When spending money gets out of focus
f/1.8, with Canons $100 50mm II, on a Canon EOS 5D
Last month I led two Introduction to Photography courses and one of the things I saw repeated in each course is that the beginners don’t want a lot. They are not asking to be the next Ansel Adams or Steve McCurry. But the one thing almost all of them do want is a simple portrait of their kids or friends with a nice milky background. What we more experienced shooters call, a sweet bokeh[1. Bokeh, is a very confusing word to pronounce as it is derived from the Japanese word boke, that can means to lose color, fade and also to be dull or even dull witted. The current spelling with an “h” added to the end of the word was introduced in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine by editor Mike Johnson. Johnson says bokeh “is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable”. For more on Bokeh check out his article HERE.] Every photographer loves that soft, blurry background behind their subject. We all love it. We all love the way a shallow depth of field drops off and isolates the subject. It often creates negative space around the subject that is so soft and dreamy, our subject just pops out of the frame.
Well, I got good news and I got bad news.
First the bad news. You are going to have to face it. It’s really hard to get any kind of soft bokeh using a lens that has its widest opening at f/3.5. The math just doesn’t add up. It ain’t going to happen. These lenses are cheap introduction lenses and are not what we call “fast”. Fast means they have a wide aperture that lets a lot of light into the camera. It’s this wide aperture that gives you that bokeh you want. I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news. Most people at the beginning stages of their photography are using standard kit lenses like an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. These lenses are designed as starter lenses and as such, are cheap and very limited. Here’s a not-so-great workaround to your problem. Pull your subject away from the background quite a bit, then you and your camera get closer to your subject. This will make the depth of field drop off…some. But it will never give you the bokeh that a f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens will give you. OK, that’s the bad news.
Here is the good news. You can get close to what you want for just a little extra money. You don’t need to spend $1,300 on a 50mm f/1.2 lens. You can spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 lens and be just as almost as happy. Here’s how it works. Canon and Nikon both have a 50mm f/1.8 lens that is cheap! Here is the Canon version and here is the Nikon. Both of these lenses are around $100 and both have a fast, wide open aperture at f/1.8. These lenses give you a lot of light and a very dreamy bokeh that folks with the kit lenses aren’t able to achieve. It’s a lot of bang for the buck, so to speak. More good news; there are other options. Both Canon and Nikon make 50 f/1.4 lenses and they run only $350 to $400. This is also really good value and the bokeh is way better than the f/1.8 lenses. $300 better? Yes, no question. The last option is both Canon and Nikon offer a sweet 85mm f/1.8. I loved this lens when I had it. Many of you know, it seemed to never leave my camera. These are fast lenses but they give you a bit of telephoto and for around $400, it’s another killer deal that will amp up your creativity.
But eventually it comes down to your budget. Most people that are replacing a kit lens don’t want to spend $300+ on a prime lens[2. A prime lens is a lens with a fixed focal length, meaning that it does not zoom in or out. So a 50mm prime will only shoot at a 50mm focal length, the same with the 85mm prime etc.. ]
So when you are making that last minute Christmas wish list, think about your images and what will take them to the next level. It just might be you need to add a little bokeh to your list.
Thanks for the post Matt. I own a cropped sensor camera (Nikon D90) and bought that body with the 18-200mm (3.5-5.6). It is a jack of all trades lens but for an enthusiast like me, good enough.
My second lens was the 50 mm 1.8 and after seeing the beautiful shallow depth of field and sharpness (, and the many out of focus pictures that come with that shallow DOF) I didn’t feel like using my 18-200 for quite some time.
My 3rd lens is a 35 mm 1.8 which on my cropped sensor gives me just a bit more space indoors. With the 50 mm indoors I always had to zoom with my feet and often ended up against the wall. The 35 mm seems just nice with the same sharpness and DOF. Perfect for most of my people photography.
I enjoy your wonderful pictures and podcasts.
Cheers from Sydney, Australia
Rob vE
I wholeheartedly agree. Last year, I spent about the entire year cycling through the East. The first four months, I had a D700 with me with a wide-angle zoom and the ‘classic’ 24-70 f 2.8. I do have the 70-200 2.8 but decided not to bring it because of it’s bulk and weight.
The second part of the trip, I had a D90 and had exchanged the 24-70 Fullframe lens by the 16-85 zoom and an 85 mm 1.8. These two lenses together cost less than half of what the 24-70 costs and yet I’ve shot my best portraits on the second half of the trip, with the lighter and cheaper camera and the lighter and cheaper lenses.
An 85 mm 1.8 on a crop camera as opposed to a Full Frame has the added benefit that, if you want a nice close-up portrait, you don’t have to be so close to your subject. You don’t have to enter their ‘private space’ so much.
I still like my Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.8. It’s noisy and slow but the quality remains awesome. No need to upgrade to the expensive 1.4 version.
Serge, Help me here. How can a f1.8 lens be called slow and how does it add to noise in you photos?
It has a slow and loud focus. Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that in my previous comment. Image quality is excellent though.
lol! I understand.
I have good news and bad news: First, the bad. Your wrong. You can get great bokeh with that 3.5, but the trade off is that you have to get sooo close to your subject. Now, if your shooting an object this might work great, or perhaps a very close-up portrait.
The good: In general and most cases, your right. You do have to get too close with that 3.5 for your average portrait, and I know that that is what your talking about so it is good advice and those 1.8 lenses are fine.
I just wanted to point out that you can do it with those cheaper lenses, but as we all know, there is always a trade off.
Keith, Yes and no. I had actually put that in the original post, the idea about getting close. But the fact is, you do get a soft background, to call it a nice bokeh might be stretching it and as you say, it is just impractical. By the time you get close enough you start scaring the subject and getting distortion of facial features. So I left it out. The whole point of the discussion is that you don’t need to freak out and buy a costly lens or go photographic contortions to get the bokeh you want. A f1.8 50mm or 85 will work just fine and they are quite affordable for the average photographer.
As usual, we are both right. I keep forgeting to tell you, I absolutely love the shot of the camel “Wallas” in Cairo. One of my favorites of all time. I have Vietnam in Feb. with a side of Siem Reap. Looking forward to it. Oh, just listened to the Bambi interview, GREAT! She is fun to listen too. Good job.
Okay. So my Question to Matt is this.
Travel. The great trade off of weight vs lenses.
What is your recommendation for a low light tele lens for street photography when traveling. Weight being a consideration, but also range considering the constant movement on a street, including illusive subjects.
found your blog through FFH… have loved reading!
for the last few years, i have shot with a 50mm f/1.4 (and other 2.8 lenses). sure, there are a few times i would have loved to pull out a 1.2 to get exactly what i am looking for in an image- but i can’t say that i have ever completely missed a shot because of a lack of a particular lens. i get a lot of questions from friends who own an SLR this is great advice i will be passing along… thanks.
however, i did just invest in an 85mm f/1.2- i am in love. totally worth it for me 🙂
Another “work-around” for bokeh is software. I can do it in CS5 and I believe LR has an Alien Skin plugin.
Hi Chris, as much of a post-processing fan that I am (ask Matt :-)) recreating shallow DOF by means of Photoshop or plugins is something I try to avoid because it not only takes skill but alos a lot of time to pull it off believably. Selecting f1.4 on your camera takes 1 second. Faking 1.4 in Photoshop can take anywhere in between 10 minutes to an hour… Contrary to what the plugin manufacturers may want us to believe with the simple circular and elliptical bug-like controls, for true simulation, at least as far as portraits are concerned, you have to make realistic ‘depth maps’. If there’s people and especially hair in foreground it’s very difficult.