What's your opinon of this Bokeh?

[RichNY]

I'm trying out different glass on my camera. What's your opinion of the Bokeh of this glass? Is it as good as a Canon's? How about the color and other optics? Images (http://web.mac.com/rjverlaque/iWeb/Bokeh/Photos.html)

[timmciglobal]

I dunno, highlights seem really pronounced but not particularly distracting, I'd say not bad but not amazing.

What is it the 70-200 macro?

Tim

[coldrain]

Hmm, no idea what to say about it... the busy background makes bokey VERY hard to judge. It is quite pleasant anyway. How to judge colour in just green leaf pics? Colour is best judged with A-B comparisons, and with a set white balance (no AWB). And then not just only green foliage...

Not all Canon lenses have great bokeh anyway, so you would have to compare it to a specific lens, and then decide which of the two lenses you like best.

Even more difficult when you try to compare a Nikon and a Canon lens... no way you can just compare colour and contrast of lenses, because the cameras will be very different regardless of lens anyway.

[VTEC_EATER]

I think it has a very interesting "watercolor" effect to it. I couldnt get the EXIF data from the photos, so I can not tell what the settings were in the different shots. Its hard to say if it is distracting or not. Like I said, I think it is an interesting effect, and if you like it, I would say go with it. It could be your "style." If you feel it is too distracting and will take away from the subject, then I recommend not using the lens(s).

[coldrain]

I think it has a very interesting "watercolor" effect to it. I couldnt get the EXIF data from the photos, so I can not tell what the settings were in the different shots. Its hard to say if it is distracting or not. Like I said, I think it is an interesting effect, and if you like it, I would say go with it. It could be your "style." If you feel it is too distracting and will take away from the subject, then I recommend not using the lens(s).
The "watercolour" effect has more to do with the background texture and chosen aperture than with the lens. Not using the lens therefore seems a bit odd...

[RichNY]

Would you pay $450 US for this or save for a Sigma or Canon?

[nqjudo]

You are killing me Rich! What glass is it? The shots are nice and sharp.

[Rooz]

the velvety texture is quite nice, looks like what i was getting from my tamron 17-50mm which i really liked. but, if you look particualrly at #3 and #4 the bokeh itself is quite angular and pretty ordinary imo. looks similar to when i was stopping down my 50mm f1.8 from f4-f8. i don't like it.

[RichNY]

That glass is actually a Canon 85L f/1.2 Mk1(on load from a friend).

The first images were posted at f/1.2 thru f/2 with a busy background to try to throw people off ;) Unfortunately I can't seem to actually find one of these suckers for $450:(

[forno]

$450 for a 85 L, Rich if you dont buy it I will get on a plan just to smack you in the head:D:D:D

Just buy it already:D

[RichNY]

$450 for a 85 L, Rich if you dont buy it I will get on a plan just to smack you in the head:D:D:D

Just buy it already:D

That was only to try to throw people off. It would be more like $1100 if I were to keep it. (I don't see it as my next purchase, maybe someday)

[cwphoto]

You're asking the wrong guy. The 85/1.2 is practically welded to my camera at weddings.

But it's a very specialised lens, not for everyone's taste.

[RichNY]

I called KEH, probably the largest dealer of used equipment in the US to get an idea of the 85L Mk1 used market. They said considering it was in excellent condition they'd pay $584 for it and would mark it up to $1140. Nice margins in the used business. I also inquired about the selling my 100-400 (just to see what they'd pay) and they offered $1300 for both.

Note to self: Never sell to KEH, it's like going to a pawn shop.
Surprisingly they offered to sell me a new 85L Mk2 for about $50 less than B&H.