# Bokeh on 17-40 vs 24-105



## Digbydriver (Aug 16, 2013)

How does the bokeh differ on these two lenses, if at all?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 16, 2013)

Well, with the 17-40 you get hardly any bokeh! ;D

What are you looking for? These are different lenses with different uses,


----------



## Skirball (Aug 16, 2013)

I describe the bokeh on the 24 - 105 as nebulous, where as the bokeh on the 17-40 is more brumous.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 16, 2013)

both are not well known for bokeh, but at 105mm, you will have more blurring than at 40.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 16, 2013)

Skirball said:


> I describe the bokeh on the 24 - 105 as nebulous, where as the bokeh on the 17-40 is more brumous.



'brumous'! I haven't the foggiest... ;D


----------



## Skirball (Aug 16, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > I describe the bokeh on the 24 - 105 as nebulous, where as the bokeh on the 17-40 is more brumous.
> ...



It was difficult to try to find adjectives to describe bokeh


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 16, 2013)

Digbydriver said:


> How does the bokeh differ on these two lenses, if at all?



Given the only slight backgound blur @ wide angle with the 17-40L the bokeh is fine, and up to f8 the lights are circular & no onion rings - but as mentioned by another post this lens isn't very sharp @f4 so you'll seldom see the bokeh...


----------



## hodor (Aug 16, 2013)

the bokeh not too hot on the 24-105. very little as compared to anything sharper


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2013)

Digbydriver said:


> How does the bokeh differ on these two lenses, if at all?



This must be a JOKE of the day ;D

Get a used 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 on CL.


----------



## Zv (Aug 17, 2013)

Who buys a wide angle for bokeh? You're subject will have to be really close for any kind of blur but really? Come on! 17-40L or 24-105L is pretty obvious. 105mm f/4 will give the most amount of blur. As to the quality of the blur - it's alright, nothing special. 

You'll get nice bokeh with - 50L, 85L, 135L or even the 85 1.8 which was designed with bokeh in mind. 50 1.8 will give you ugly pentagons when stopped down and 50 1.4 is kinda in the middle. The 70-200 lenses all produce nice round oof highlights too and at 200mm f/2.8 everything in the background melts away into oblivion. Bokelicious!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Who buys a wide angle for bokeh?



The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 does bokeh up-close, and creates photo's with lots of 'vertigo' ;D Mind, this is at f/8:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 17, 2013)

Photo Zone has a short comment about the 24-105mmL. They don't bother rating the 17-40L because of the wide angle and small aperture.


http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1"Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) @ 105mmThe Canon EF 24-105mm L is capable of producing a pleasing bokeh for a zoom lens. The circular out-of-focus highlights show a slight halo effect at 105mm f/4. Stopping down to f/5.6 reduces the effect but it's not overly worrisome anyway. The out-of-focus blur is very smooth and nothing to worry about (at 105mm). However, regarding its rather moderate max. aperture the 24-105mm L isn't really suitable for shallow depth-of-field applications. "


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 17, 2013)

Here's a photo I took at around 85mm with the 24-105mm at f4 and about 2 or 3 feet away. It not special, but there is a good deal of blur.


----------



## Kernuak (Aug 17, 2013)

And this is the 24-105 at 24mm from about 1mm away from the subject.




The Blusher Wideangle by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr


----------



## tq0cr5i (Aug 21, 2013)

The 24-105 can make more bokeh than the 17-40. But both of the two lenses' bokeh are not good (enough).


----------



## shashinkaman (Aug 23, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Well, with the 17-40 you get hardly any bokeh! ;D
> 
> What are you looking for? These are different lenses with different uses,




+1!!!!


----------

