The cheapest way to get "bokeh" (background blur) in digital photography?

[C. G.]

I suppose the traditional way was to get an SLR with an expensive super fast tele lens like f1.2 or something. But I want to explore cheaper alternatives, if there is any.

First I looked at prosumer fixed lens ultra-zoom digital cameras, but I read that these cameras cannot produce the bokeh (blurred background) effect desirable in portraits and glamour due to the small sensor size in these cameras. When I say "blur", I mean I want it so blurred to the point that the background looks completely unrecognisable.

The so-called telephoto zoom of these cameras are essentially a crop of the image produced by the lens, which is usually like 38-420mm "35mm equivalent", when in reality the lens is actually something like 6mm-72mm. The word "equivalent" really only applies to the angle of view, but not perspective or depth of view. So I guess this makes it virtually impossible to get any real background blur since when shooting portrait you usually don't go over 135mm or at most 200mm, meaning the real focal length you are using is really about 30mm or so, even if you open the lens all the way to F2.8 there should be hardly any blur, am I right?

Those of you with expertise in this please confirm if my observations are correct or not. And I'm talking with respect to portraits and glamour, not wild-life or macro shot of a flower or insect which of course can produce a very blurred background (wild-life lets you use the very end of the tele zoom while macro you are focusing very close).

I was initially drawn to the following fixed lens cameras because of their simingly amazing lenses and cheap prices:

Panasonic FZ20 36-432mm F2.8 all the way(!)
Panasonic FZ30 35-420mm F2.8-3.7
Fuji S9000 28-300mm F2.8-4.9

Do you guys know if they have any chance of producing background blur (when using their 50 to 200mm "portrait range" and open up to the max aperture)?

I also looked at the Sony DSC-R1 (24-120mm 35mm equiv. F2.8-4.8, in reality it is 14-72mm) which has an APS-C sized sensor so in theory it should give a more blurred background?

But then I asked myself, why pay $800 when I can get a Rebel XT with a longer zoom and perhaps even faster lens for just two or three hundred dollars more?

Lenses I looked at include:
Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4 DG
Sigma 24-135mm f2.8-4.5
Tamron 28-105mm f2.8 constant (expensive and huge and heavy)
Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 constant (available in summer 2006)
(how much do you think it will cost?)

Of all the cameras and lenses mentioned in this post, which one do you think is the best bang for the buck if my main concern is background blur?

Thanks for the help and any suggestions!

[JSPhoto]

I don't do a lot of portraits, but what I do I use the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 because it gives the best bokeh you can get but it aint cheap by any means at $1300 - $1800. I have the USM IS version because I shoot sports. I know a few portrait photogs who use this lens for their portrait work

JS

[another view]

The word "equivalent" really only applies to the angle of view, but not perspective or depth of view. So I guess this makes it virtually impossible to get any real background blur since when shooting portrait you usually don't go over 135mm or at most 200mm, meaning the real focal length you are using is really about 30mm or so, even if you open the lens all the way to F2.8 there should be hardly any blur, am I right?

Absolutely 100% correct. You'd be surprised how many people don't "get" this...

Wide apertures are a good way to reduce the depth of field (DOF), but so are long lenses focused close. The longer the lens, the closer you'll have to focus, and the smaller DOF you'll have - even at a moderate aperture like f5.6 or so. Depending on what kind of portraits you want to do, a 70-200 might be too long. It would be great for headshots and maybe waist-up (technical term? ) but you would have to be a long ways from your subject for full length.

I have a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 ATX PRO and it's a very sharp lens. It's fairly big and heavy but it was a bargain used ($250 or so). There are several versions of this lens, and this one (not the 28-70 versions) is the best one they have. Keep in mind the angle of view will be fairly narrow on a DSLR with a 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor, so this might be a good one to look at for a lot of situations.

Usually when I hear people talk about Bokeh, they're also talking about the quality of the Bokeh too. This has to do with how background out-of-focus highlights are rendered, and generally how smooth everything looks. Some lenses are better than others, and Leica lenses are pretty much legendary in this regard. Nikon's 85 f1.4 is great too but their 50 f1.4 looks nothing like it (current version, older ones are better here). Generally (but not always), primes do a better job but some zooms are pretty good too. The Tokina lens I mention is decent in this regard, but nothing like the 85 f1.4.

[OldSchool]

Sounds like you are interested in Depth of Field (dof). Bokeh is a more abstract concept of how the out of focus areas "look". Two lenses of the same length and aperture can have very different Bokeh.

A good simple explanation is provided by Ken:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

And a more advance discussion can be found in the Luminous Landscape page:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

Just a clarification... Good luck with your inquiry.
Cheers,
Tim

[Stephen Lutz]

You can use Photoshop to acheive it. It is a bit time consuming, but it works. It certainly is cheap, in that it works with any camera or lens. I shot this with a Canon Pro 1 at 200mm. Due to the small sensor size, the entire photo was in focus. I wanted only the couple and the children in the foreground to pop out of the cluttered background, so I defined the area in Photoshop and applied a lens blur filter. This worked really well, and printed great at 16x20. The couple was thrilled with the print.

[C. G.]

Photoshop certainly is cheap, but it is painstaking to try to select the subjects from the background, especially around hair areas.

Does anyone know of any software that can "intelligently" and automatically create a background blur with just a few mouse clicks?

By the way, what f stop did you use to shoot this photo? Can you post the original photo so I can see how these reduced senors do with background blur?

Thanks!

[another view]

By the way, what f stop did you use to shoot this photo? Can you post the original photo so I can see how these reduced senors do with background blur?

I'm going to guess that it was shot at a 200mm equivalent, not a 200mm focal length. There is a big difference there - 200mm equivalent based on a 35mm camera's angle of view would probably equate to only about 50mm (give or take) on a camera with a small sensor like that. My Coolpix 5000 goes out to about an 85mm equivalent but the real focal length maximum is about 21mm.

There will be a huge difference in DOF at 50mm vs 200mm at the same aperture and focus distance. IOW, the aperture used is irrelevant against a DSLR.

[Stephen Lutz]

Hello,

This was shot at 50.8mm (200mm equivalent) at ISO 50, 1/200 of a sec, f/4 with a Canon Pro 1.

Here is the unretouched photo for comparison. As you can see, everything is more or less in focus.