Best non-DOF IS Lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by MBX, Nov 5, 2009.

  1. MBX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    Can somebody recommend good IS f/2.8 zoom lenses for the 5D m-ii that reduce the typical 5D m-ii dof, especially when closer up to the subject?
     
  2. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #2
    What do you mean, reduce the DOF? The DOF is a function of aperture and focal length, so any lens with those identical settings will have the same DOF.

    There's only one f2.8 IS zoom that Canon make, and it's the 70-200f2.8L IS

    Usually with faster lenses, IS is less of a big deal, as the wide aperture lets in more light and allows you to select a higher shutter speed. If you want low DOF, you should also be taking a look at the 85f1.8, the 135f2 etc.

    It would help if you said whether you were shooting full frame or not, and what sort of subject you're thinking of shooting.
     
  3. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #4
    Full size sensor do have shallow DOF, specially at close range. You can always move away from the subject, or just use another lens aperture as follows: use the same lens, but close its aperture. Try f/4, and if not sufficient, f/5.6. if that's still too shallow, switch to f/8. You may have to increase ISO if shooting in low light, or use a flash. While the camera meters ambient light and the subject, the flash (set to E-TTL illuminates the subject.
     
  4. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #5
    The OP asked about reducing depth of field - you've told them how to increase it!
     
  5. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #6
    If you want a shallow depth of field, go for any prime lenses. They'll be much better at capturing light, due to a more open aperture. Most go down to f1.4, which means razor thin depth of field, allowing for a very blurred background. I'm taking it that you're wanting this for maybe taking some videos for fun?
     
  6. PeteB macrumors 6502a

    PeteB

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #7
    I'm not too sure what the question is here.

    The thread title is asking for "Non-DOF" and the thread asks about reducing DOF.

    I'm finding it all a bit confusing, personally.
     
  7. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #8
    Haha I was confused too. If he meant "non-DOF", then that would no depth of field. So that would mean that he wouldn't want any kind of background blurring of any sort? Or am I just confused? :rolleyes:
     
  8. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    "non-DOF" makes no sense. I thought he was asking about "non-DO" when I saw the title.
     
  9. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #10
    Yeah what i mean is how can i avoid the typical overdone DOF.

    Yes you read right, non-DOF, REDUCE DOF.

    More like typical 35mm look what i'm after.
     
  10. PeteB macrumors 6502a

    PeteB

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #11
    Maybe posting an example will help me understand. I mean no offence, but despite all of my experience in photography, I don't understand what you mean.
     
  11. jdavtz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    Kenya
    #12
    Reduced depth-of-field

    For reduced DOF, you want the longest lens feasible and the widest aperture affordable. There's not really much more to it.

    I don't think Canon have any 'bad' wide-aperture lenses. What do you want to shoot? Maybe we can help more if you give us a bit more detail.

    I thought the 5D Mk II was full-frame, so any shots will have a "typical 35mm look" as that's the size of the sensor anyway.

    :confused:
     
  12. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #13
    Depth of field is strictly determined by (1) aperture, (2) focal Length and (3) subject distance. And one more factor which is basically your criteria for sharpness that they call "circle of confusion".

    There are some on-line calculator that will let you play with the numbers. You can run a few dozen "what if" through the calculator figure out what you want

    But remeber DOF has nothing to do with brand or model of lens.

    Here is a good one:
    http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    And others...
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htm
    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html
     
  13. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    Stick the lens at f/5.6-f/8 and you'll get the effect you want.
     
  14. designguy79 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan
    #15
    Some people are posting answers on *increasing* depth of field (DOF) and others are posting answers on *reducing* DOF.

    Which do you want, OP?

    More depth of field will result in more of elements that are fore and aft of the focus point (not sure the technical term here sorry!) being in-focus. Increase your f-stop (f/5.6 or f/8, for example), which is actually decreasing the size of the aperture.

    Less depth of field will result in more elements being out of focus. (unless you are shooting an extremely flat object). For this effect, increase the aperture size by selecting a small f-stop (f/2.8 or even 1.8 or 1.2). Also, as other have mentioned, increase the focal length (100mm, for example) and distance to the subject.

    Good luck and have fun!
     
  15. zuma022 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #16
    I don't want to offend, but if you have invested in a 5D mark ll, a full frame, professional grade camera, I think you owe it to yourself to buy a book or two and learn more about photography.
    You've got some good advice here, play around with the lens(es) you have now and see how it affects the DOF.
     
  16. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #17
    With the same lens, a Mark II and a 35mm film camera have the exact same depth of field.

    Answer this basic question so people can know what you're talking about: Do you want more or less things in focus?
     
  17. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #18
    Eh?

    That's not exactly wide aperture is it?

    Try f2.8 or wider.
     
  18. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #19
    Oops! Sorry about that.:D I guess I was (and still) confused by the OP questions.
     
  19. mdwsta4 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #20
    LOL! i was thinking the same thing.

    in regards to you wanting the 5D2 to look like a 35mm camera, your argument isn't making any sense? A FF DSLR camera has the same sized sensor as a 35mm film camera!! that's the point so it will look more like a 35mm camera compared to a cropped sensor DSLR.
    i have a 5D2 and that buttery bokeh i think you're not wanting is one of the reasons people love it. and why people buy lenses like the 70-200 f2.8. post pictures of your problem or examples of what you don't want and do want to achieve.

     
  20. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #21
    I think Our "OP" is using the term "DOF" wrong. He does not list a location. Perhaps English is not his native language or perhaps the conventions used by photographers to describe these effects.

    It is confusing. Some people wonder why f/2.8 is "larger" than f/5.6 Until it is pointed out that both are fractions.

    I think MBX might think that "DOF" means "Narrow zone of focus". This could explain the confusing wording in his question.

    To MBX: "DOF" means "Depth of Focus". A larger DOF means more things are sharp. A very large depth is called "parafocal" which means everything is sharp. A reduced or small DOF means that only one part of the picture is sharp.

    So when you asked for "less DOF" you were asking for even less of the image to be sharp. If you want more of the image to be sharp simply shoot with a smaller f-stop. Perhaps at f/8 or even f/16. This is why your camera has an aperture priority exposure mode so you can select the f-stop.
    Any lens can be stopped down to f/16

    In other words, "DOF does not refer to a style or trechnique. DOF is the name of a zone that we measure in feet.
     
  21. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    They asked for "typical 35mm DOF" - back in the day, lots of 35mm cameras shot at a fixed aperture (modern equivalents would be disposable cameras), usually around f/5.6-f/8 to give a fairly "wide" depth of field that would keep several faces sharp in a group photo etc.


    The difficulty in this thread is that the OP is talking nonsense.
     

Share This Page