DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Bad bokeh for 70-200 2.8 IS w/2x extender?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/19/2005 10:20:47 PM · #1

100% crop, f/8 @ 400mm.

It bugs me, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm still paranoid about dropping that much cash on the lens, and I want it to be better than it is. I mean the lens seems to work, but sometimes the bokeh seems bad when compared to all the comments about how great the 70-200 is supposed to be.

Am I taking crazy pills on this one?

Edit: Here's the uncropped/unedited shot:


Message edited by author 2005-03-19 22:24:20.
 03/19/2005 11:44:43 PM · #2
I think so! What do you expect at f8?


Message edited by author 2005-03-19 23:52:19.
 03/19/2005 11:45:52 PM · #3
If you had been a little closer to the duck and shot at a much higher aperture, I bet we'd had a very cool bokeh. F/8, well, that's not exactly shallow (depth of field).
 03/19/2005 11:54:56 PM · #4
When you're at widest aperture, there shouldn't be anything obstructing the bokeh (i.e., diaphragm blades) and the bokeh should be much more pleasing.

Message edited by author 2005-03-19 23:55:13.
 03/19/2005 11:57:41 PM · #5
Hi-ho,

That looks pretty typical for stopped-down bokeh. You'll only get the creamy bokeh with more background/foreground separation or wider apetures. F/2.8-4 gives great results with the 70-200's.

I've not tried one with a teleconverter on it, but I imagine it makes little difference to the bokeh?

I imagine the duck's head it in pretty sharp focus though, which is probably more important in the overall scheme of things.

Cheers, Me.
 03/19/2005 11:58:28 PM · #6
The 2x makes the bokeh look different. Try that same shot without the 2x and youll see much more pleasing bokeh.
 03/19/2005 11:59:41 PM · #7
Originally posted by Dim7:
I think so! What do you expect at f8?


Nice kitty....

Out of curiosity, what apeture/shutter/lenght was that one at? and with a teleconverter, or without?
 03/20/2005 04:09:50 AM · #8
Was IS active when you took the shot? This looks like pretty standard "IS blur". Not much you can do about it (except maybe try and crop it out). Grass, trees, bark, and similar backgrounds often result in this kind of strange bokeh with IS active.
 03/20/2005 04:43:22 AM · #9
I keep reading 'IS' in the forums when people talk about lenses. What does it stand for?
 03/20/2005 04:59:20 AM · #10
Image stabilizer. Helps with camera shake.
 03/20/2005 05:07:16 AM · #11
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
This looks like pretty standard "IS blur".


for Colda IS= Image Stabilisation

IS Blur?

Hmmm, I'd never thought about that.. Because the IS is moving some elements of the lens, the bits outside the DOF are effected by the movement? I assume that's what you mean.. Sorta makes sense.

Cheers, Me.
 03/20/2005 07:48:24 AM · #12
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
This looks like pretty standard "IS blur".


for Colda IS= Image Stabilisation

IS Blur?

Hmmm, I'd never thought about that.. Because the IS is moving some elements of the lens, the bits outside the DOF are effected by the movement? I assume that's what you mean.. Sorta makes sense.

Cheers, Me.


Yup - IS makes the bokeh streaky. Streaky bokeh. Makes me hungry.
 03/20/2005 08:56:02 AM · #13
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I think so! What do you expect at f8?


Nice kitty....

Out of curiosity, what apeture/shutter/lenght was that one at? and with a teleconverter, or without?

Hi Chris 200f2.8 he was right in front of me,unfortunatly that was through a fence! My guess would be that he was hand raised because he appeared happy that I was there, deep meowing?

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 08:56:45.
 03/20/2005 09:17:31 AM · #14
yeah she was thinking Lunch - if it weren't for that damn fence.

nice one though.

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 09:17:53.
 03/20/2005 10:03:39 AM · #15
Wow! Thanks for all the responses and info. I didn't realize f/8 was a small aperture for the 70-200 IS (with the circular blades), or that IS would contribute to odd bokeh (IS was on.) So, I guess I'll have to do some tests without the extender and with IS off, larger aperture, etc...

Is bokeh one of the reasons people seem to prefer the 1.4x over the 2x? I really wanted the reach. :(

Nice shot, Dim!
 03/20/2005 10:51:05 AM · #16
The 2x extender and the small f/8 aperture affects the Bokeh. IS does NOT affect the bokeh, if it did then your main subject will be streaky too. you need large apertures like f/2.8 to f/4 on the 70-200 to get that smooth buttery feel to the bokeh. Extenders will naturally affect the bokeh because you are adding more glass between the subject and the sensor.



All shot at f/2.8 WITH IS on.

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 10:52:38.
 03/20/2005 10:59:00 AM · #17
Originally posted by soup:
yeah she was thinking Lunch - if it weren't for that damn fence.

nice one though.

LOL
I`m not so skinny either so I would say supper not a nice lite snack at 220lbs!

I definetly wouldn`t stand a chance with her!

or him!

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 11:41:10.
 03/20/2005 11:16:32 AM · #18
Originally posted by doctornick:
...IS does NOT affect the bokeh, if it did then your main subject will be streaky too...


There is quite the debate about this, but speaking as one who has seen the IS effect without a teleconverter, I can confirm it is real. It does not show up that often, when it does it affects "busy" backgrounds that are just OOF the most. My hypothesis as to why this happens is that the IS system moves to keep the objects in the focal plane stationalry. Objects in front of or behind that point are not necessarily affected the same.
 03/20/2005 11:21:01 AM · #19
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by doctornick:
...IS does NOT affect the bokeh, if it did then your main subject will be streaky too...


There is quite the debate about this, but speaking as one who has seen the IS effect without a teleconverter, I can confirm it is real. It does not show up that often, when it does it affects "busy" backgrounds that are just OOF the most. My hypothesis as to why this happens is that the IS system moves to keep the objects in the focal plane stationalry. Objects in front of or behind that point are not necessarily affected the same.


Hmmm, this calls for an experiment as I haven't seen the streaking effect in about a year shooting with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 11:21:32.
 03/20/2005 11:23:14 AM · #20
Where's my creamy bokeh.... mmmm....

03/20/2005 11:44:44 AM · #21
Originally posted by cweed:
Where's my creamy bokeh.... mmmm....

Didn`t I have some in my coffee this morning?
 03/20/2005 11:45:57 AM · #22
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Wow! Thanks for all the responses and info. I didn't realize f/8 was a small aperture for the 70-200 IS (with the circular blades), or that IS would contribute to odd bokeh (IS was on.) So, I guess I'll have to do some tests without the extender and with IS off, larger aperture, etc...

Is bokeh one of the reasons people seem to prefer the 1.4x over the 2x? I really wanted the reach. :(

Nice shot, Dim!

Thanks Ara
 03/20/2005 01:24:49 PM · #23
Great discussion...I'd like to see your tests, doctornick. I'm going to be forking out the 2.4 million dollars for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and if the streaking is a problem I might just go without the IS.

Keep us posted...also, does anyone have any links to examples of this streaking phenomenon?
 03/20/2005 02:04:04 PM · #24
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Great discussion...I'd like to see your tests, doctornick. I'm going to be forking out the 2.4 million dollars for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and if the streaking is a problem I might just go without the IS.

Keep us posted...also, does anyone have any links to examples of this streaking phenomenon?


There's a switch. You can turn it off. You should only really be using IS when you need it anyway - it sucks power amongst other side effects. If you don't have it - you can't use it.
 03/20/2005 02:15:28 PM · #25
Duck at F/3.3 hand held


Frank
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:04:44 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:04:44 PM EDT.