images apart takes some work. Canon 50mm group, Nikon and from what I learned today Sigma all have + & -. I would still opt for the lens you have over the sigma or any other. (appart from f/1.2 L or older F/1.0 L) I have not tested both.

In that case you are testing yes, but comparing to what? Also your initial image is not available to download. You can not examine exact bokeh at this magnification. I could get the same results off a 50mm f/1.8 but at F/22 end and adding radial blur in photoshop at that magnificateion.

I agree bokeh is important. Initially one desires the framing of an image then imagae sharpness at point of focus followed by nice background/foreground blur to seperate subject from suroundings.

Try shooting a ruler! Set your lens distance to 0.45m or 45cm (minimal focus distance) on a tripod using cable release. Failing the cable release use self timer and mirror lockup. Focus half way up the ruler and See what is within focus. Use live view at max magnification on your 5D II, you really want to get the focus where its at. Shoot a range of images at f/1.4 upto say f/8 or beyond if you want. There is a test you can compare results against. Otherwise a true comparison would be rent a sigma and carry out the tests side by side.

Finally the 5dII has lens calibration. If focus is not where you want it adjust it + or - until as you like.

beverett Loc: los angeles

Oh. Kind of you to admit it. As for my vocabulary, "blur" works well, as do "boring" and "subject."

2MATO Loc: CNY -Central NoWhere

For ME, This above. I love this site and how we get all snaggled about our individual expectations, but I -personally just ME -- am finding that there is a LEARNING curve with this lens rather than just my regular click everything and see wassup. :mrgreen: This lens - which I dearly LOVE - just wiped the smirk right off my face. :oops: Spending time with it is like learning all about a new, unique friend. My assumptions are challenged -- probably a good thing.

Tina

I agree with coco1964. "Why the high iso 2000? Also, the extremely shallow depth-of-field (DOF) causing the unattractive foreground blur probably has to do with your choice of settings and distance from the subject rather than the lens.
What's the minimum focusing distance on the lens? If you are closer than that without a extension tube or close-up lens the foreground will always be blurry as well. You're not focused on the entire rock.

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

None of the image would be in sharp focus if you were beyond the minimum focus distance of the lens. (0.45m). ISO was set at 100 shutter speed was 1/2000 not 2000 ISO. Lets not confuse matters any more. I see what you mean to say though Tina. :wink:

tnste Loc: New Westminster, BC

I have the Canon 50 mm 1.4 lens and it is a great lens; very sharp;

andrew.haysom Loc: Melbourne, Australia

I just bought this lens too. Like others have said, a little bit of a learning curve, but very happy with it so far.

Good for portraits, this is the only member of my family that will pose for me though!

Tina

I apologize for any confusion. I meant to reference the shutter speed of 1/2000. Regardless, the wider the aperture the smaller the depth-of-field. The camera compensates for fast shutter speed and a high ISO settings by widening the aperture to allow more light in resulting in a narrower DOF.
The narrow DOF is what causes the background (and sometimes the foreground) to be blurred. I recall seeing a website link on UHH for a DOF calculator. It allowed you input camera settings and calculated the length of the DOF . In macro photography the DOF is usually pretty narrow and having the camera on the same plane as the subject can help to improve the sharpness of the subject as well. I'm still learning through trial and error to pay attention to the DOF, when I'm trying to blur the background of a photograph to emphasize my subject. I haven't arrived there yet. If anyone was confused by my comments, I hope this helps to clarify what I was trying to say earlier.

Tina

Hi Andrew Haysom, Great composition, angle and catchlight in the eye. If the aperture (f-stop) is stopped down a few stops more of the dog's body would be in focus. Love the shot though. My dog would never stay still long enough.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Very nice photo. I to have this lens and I took the time to learn how and where its sweet spot is!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Yes. I am glad that you have seen that.
So kind of you to tell me about it.
You probably saw it in one of my posts. I have linked to it several times for peoples benefits.

Here it is again.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Nightski

This is a similar experiment that I did with mine. I am not familiar with the Sigma one. I used manual focussing. Do you think the effect is the same as yours? I have noticed since you mentioned this that the bokeh is not the greatest. I do love this lens for doing panoramas though. I think I will not be using it for flowers anymore.

F/1.4

(Download)

F/1.6

(Download)

F/1.8

(Download)

F/2.0


F/2.2

(Download)

F/2.5

(Download)

F/2.8

(Download)

Nightski

btw .. lighthouse .. I started out shooting this interesting seedpod for this experiment and quickly realized why you used a rock. It stayed still for my whole experiment all the way up to F/22. LOL ... I like yours better in the sand.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

An interesting comparison Sandra.
Yes i do see a difference.
It may be because of the difference subject matter, or maybe the focus distances involved.
Not sure yet.
But it looks to me like your foreground bokeh is much smoother than mine, and my background bokeh is smoother than yours.

Nightski

I was exactly 1 1/2 feet away. I measured.