File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
i came.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:20 20:09:09Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height859
>> Anonymous
I vote for the Zeiss 135mm, at f/1.8 and then at f/2.8. Then the zoom, then the STF. It's all blotchy.

(In other words, ITT subjectivity.)
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>226690
My taste is the other way around. I love the STF. I'd be willing to pay pretty good money to get that. Anything in Canon's lineup that looks like that?
>> Anonymous
70-210, for the win

i don't like jaggy/sharp/blotch

i don't like smooth/halo/butter

perfect, circular highlights ftw
>> Anonymous
I said it before, I'll repeat it again.
The STF gives blurring which is as close to the mathematically perfect Gaussian blur as possible; the problem is, our eyes are not like that. A human eye produces a circular, outlined and in many cases irregular bokeh (this depends on what we're looking at since the pupil is flexible), so images from the STF look unnatural. Thus, as any other "unnatural" photographic effect (ultrawide/fisheye, HDR, IR, etc.), it should be used sparingly.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
makes me want to get a Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>226686
Your bokeh is not creamy enough.

Pic isn't mine, Just using it as an example of a good bokeh.
>> Anonymous
Bokeh can be faked.

The STF wins in sharpness, contrast, and flare control. That's all that matters.
>> Anonymous
>>226759
Lol wut? Global contrast is easy as pie to fake, to the point where it almost doesn't matter, microcontrast and sharpness generally is very fakeable- it's done on almost every digital image as a matter of course. Bokeh is nigh impossible to do right.

Flare control- use a hood.

Besides, the Zeiss seems to render it best, including sharpness. The difference in contrast could come down to processing, easy, and more contrast is not always the best thing.
>> Anonymous
save
>> Anonymous
>>226713

yeah b/c photography is about EXACTLY REPLICATING what we see in real life. >_>
>> Anonymous
>>226713
>>226743
>>226759
>>226769

>borkeh

fix'd
>> Anonymous
Okay, what makes "Borkeh" good? For example, how would one judge between the different examples shown here, to determine something is superior? Would somebody fill me in? I just don't know.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>228083
nothing, its subjective.
>> Anonymous
>>227935
Reading comprehension, do you have it?

STF is awesome when used correctly. But its bokeh is not intrinsically superior to any other, just like fisheyes are not superior to rectilinear wide-angles or vice versa.
>> Anonymous
>>228083
Generally, smoother/creamier hekrob is more appealing. It's much easier to spot bad, distracting hekrob than to define exactly what makes nice hekrob.
>> Anonymous
>>228083

What's the best flavor of ice cream?

Fuck, you're dumb.