Best for Bokeh

chris malcolm said:
If you want to keep open the option of purchasing a lens specifically for the purpose of the best possible bokeh quality, that lens is the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF f2.8 [T4.5], designed quite specifically for that sole purpose, using an apodisation filter instead of a conventional iris. It does have two conventional irises as well, one of which operated manually, the other of which is operated under camera control. To be able to use that lens you will require ideally a Sony A-mount camera, which can mount it directly, or a camera which can mount it with a glassless adapter, such as a mirrorless camera or any DSLR with enough of a shorter registration distance than the Sony A-mount to accommodate an adapter.

I just wanted to alert you to the difficulties and complexities, not to mention the costs, which beset the path of the Ultimate Bokeh Seeker :)
Click to expand...
Just because it's designed for bokeh doesn't necessarily mean it's the best :p When you research the best lenses for bokeh the Sony lens doesn't feature anywhere, but this in itself means diddly squat ;) It's all very subjective, I personally like the Nikon DC lenses, but also there's some stunning zeiss, leica and voigtlander lenses (y)
 
Nawty said:
Not for SAF (which is what every shot in this thread would be taken with), mirrorless tend to actually be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Here here..when I had a Nikon ( a few years back ), I'd get frustrated with fine tuning lenses to bodies. Now, I admit that this was more frequent with the d7000 than the d3100 but still something that I don't have with m43.

So, as Ned says, in terms of the subjects the OP is interested in m43 could well be more accurate

Then again, the OP also says she thinks she'll get a dslr and posts photos with said camera 27 minutes later. :thinking:
 
Nawty said:
To my eyes that doesn't look very natural I'm afraid.



Not for SAF (which is what every shot in this thread would be taken with), mirrorless tend to actually be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Fair point, I leave it most of the time. I'm too lazy to edit much of anything
 
damianmkv said:
Then again, the OP also says she thinks she'll get a dslr and posts photos with said camera 27 minutes later. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Glad it's not just me then. Exif stripped, but images are dsc_0923x-jpg and dsc_1095x-jpg - 170 shots in less than 30min & resized for web too? Has your spidey sense been tingling?
 
Nawty said:
Not for SAF (which is what every shot in this thread would be taken with), mirrorless tend to actually be more accurate.
Click to expand...
It depends how Orangecroc determines better. Yes mirrorless should be more accurate/consistent due to the contrast detect AF, but they can be more sluggish to react (especially when light isn't as good) and are still prone to missed focus. In fact I've had more missed focus shots (where the camera has said focus has been achieved when in reality it hasn't) with all 3 of my Olympus cameras (EM10, EM5-II and EM1) and Fuji XT1 than I ever have with my Nikon. In fact I don't recall one such episode with my Nikon when using AF-S. My Nikon is faster, and more reliable ime.

Of course, everyone has their own user experience, but if I'm asked to do any shoots there's only one camera I choose.
 
Member of ................ 104 groups too :wideyed:
 
I think you're getting overly suspicious lol.
She said she was offered the camera, so could be someone who lives very close and easy to collect the camera from. 170 shots doesn't take long, and if you only pick 2 of those, resizing for the web takes no time at all. And joining 104 groups in over a year on flickr is not necessarily unusual.
 
Just to clarify, I have been offered the used Nikon D3400 by a friend who kindly let me borrow it the weekend for a little try whilst I'm making up my mind and considering all my options :-)
 
OldCarlos said:
Member of ................ 104 groups too :wideyed:
Click to expand...
Ooh, a witch hunt! Can we all join in? Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!

.... Alternatively perhaps you could just lay off stirring up negative feelings about other members based on their "suspicious" behaviour. This isn't the first time you've done it. You know how it's supposed to work: if somebody is abusing the forum or breaking the rules, report to the mods. If not, be nice.
 
Ive owned a d3400 and i liked it,my only concern was no auto cleaning but the sensor is excellent.
The d3200 should be as good but with auto cleaning.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The argument that the mirrorless size advantage disappears with lenses is only partly true. Yes, a full frame 70-200mm f2.8 for mirrorless and DSLR maybe essentially the same size but the Mirrorless body (if we're talking a Sony A7) will still be smaller than the DSLR and once you mount a 35mm f2.8 on your A7 it's significantly smaller than a DSLR with a similar lens. The A7 / other mirrorless body therefore gives you the option of having a small body and lens combination that a DSLR just can't match, should the combination suit the shot and circumstances.

Plus of course the RF style GX80 and A6000 are even smaller.

Plus again... who knows what will happen with lens technology in years to come? It may be that some new tech could give us a pancake 7-200mm f2.8 :D Maybe :D

What the OP should do, IMO, is take a quick look at mirrorless and if it's attractive then look at specific body and lens combinations and see how they stack up against the DSLR alternative.
Click to expand...

I must confess I hadn't considered mirrorless and have done a bit of research since your suggestion. I like the fact they are smaller obviously and reviews seem to indicate image quality pretty much matches DSLR's. I know they have an EVF rather than OVF but I've read about the EVF's and that hasn't put me off the idea of mirrorless, and I know I would need to charge extra batteries to take out with me as battery life isn't great but could live with that too.

However, because I photograph animals, I cant really get away with any less zoom than I can get on the Nikon D3200 55-300mm lens. (I know we are in a thread about Bokeh but Zoom is also important to me too.)

I've had a look at the lenses compatible with say the Sony A6000 mirrorless but most seem to only go up to around 200mm (£279 at Jessops, £150 used from mpb)

Sony do do a lens that goes up to 300mm but its over £1199 in Jessops (£860 used from mpb), I was hoping they did a 300mm lens which was a bit more affordable and for this reason unfortunately I think mirrorless will be unsuitable for me. Shame because the reviews seem rather good of mirrorless from the bit of research I've done.
 
*Louise* said:
I must confess I hadn't considered mirrorless and have done a bit of research since your suggestion. I like the fact they are smaller obviously and reviews seem to indicate image quality pretty much matches DSLR's. I know they have an EVF rather than OVF but I've read about the EVF's and that hasn't put me off the idea of mirrorless, and I know I would need to charge extra batteries to take out with me as battery life isn't great but could live with that too.

However, because I photograph animals, I cant really get away with any less zoom than I can get on the Nikon D3200 55-300mm lens. (I know we are in a thread about Bokeh but Zoom is also important to me too.)

I've had a look at the lenses compatible with say the Sony A6000 mirrorless but most seem to only go up to around 200mm (£279 at Jessops, £150 used from mpb)

Sony do do a lens that goes up to 300mm but its over £1199 in Jessops (£860 used from mpb), I was hoping they did a 300mm lens which was a bit more affordable and for this reason unfortunately I think mirrorless will be unsuitable for me. Shame because the reviews seem rather good of mirrorless from the bit of research I've done.
Click to expand...
Sony's biggest issue with mirrorless has always been the lens lineup, and you're right to look at this before buying into a system. Fuji is a good system with a good choice of lenses, but to get decent AF tracking you'd have to get the XT2 which is expensive. Plus, there's the controversial Fuji artefacts.

The M4/3 system is very mature and pretty much has all the lenses that you'll ever need. However, IQ isn't quite as good as APS-C DLSR (although very very close) but the big issue again is AF tracking. There's only really the EM1-II (and possibly one of the Panasonics) that can compare to DSLR and that's another pricey camera.

What's your budget? Have you considered buying used such as the D7000 (can buy excellent condition used for £300)? It has a much better AF system which will help a lot with moving wildlife. Of course, the drawback is that it's a bigger heavier camera and less MP.
 
snerkler said:
Sony's biggest issue with mirrorless has always been the lens lineup, and you're right to look at this before buying into a system. Fuji is a good system with a good choice of lenses, but to get decent AF tracking you'd have to get the XT2 which is expensive. Plus, there's the controversial Fuji artefacts.

The M4/3 system is very mature and pretty much has all the lenses that you'll ever need. However, IQ isn't quite as good as APS-C DLSR (although very very close) but the big issue again is AF tracking. There's only really the EM1-II (and possibly one of the Panasonics) that can compare to DSLR and that's another pricey camera.

What's your budget? Have you considered buying used such as the D7000 (can buy excellent condition used for £300)? It has a much better AF system which will help a lot with moving wildlife. Of course, the drawback is that it's a bigger heavier camera and less MP.
Click to expand...

I definitely don't want to go any heavier or bigger than the Nikon d3200 with 55-300mm, only have little hands lol.
 
Worth mentioning that M43 also has a small sensor, though much bigger than that in a compact, and will therefore produce less OOF blur at a given aperture than the equivalent crop sensor DSLR.

However if background blur is less important than affordable longer lenses then M43 is a very convenient and lightweight camera format, and the entry level lenses seem good value too. My wife uses an Olympus E-M10 with pancake stadard zoom, and it's only a little larger than her Panasonic compact. Obviously fitting a longer zoom lens makes it bigger, but it's still small and light.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Worth mentioning that M43 also has a small sensor, though much bigger than that in a compact, and will therefore produce less OOF blur at a given aperture than the equivalent crop sensor DSLR.

However if background blur is less important than affordable longer lenses then M43 is a very convenient and lightweight camera format, and the entry level lenses seem good value too. My wife uses an Olympus E-M10 with pancake stadard zoom, and it's only a little larger than her Panasonic compact. Obviously fitting a longer zoom lens makes it bigger, but it's still small and light.
Click to expand...
Along with this, a 300mm lens on a m4/3 will have a FFE focal length of 600mm as opposed to the 450mm you would get using a crop sensor DSLR.
 
yes have to agree with the 2 posters above,M/4/3 does give double the reach and I've seen some impressive wildlife shots from some of them
 
snerkler said:
Just because it's designed for bokeh doesn't necessarily mean it's the best :p When you research the best lenses for bokeh the Sony lens doesn't feature anywhere, but this in itself means diddly squat ;)
Click to expand...

You haven't searched well enough :-) It's true it is rarely mentioned, but that's because, not being Canon or Nikon, it's rarely considered. Most bokeh enthusiasts don't even know it exists. When comparative reviews including the Sony/Minolta STF are done, however, it rarely fails to trump the opposition as far as bokeh quality is concerned.
 
Orangecroc said:
Bokeh "quality" is subjective. I think the bokeh from the old Helios lenses to be the best, but technically that is caused by poor edge sharpness and distortion.
Click to expand...
Definitely subjective, I don't like the Helios Bokeh that much ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top