Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 371723" data-attributes="member: 12496">It is not about cheap.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Minimum DOF is about longer focal length and wider aperture (and of course, greater distance behind subject too).&nbsp;&nbsp; 85mm is more than double 35mm, and f/1.4 is about 2/3 stop wider than f/1.8, and FX has less DOF than cropped DX... so there are three factors helping to blur that background, and more background distance is probably four factors. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I suspect users buying a short f/1.8 for the DOF purpose are often disappointed.&nbsp; 85mm would be better than 35.&nbsp; A pro trying to eliminate the background will use a longer lens, maybe 200mm.&nbsp; You stand back more, but this does two things.&nbsp; One, the narrow view greatly limits the lateral span of the&nbsp; visible background, allowing picking a better small spot that has little in it to be seen.&nbsp; Where the trees are instead of the house (where 35 sees it all, and more).&nbsp;&nbsp; It may not be f/1.8, but two, whatever it does have will normally blur better in similar situations with the longer focal length.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is speaking outdoors however, where there is distance to the background.&nbsp; Indoors is a tough problem.&nbsp; Providing a featureless plain background can work.Sorry about the inches, I did not see any country for you.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are 12 inches in a foot, so&nbsp; 2' 6&quot; is 2.5 feet.&nbsp; And 3.28 feet in one meter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 371723, member: 12496"] It is not about cheap. :) Minimum DOF is about longer focal length and wider aperture (and of course, greater distance behind subject too). 85mm is more than double 35mm, and f/1.4 is about 2/3 stop wider than f/1.8, and FX has less DOF than cropped DX... so there are three factors helping to blur that background, and more background distance is probably four factors. :) I suspect users buying a short f/1.8 for the DOF purpose are often disappointed. 85mm would be better than 35. A pro trying to eliminate the background will use a longer lens, maybe 200mm. You stand back more, but this does two things. One, the narrow view greatly limits the lateral span of the visible background, allowing picking a better small spot that has little in it to be seen. Where the trees are instead of the house (where 35 sees it all, and more). It may not be f/1.8, but two, whatever it does have will normally blur better in similar situations with the longer focal length. This is speaking outdoors however, where there is distance to the background. Indoors is a tough problem. Providing a featureless plain background can work. Sorry about the inches, I did not see any country for you. There are 12 inches in a foot, so 2' 6" is 2.5 feet. And 3.28 feet in one meter. [/QUOTE]

Verification