Bokeh...I miss it. I need it back in my life.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by derelict, Feb 3, 2016.

  1. derelict

    derelict Mu-43 Regular

    May 5, 2015
    I have the need to a lens recommendation, and maybe something that does not blow the bank account up. Something that would render like the 50/ 1.7 I was using on my Pentax K7. Yes, I know that I could make that work but I am looking for a native, M4/3 offering. The 45/ 1.8, while being a fantastic lens, does not seem to be able to churn it out.

    Here is what I am talking about:


    45/ 1.8 @1.8
    • Like Like x 1
  2. carlosfm

    carlosfm Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 3, 2015
    Lisbon, Portugal
    The samples you show are focused quite close to the subject, it would not be so hard to get a similar effect with some native lenses.
    Without breaking the bank, probably the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7?
    Four Thirds | Micro Four Thirds | Products(Lenses)
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Real Name:
    You have a 45/1.8. My recommendation is to use that more and learn what will give you the effect you are looking to get. You have what you need, just need to understand what your gear is capable of producing. I'd go that route before buying more gear.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    I second this. The K7 is a 1.5x crop sensor, so the 50mm is really a 75mm FoV, and the aperture renders a DoF of f/2.4 on full frame.

    For a native lens, the best option really is the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7. Yes, it renders a DoF of an f/3.3 lens on full frame, but the longer focal length, paired with the very short mfd of the lens, allows it to achieve some great shallow DoF when close to the subject.

    Going non-native, I would suggest something like a Canon FDn 50mm f/1.4 and an RJ focal reducer. Putting that lens on the focal reducer makes it a 36mm f/1.0, equating to a 72mm f/2 on full frame (in terms of FoV and DoF). The combo will be a bit "bloomy" wide open, but stopping the lens down half a stop makes a huge difference, and gives you a 72mm f/2.4 lens (again, in terms of FoV and DoF).
  5. GFFPhoto

    GFFPhoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2013
    I get something like a 1.5 inch focal plane with my PL15 focused close at 1.7. Thats with a 15mm. I have no problem getting subject isolation like you have shown. I'd actually have to stop down for some of those shots. And the bokeh is quite pleasing! If the O45 isn't doing it for you and you like that focal length, get the P42.5, 1.7. It focuses significantly closer than the O45.
  6. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    The amount of blur depends on aperture, focus distance, background distance and sensor size. The difference due to sensor size is probably something you'd notice only with a side by side comparison. Look here to see it:

    MIRRORLESS BATTLE! Micro 4/3 vs APS-C vs Full Frame!
    Quick Comparison: Fuji X-E2, Sony A7 and Olympus E-M1

    or you can play with this tool to see it as a chart:

    How much blur? - A visual background blur calculator

    If you really want much more blur, even more then the 50/1.7, look at the Oly 75/1.8 or the Nokton 42.5/0.95 or the Panasonic 42.5/1.2 or the Mitakon 42.5/1.2 but they are quite expensive and/or manual focus only.
  7. robcee

    robcee Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 10, 2016
    Real Name:
    Rob Campbell
    Check out the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95. Very sharp in the center and incredibly shallow depth of field with a unique character. Manual focus only, of course.
  8. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Real Name:
    I really don't see that much difference...
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Sniksekk

    Sniksekk Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 7, 2015
    I agree with you.
    And boom here is a close focus subject with either 45mm1.8 or 12-40 pro.
  10. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Real Name:
    The 75f1.8 would be my choice.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    If you want to easily blow the entire background away with impunity, I'd agree with Larry. The 75/1.8 will be your tool, if you have the working distance.

    That said, I agree with the others that the main difference seems to be that you are very close to your subjects with your Pentax, which makes a bigger difference than the aperture. And that 45/1.8 example looks awfully blurry to me...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin .

    Oct 9, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Real Name:
    Based on the samples provided, it looks like you still have it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    First of all are you going for bokeh or shallow depth of field.? ... they are not the same thing!

    given the right relationship between camera, subject and background you can get shallow DOF and some bokeh blurriness from a whole bunch of m43 lenses

    I was going to post some pics... but you know? I can't be arsed anymore.. if you want that blurry OOF focus thing.. best bets on micro 4/3 are the 25/1.4 and the 75/1.8, unless you are happy with the size. weight and manual focus of the voigtlander things.

    The 50/2 macro and the 50-200 can also deliver... in the right relationship

    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Real Name:
    The pl42.5,1.2 and to my surprise the 4/3 o50,2 has really nice bokeh.

    The pl42.5,1.2 should be the king of AF lens bokeh.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Real Name:
  16. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Reread the OP, he's looking for something that won't break the bank. The Nocticron certainly doesn't fit that bill.
  17. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Real Name:
    Mikaton 25/0.95 is cheap.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Listener

    Listener Mu-43 Regular

    derelict, I agree with Klorenzo. The amount of background blurring you get depends on the geometry of the situation: how far are you from the subject (that you want in focus) and how much farther away is the background? The right answers are a close subject with the background significantly farther away.

    Most lenses can produce a visually quiet background. You just have to have the right distances.

    "The 45/ 1.8, while being a fantastic lens, does not seem to be able to churn it out. "

    Nothing wrong with that lens. You'd be wasting money buying another lens until you understand how to get results with what you have.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. srhphoto

    srhphoto Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 26, 2012
    At MFT, the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 can produce a very thin DoF and pleasing bokeh (at least to my eye!)

    [​IMG]Depth of Field by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

    I completely agree with the comments about distances between subject and background etc made above.

    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Hypilein

    Hypilein Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 18, 2015
    Isn't the last variable actual focal length and not sensor size? I've always understood, that the reason we don't get as much OOF Areas in wider angles is because for an equivalent FOV we use much shorter focal lengths. So a 45mm 1.8 should be relatively similar to a 50mm 1.7 regardless of the sensor.

    I can't really see a big different between the two lenses in the pictures shot either, except for maybe the quality of the oof rendering. the 42.7 might indeed have better rendering and checking out pictures that show that might help with your buying decision. Otherwise, I would probably agree with the suggestion of the 75mm. It seems to be the lens to get for this kind of thing.