I’m a little concerned about the focus performance of my Pentax K10D DSLR. Before I get too far into it, let me  establish a little background first…

Two years ago I was looking for an upgrade to my then 2 year old Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D). I really didn’t have much more than the kit lens and a cheap-o EF 50mm f/1.8 II, so I didn’t feel too married to Canon. I did my research and decided the then new Pentax K10D represented a better value for the $1,800 I had to spend than the more expensive Canon 30D. So, I gave my Rebel to my sister-in-law and ordered up a K10D body, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX and Sigma 10-20mm EX from B&H Photo.

The ergonomics, features, IQ, and interface were all so much better than my old Rebel that there wasn’t much time for  retrospection. I embraced my new rig and started shooting like mad. Six months and 20K snaps later I had added the excellent DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 to my kit. To my surprise, Santa (in the form of my mom and step dad) gave me a $1,000 Wolf Camera gift certificate for Christmas 2007. Suddenly I found myself in a quandary.

You see, I had become somewhat smitten by the full frame Canon 5D we had at the office for the Marketing team I managed. It had always seemed so out of reach to me and now suddenly it was all-too-close. After a few days of agonizing over what to do, I ended up selling off my K10D kit to a co-worker friend and added the proceeds to my gift certificate. 2008 began with a brand new Canon 5D body (the $3,000 body was all I could afford). Fortunately, my old 50 1.8 was collecting dust in the bottom of a drawer so I was able to actually use the 5D while I saved up for some better glass.

It was hard to draw many comparisons between the 5D and K10D. They really are quite different cameras- with the 5D being much more like a 35mm film camera than a high-tech digital. Plus, the clunky old 50mm prime I started out with on the 5D really wasn’t anything like the Sigma EX zoom lenses I had had on my K10D. What I didn’t know was that I would decide to leave my six figure job in April to return to school and finish my undergraduate degree. This move required scaling back across the board and my beloved 5D (and all the L glass I hoped to own) suddenly seemed like an excessive luxury. I decided to sell it, my EF 50 f/1.8 II, and the EF 28 f/2.8 and EF 85 1.8 USM I had acquired on Craigslist and invest the proceeds into my college fund. For the first time in 7 years I was without a DSLR.

In September of last year my former co-worker felt pity for my situation and gave me back my old K10D with the kit lens off his new K20D! Since then I have been shooting like mad with the kit lens and a 20-year-old SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 manual focus lens I picked up off of eBay. In the past couple of months that former co-worker of mine has also shared his DA* 16-50 f/2.8 and DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited lenses with me to test on my blog. I wasn’t too impressed by the 16-50 (see review) and my experience thus far with the 35mm macro has been mixed (review here).

While I was at PMA a few weeks ago I played around a bit with all the various cameras on display. Both Pentax and Canon had similar demo set-ups for their top-of-the-range telephoto lenses. While using the DA* 300mm f/4 in the bright tradeshow lighting I tried focusing on a subject standing a few meters away and the SDM motor woooshed close then dunk, da-dunk, “beep-beeped” into focus lock. I then swung the lens up and selected a far away subject- woooosh, dunk, dunk, da-dunk, “beep-beep”. Selecting a subject a few feet away from the second the DA* 300 went dunk, dunk, da-dunk, “beep-beep”. This all seemed quite normal to me. From my experience shooting both the DA* 50-135 f/2.8 and DA* 16-50 f/2.8 SDM equipped lenses.

Then, I moseyed over to the Canon booth where they had a very similar display set up with a 1D Mark III and EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens. Repeating the short-to-long focus test (this time with a much heavier f/2.8 lens) the Canon went woosh, “beep-beep” to the close subject then woosh, “beep-beep” to the far subject. Selecting a nearby subject to the far one I got bump, “beep-beep”. Surprised I tried several more times, panning the camera around and selecting subjects that were just out of focus. Each time I simply got bump, “beep-beep” as the subject popped into near instant focus. At the time I merely chalked this up to the near 10X cost difference between the two set-ups and continued on my way.

Fast forward a few weeks to yesterday and my niece’s 3rd birthday party. I found myself two-fisting my K10D with 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited and my sister-in-law’s Canon Rebel XT with kit lens (my old camera) while capturing both indoor and outdoor birthday party action. I was immediately aware at how much faster the 4 year old Rebel was locking focus than my K10D was. It was almost exactly like the performance difference I had experienced at PMA.

While the kids were busy taking turns in the kayak (and out of decent photo range for any of my lenses) I took a moment to do a little non-scientific focus testing. I manually set both cameras to infinity focus, selected the center focus point, 35mm focal length (on the Canon) and (in bright sunlight) focused on my hand at around 18″ away, then on the far side of the lake (infinity), then back to a post about 6′ away with the 35mm Macro on the K10D and the 18-55mm kit lens on the Rebel XT. In all cases the Canon nailed the focus point with zero hunting… zip, “beep-beep”, ziiip, “beep-beep”, ziip, “beep-beep”. The Pentax however, struggled a bit. The focus test went weeeee, tick, tick, tick-tick, “beep-beep” for the close subject, then weeeeee, tick, tick-tick, “beep-beep” for the far subject. Then, the camera completely missed the post 6′ away and went weeeeeeeeeeee all the way to it’s closest focus distance than weeeeeeeee, tick, tick, tick-tick, “beep-beep” on the post. (To be fair, this is a macro lens).

Thinking that the Pentax 35mm Macro might have been to blame (which it was), I pulled out my Pentax 18-55 Mark I kit lens and repeated this test again. The results were nearly identical with the exception that the Pentax kit lens did not overshoot the post and merely ticked around a couple of times before locking focus. Also, the lighter less damped focus action on the kit lens did make it seem a tad snappier when focusing between the close subject and the far subject. Incidentally, this time to reach the correct focus distance was basically identical for both the Pentax and the Canon kit lenses. The exception being all the tick, tick, ticking the Pentax lenses did before locking focus. (In case you were wondering I also repeated a similar test inside under poorer lighting with the two kit lenses and got nearly identical results as outside).

Discussing this with my co-worker friend, he relayed the results of a similar test he decided to try with his K20D as follows:

I just did back to back comparisons of the K20d + FA 50/1.4 and my Rebel + EFII 50/1.8. In indirect sunlight, using the center focus point I swapped focus between the front hedge at about 10M away and my left hand outstretched.
The Canon will ziiiiip, stop, confirmation beep.
The Pentax ziiiiips from 10M to my hand quickly just like the Canon but then it quickly zips one (or two!) more times before focus confirmation… Almost like it has momentum from the first movement.
I’ve been fully aware of this (and failure to focus–maddening) but had assumed that after twenty years of screw-driven, TTL autofocus technology this was the best the world could do. Seems it’s the best Pentax can do.
IMHO this is the worst aspect of my K20d.

Keep in mind that his test was done with a state-of-the-art $1,000 K20D + FA 50mm f/1.4 vs a $300 6 year old Canon 300D + 50mm f/1.8 II eBay find.

In hindsight I realize now how many shots I have missed over the years with my Pentax due to its slow autofocus performance. The most frustrating part is that the vast majority of shots I’m missing are while the camera is tick, tick, ticking its way towards focus lock, not because it has mis-focused. Once it gets there it is generally just as accurate as any other camera I have used. I hope Pentax is listening and improves the performance of their next generation of DSLRs. In my opinion, this is much more important than live view, more megapixels, movie recording, higher frame rates, and/or higher ISO performance. Pentax’s DSLRs are some of the best values on the market. Bring the AF speed up to par with the competition would end a lot of arguments in Pentax’s favor.

What do you think?

PS- I excluded Nikon from this comparison because I have very limited experience with their modern DSLRs. However, I did borrow a friend’s D300 + 50mm f/1.8 to take some studio shots of my K10D for my DA* 16-50 f/2.8 review. The camera was set up to use all 50-something focus points in AI mode. Being unfamiliar with Nikon’s focus confirmation implementation I didn’t realize until after I was done shooting that when all those grey boxes popped up in the viewfinder that the camera had locked focus. In hindsight I now realize that it was happening so fast that I was unaware that the camera was focusing. To get my shots BTW, I ended up switching over to manual focus ;-)

UPDATE: First of all I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Pentax’s autofocus system is any less accurate than anyone else’s. It is clearly quite effective. Also, I fully understand that Pentax has to pick and choose where they spend their limited development funds and I am happy they put it where they have (weather sealing, in-body shake reduction, user oriented controls, etc). In fact, that is why I chose Pentax over the others in the first place. My main reason for publishing this article was to attempt to draw the same comparisons so many Pentax users have over the past few years in a more objective manner so that those who haven’t experienced the differences themselves could be more fully informed. Too many consumers buy products today based on too narrow a point of view and then blame the product when it doesn’t meet their expectations.

Outside the Planet Hollywood Hotel and Casino.

Pentax K10D, Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 (manual focus), ISO 400, f/1.7, 1/100 sec, +0.7 EV, IS off

Shaggy shoe fashion.

Pentax K10D, Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 (manual focus), ISO 100, f/1.7, 1/250 sec, +0.7 EV, IS on

The Venetian, Las Vegas, NV.

Check out more Bokeh Wednesday shots at the Bokeh Wednesday group on Flickr.

I have been thinking a lot lately about lenses and I thought I’d share some of my thoughts. I’m planning on doing a more specific lens comparison but I will save that for a later date. For now I just want to talk about my general thoughts about lenses and their applications. Why is this important? Well, as you begin to expand your collection of lenses you will soon learn that what you have really invested in is a lens system and not a camera system. Quality glass (lenses) will last a lifetime and will likely outlast the latest whiz bang technology of the latest DSLR you just bought. Hopefully by sharing my thoughts and experiences some of you will have an easier time of navigating the confusing quagmire that comes along with upgrading your DSLR’s optics and make the most out of your investment.

For this discussion I am going to primarily refer the standard 35mm film focal lengths of lenses. I will add APS-C (1.6X) focal length or 35mm equivalents in brackets [ ] where appropriate. In general, if I say 50mm I mean 50mm focal length on a 35mm film camera or full frame sensor DSLR. The reason I am doing it this way is that the 35mm equivalent focal length of a lens describes its field of view (FoV) more accurately than APS-C (or DX) format measurement does. If any of this is confusing to you I strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia page on the APS-C format before continuing.

What would I buy?

Let’s imagine for a moment that money is no object and I could fill my camera bag with whatever I wished. What would that be? While we’re in dreamland, let’s assume that the camera I’ll be shooting with all this fictional glass is Canon’s awesome new 5D Mark II. Here are the lenses I’d want to have available and why (I’m sure I could find similar choices for Nikon but I know the Canon stuff better):

• 17-40mm f/4 L wide angle zoom. Why if money is no object would I choose the 17-40 f/4L over the faster 16-35 f/2.8L? Simple, the extra speed the 2.8 provides is not worth the extra weight.  A super wide lens like this is something I’m most likely to carry around with me while traveling and the lighter it is the more likely I’ll take it with me. Also, the idea of wide angle shots is usually to capture as much detail as possible (think streetscape, landscape or 5-year-old birthday party action) so a larger aperture is just going to work against you. I’m sure there are specific situations where the extra speed of the 16-35 f/2.8 would come in handy but for me I’d most likely choose the slower and lighter option here and just dial up the ISO as needed in low light situations. The only caveat here is if I was shooting an APS-C body. Then the 16-35mm [26-56mm] would make a logical upgrade for the standard 18-55 kit lens. See my comments below for APS-C wide angle lens thoughts.
• 35mm f/1.4 L wide angle prime. I really like having a fast wide angle lens for available light shots of the kids around the house and for other times when a 50mm lens just doesn’t provide quite enough FoV to capture a scene the way I want to. In fact, while a 50mm lens best reproduces the magnification the human eye sees, a 35mm lens better represents the field of view our eyes can see (in focus). Having never owned a fast 35mm I can only guess but I bet it would end up being my standard lens mounted on my camera 90% of the time. Becomes a medium angle lens [56mm] on an APS-C camera.
• 24-105 f/4 IS L zoom. This is a close call. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is a very tempting choice. I have rented both lenses and they are both superb. The 24-105 f/4 is the one I’d put in my bag though because money is no object here and I’m going to have all these other lenses to choose from. Huh? Well, if I could only have one lens it would be the 24-70 f/2.8 L. Easy. However, if I’m going to be toting around a bag full of glass the 24-105 f/4 just makes more sense. It is lighter (see argument for 17-40 above), has a wider zoom range (better for “walking around”) and has IS. There are times when a slower shutter speed (1/30-1/4 second) is what you need to capture action and IS is the only way to get get these shots w/o the hassle of a tripod. The 24-105 focal range means I would have a stabilized lens that covers all wide to medium telephoto applications. Also an awesome all-purpose [38-168mm] lens on APS-C bodies (though lacking a bit on the wide end).
• 50mm f/1.4 USM prime. Here I go again cheaping out even though money is no object. Yes, Canon’s 50mm f/1.2L is the Mother of All fiddies. However, from what I can tell it is not that much better than the non-L 50 1.4 but it is that much bigger and heavier (and somewhat slower to focus). I know this whole weight thing is getting long in the tooth, but for the way I shoot it is important. When I travel I typically head out on foot to explore which means I have to carry my gear on my person. After spending an entire days lugging an overloaded camera bag around Hong Kong and Paris I can tell you that less is definitely more. The main problem is that you get to these wonderful places and you are faced with making the choice of picking one or two lenses and hoping for the best- or lugging your entire kit with you. I’ve done both and can say that whatever the choice the weight of what you carry always remains an issue. Studio, sports and landscape “trunk” photographers are the only ones that don’t have issues with how much stuff weighs. As for me, I carry my camera almost everywhere (including on my bike) so I want to find the best balance between size and performance. Here, the 50 1.2 just doesn’t make sense for me. YMMV. See fast prime suggestions for APS-C cameras below.
• 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. You can’t beat a dedicated macro lens. I like the 100 f/2.8 on a full frame body as it provides the right mix of magnification and stand-off distance from the subject. I like to shoot most of my macro shots at arm’s length. Canon’s 50mm f/2.5 Macro is OK but I have found that I often have to get too close with the camera to get the magnification I want (often blocking out the available light). Meanwhile, Canon’s 180mm f/3.5 L Macro is an awesome lens but its longer focal length pretty much requires a tripod to get decent results. APS-C photographers should check out Canon’s EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro.
• 70-200 f/2.8 IS L zoom. This is one of photography’s greatest lenses. Perfect for portraiture, sports action, school plays, wildlife, the occasional macro shot, and pulling in details in just about any situation. The f/2.8 version gets the nod over the f/4 version even though it is larger and heavier. You’ll need the speed to catch those low light shots and the shorter DoF will make your subjects pop. My bet is that you’ll rarely shoot this lens at anything other than wide open. Works great on both full frame and APS-C bodies.
• 400mm f/2.8 IS L super telephoto. Here’s where the “money is no object” part really pays off. I have always wanted a fast super telephoto for getting in tight to stuff you can’t get up close to. I’m thinking sports car racing, school plays, African safaris, and the occasional full moon. Not a lens I would carry around in my bag but definitely one I’d like to have if the situation warranted it. I’d skip the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS L in favor of lens speed and ultimate image quality. Have an APS-C camera? Then your 1.6X crop factor makes this monster a 640mm f/2.8 equivalent for no extra charge ;-)

OK, so back to reality for a second. Most of us are amateurs and can not justify dropping $15K on our camera gear. Therefore, what should you take away from all of this?

• Buy the best lenses you can afford. It will outlast your camera and you’ll never find yourself second guessing a lens purchase. If you find you don’t use a lens enough to justify keeping it, you’ll also find that pro-quality glass earns top-dollar on the used market. If you are thinking of dropping $180 on a Canon 28mm f/2.8 to get a wide angle prime do yourself a favor and save your pennies until you can step up at least to the $420 28mm f/1.8 USM. What you will gain in ultimate image quality and versatility will pay off many times over in your photographs. That 28 2.8 will end up in a drawer somewhere collecting dust as soon as you realize that its useless below f/4 anyway. Trust me. I know.
• Do your research. This may directly contradict what I just said as you will find bargains out there. The non-L 50 1.4 I mentioned above is one example. In fact, at only $90 brand new Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 II is probably the best value in lenses anywhere. (Check out dpreview.com’s new review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.) That being said, do your research so you know what you are getting. Personally, I would wait and save up for the 50 1.4 just to get the speed and silence of the USM focus motor. Also, the 50 1.4’s 8 bladed diaphragm produces far superior bokeh and starbursts when stopped down than the 50 1.8’s 5 bladed diaphragm. Buy the 50 1.8 II and you’ll be perfectly happy with it until you shoot one of the USM lenses. Then you’ll start beating yourself up. The best places to research are websites that actually test equipment. I prefer the-digital-picture.com, photozone.de, and dpreview.com because they use standardized testing procedures. There are blogger/photographers (like me) who “test” lenses and write their opinions about them. Take those with a grain of salt but they are usually pretty useful. Be wary of discussion forums and Amazon.com review ratings and the like. These are typically very unreliable sources for quality information.
• Pick up a fast prime lens. My recommendation is a 50mm equivalent focal length at f/1.8 or faster. If you are shooting an APS-C sensor camera this is going to be tough. Technically you’ll need a 31mm lens to get an equivalent 50mm focal length. Sigma is one of the only lens manufacturers making a lens like this. Their 30mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM looks like it fits the bill perfectly. However, it’s relatively pricey ($500) and tests say it is very soft off center. Pentax’s SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited is an ideal choice for Pentax shooters but at $800 you’ve got to be mighty deep into Pentax. 35mm focal length lenses are probably your best bet. Unfortunately, truly fast versions are usually pricey and hard to come by (see the $1,200 35mm f/1.4 L above). If you can’t find a 30-35mm f/1.8 or faster lens do what most everyone else does and put your money into a fast 50mm. It’ll end up being a bit long on an APS-C sensor camera [80mm] but at least you can start exploring the Wonderful World of Bokeh and available light photography.
• Consider an ultra wide angle zoom. I’m not talking fisheye. I am talking at least 15-17mm on the wide end, though. A super wide angle lens opens a whole new world of photography for less money than most lens investments. I’ve already shared my feelings above about Canon’s 17-40 f/4L and 16-35 f/2.8L lenses for full-frame applications. However, neither of these fit the bill for an APS-C body. Look for something around 10mm [16mm] on the wide end. There are a number of choices depending on your camera so do your homework. I hear Canon’s EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is superb. I’ve owned Sigma’s 10-20 f/4-5.6 EX DC lens and thought it was great.
• Avoid super zooms. These are the 18-200mm+ do-it-all lenses that are so popular at camera stores and on-line discounters. Sure, the idea of one lens for every situation seems like a good idea, but the reality of making such a lens results in some pretty significant compromises in lens speed, image quality and usability. While prime lenses will always give you the best ultimate image quality they may not be the right choice for every situation. However, you will be much better off if you limit the range of your zooms and follow suggestion number one above. In my experience you can get very decent results from mid-level primes but anything other than top-of-the-line zooms are likely to suffer in more than one area (speed, sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberrations, etc).
• Save up for that super telephoto. Don’t waste your money on bargain brand telephoto lenses. There are a lot out there (Phoenix) but most of them aren’t worth the plastic they are made of. If dropping $5K on a lens doesn’t seem like it will ever fit into your plan then…
• Rent before you buy. So, if you’re following my advice and buying the high dollar glass maybe you should take it for a test drive before you take the plunge. There are a number of camera equipment rental services out there. I have only rented locally while I am traveling so I can’t recommend any of the on-line services, but I hear good things about many of them. Also, renting is a great way to get those awesome once-a-year close-up Christmas school program photos of Jr. from the back row of the gymnasium. No sense putting that $5K lens in the closet until next year, right?

I hope this helps clear up the mystery of lens selection a bit for those of you who are just starting to wade into the hobby. Feel free to post specific questions in the comments or drop me an email. Those of you who are more experienced please take a moment to share your thoughts on the subject as well.

There are few things more beautiful than a good sunset or sunrise photograph. However, if you’ve ever tried to do it you know it can be frustrating. How many times have you seen a beautiful sunset like the one above only to have your photo turn out something like this?

There are a couple of easy things you can do to get great sunset photos. First, turn off your flash. The only thing the flash is good for during a sunset is to add fill to illuminate a foreground subject. Unfortunately, getting the right mix of fill flash and background exposure can be very tricky:

Not a very inspiring photo (though after the number of rum punches I had I didn’t care). For now, let’s just turn the flash off and focus on capturing a brilliant sunset photo.

Next, set your white balance to auto. You can also try daylight but I have always found the auto setting gives the best mix of deep blues, pinks, reds and oranges.

I like to shoot sunsets with a wide angle lens to get as much of the sky in the picture as possible. This ensures a full mix of colors from the darkest indigo blues overhead to the brightest pinks and oranges at the horizon. Usually I leave only a strip of ground/foreground across the bottom to anchor the photo- letting the sky dominate the scene for maximum impact.

The main challenge with sunset photos is getting around the camera’s matrix metering’s natural tendency to balance exposure across the frame. The camera doesn’t know what’s going on and tries to balance the dark foreground with the bright background. The washed out example at the top is what you get when you just point-n-click. To get a decent sunset exposure you either need to dial in some negative exposure compensation (usually -2/3EV to -1EV). An easier method is to just aim the camera at an unobstructed portion of the sky, focus, lock exposure, recompose, and shoot. I typically use a little of both.

For the best sunset photos I typically like to wait for the sun to be fully below the horizon. That beautiful glowing orange ball of the sun absolutely wrecks exposure on a camera and typically results in pretty disappointing shots. Also, some cloud texture in the sky helps provide a good mix of colors. Be sure to look behind you as many times clouds away from the setting sun pick up some awesome colors. Finally, some good foreground silhouettes can help add additional visual interest (especially helpful if the sky itself is not as dramatic as it could be).

A medium aperture like f/8-f/10 is best to ensure the best detail and sharpness across the frame and eliminate vignetting typical at larger apertures when shooting at a wide zoom setting. Since I generally like to wait for the sun to drop fully, there’s typically not very much ambient light. This means I either need to be shooting on a tripod at a low ISO and slow shutter speed or bump the ISO up to prevent camera shake. These samples were all shot hand-held at ISO 200-400 and f/8 and f/10 at around 1/4 second. The combination of the K10D’s in-body IS and the wide focal length meant it only took a few tries to get sharp shots (wider zoom angles can be hand held at slower shutter speeds than longer ones).

Typically a properly shot sunset photo doesn’t require much post-processing. Since I shoot everything in RAW I have to tweak sharpness and saturation on all my photos in Lightroom. I can also play around with the white balance a bit to get the best pop from my images- though the as-shot (Auto) setting worked best for these images. Often I find the fluorescent WB preset works well for sunsets for some reason.

While a DSLR gives the most control over all of these settings, I have gotten wonderful sunset photos with a pocket camera by simply turning off the flash and using the focus, recompose and shoot method. Here is a collection of some of my other sunset photos on Flickr.

The most difficult part about getting good sunset shots is being at the right place at the right time with your camera. I hope this helps you get that great shot the next time that happens!

I got this idea from my Flickr friend Jim. I’ve played with this idea in the past but didn’t have the right combination of lenses to really make it work. Seems the kit lens on my Pentax K10D and my 20 year old Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 make a pretty super duper super macro lens.

The trick is to shoot through a second lens, thus dramatically shortening the minimum focus distance of the combined lenses. This works best with a medium focal length primary lens (attached to the camera) and a fast secondary lens held (typically backwards) in front of the primary lens.

In this case, the 49mm diameter front element on the 50mm fits perfectly inside the 52mm diameter of the 18-55mm Pentax kit lens. I found that I had to zoom the kit lens all the way out to 55mm to eliminate vignetting. I tried reversing the set-up but the 18-55’s  smaller maximum aperture resulted in vignetting at all focal lengths (hence the need for a fast secondary lens). For the shot above I simply switched the camera into manual focus, dialed in a handful of positive exposure compensation and got up close on a bulb on our Christmas tree:

Depth of field is essentially non-existent- as is typically the case with all macro lenses. Changing the focus of ether lens had very little effect on the focal distance to the subject. To achieve focus you have to simply move the camera back and forth while composing through the viewfinder. The problem is that with such a micro thin slice of DOF any movement will throw off your composition. I ended up dialing up the ISO to 800 so that I could get a decently fast shutter speed (around 1/100 sec) and taking a bunch of hand held shots to get a couple of winners. Use of a tripod would have certainly helped, though holding the secondary lens in position while composing the shot on a tripod might be tricky.

A couple of additional shots taken with this set-up:

My understanding is that you can get similar results by simply reverse mounting certain types of lenses. There are accessories available to do this. Also, I think you may be able to use a threaded step-up adapter ring to attach the two lenses like in my set-up. The $20 screw-on close-up lens adapters (the kind that look like filters) IMO are pretty worthless unless you buy very nice quality ones but you might as well put that cash towards a dedicated macro lens.

The most popular macro accessories (besides a dedicated macro lens, of course) are extension tubes. Again, the price of entry here comes close to a decent dedicated macro lens (or zoom lens with macro capibility). There are cheaper alternatives and quality is less important if you are OK with losing auto focus and communication with your lens. I got some very nice results with my old Canon 5D and 85mm f/1.8 + 12mm Canon extension tube:

Keep in mind that all of these options will limit your focus distance to macro applications. A dedicated macro lens typically will be able to focus to infinity, making it usable as a regular lens in addition to a macro. However, if you have a couple of the right kind of lenses laying around and you want to take some close-up shots, now you know how. Thanks, Jim!

UPDATE:

Playing around a bit more with this set-up and I got these shots:

It also occurred to me that one of the reasons my set-up works so well is that my old manual focus 50mm lens has an aperture ring. This means I can crank it open to f/1.7 to get a clear shot through. More modern lenses often lack an aperture ring and default to the smallest aperture when removed from the camera body. If this happens to you, look for the aperture lever on the inside face of the lens and try sliding the aperture open to get a clear view through your secondary lens.

Following my experiment with shooting the Christmas tree lights reflecting in the front lens element of my 50mm f/1.7 I had the thought that it might be interesting to turn the lens around and see what things looked like through the lens. Again, this was in the interest of trying to find new ways to shoot Christmas tree bokeh (though, the old ways still work pretty well).

The set-up for this shot was pretty basic:

The 50mm lens is perched on top of a flashlight to get it up to the right height with the Pentax K10D on a tripod. The lamp to the left provides fill light for the front of the lens. I used the rule of thirds to frame the shot (knowing that I was going to crop to square later to eliminate the flashlight). I set the ISO to 100, zoomed to 55mm and selected an aperture of f/5.6 (the largest aperture my kit lens can achieve at 55mm). I dialed in the focus on the front of the lens manually before tripping the 0.6 second shutter with the 2 second delay self timer.

Post processing in Lightroom was limited to cropping, white balance (tungsten) and my usual mix of standard processing tweaks for this camera:

• Clarity: 39
• Vibrance: +25
• Sharpening: 48
• Detail: 49
• Defringe: All Edges

Everything else was left at the Lightroom defaults.

The main thing to take away from this photo is that it doesn’t take much effort to do this kind of stuff. From start to finish this shot took me less than 5 minutes (including taking several test shots and set-up shots for this post with a 2nd camera). The only set-up required was balancing the lens on the end of the flashlight and tilting the lamp shade a touch to get the light right.

It seems that many Flickrites out there are struggling to get good bokeh shots. The good news is that shooting bokeh is one of the easiest photographic techniques to learn. Unfortunately, it is also one of the hardest to master. Here I will attempt to get you started with the basics. You’ll have to do the mastery part on your own :-)

Bokeh (pronounced: “boke-aay” or “boke-uh”- I prefer the latter) is the out of focus or blurry areas of a photograph. Wikipedia has a much more detailed description of the definition of bokeh that’s worth a read. On Flickr I find most people use the term to specifically describe out of focus highlights in a photo. For the purposes of this how-to we’ll focus (pun intended) on out of focus highlight bokeh.

The photo above made the Front Page of Flickr’s Explore last week. I wish I could say that this was a difficult and challenging shot that called upon all of my skills as a photographer. The truth is this was one of the easiest shots I took that night. These small aperture long exposure shots were a lot more difficult to get right:

The secret to shooting bokeh lies in its definition: out of focus highlights. You need three things to shoot bokeh: pin point highlights, a large aperture and a short focal distance. When I say pin point highlights I mean small light sources. Trying to shoot a large area of light like a window or fluorescent light does not typically produce the type of bokeh “balls” that we are looking for here. Small lights like Christmas twinkle lights are an obvious source, but any light source that is far enough away will become infinitely small and can produce bokeh. I find street and car lights in the distance at night make wonderful bokeh.

Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 SMC

Next, we need a large aperture. For the novice, the aperture is the opening in the lens that controls the amount of light that makes it through the lens and shutter to the film/sensor. The smaller the f number (or f-stop) the larger the opening. This is usually expressed as f/5.6, f/4, f/2.8, f/1.4, etc. Read more about aperture here.  Typically the larger the aperture the larger the bokeh. Fast lenses below f/2.8 like my 20 year old manual focus Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 SMC are ideal for shooting bokeh (and is the lens I use for most of my bokeh shots on Fickr).

That is not to say that one can not get great bokeh using lenses with a smaller maximum aperture like the typical kit lenses sold with most entry level DSLRs. The trick is to make sure you are using the largest aperture possible (smallest f number). To do this I recommend switching your camera into Aperture Priority mode (typically labeled “A” or “Av” on the program mode dial) and dialing in the smallest f number possible. With most kit lenses this will be f/3.5. Here is another Explore bokeh photo of mine shot with my kit lens at f/3.5:

The other reason that you want the largest possible aperture your lens is capable of is to ensure that your bokeh is round and not faceted. You see, most lenses use 5-7 straight aperture blades to create the variable opening in the lens. Bokeh takes on the shape and size of the lens opening so smaller apertures will produce smaller, faceted and generally less pleasing bokeh. There are exceptions to this rule as most high end lenses use curved aperture blades that keep the aperture opening round at all f stops. However, if you’re shooting with a $1,500 Canon L series lens I trust you already know how to shoot bokeh ;-)

Aperture openings on a 6 bladed lens (mouse over for setting):

Bokeh shots at different aperture settings with this lens (mouse over for setting):

The last component to getting good bokeh shots is the focus distance used. I have found that the shorter the focus distance to the foreground subject, the better the background bokeh I will get. The idea is to get as much distance between the subject and the bokeh producing highlights. Also, the closer you are focused to the camera the shorter the depth of field (DOF) will be. This ensures those lights way off in the background will be nice and blurred out.

The focal length of the lens is also a consideration. Depth of field is basically a function of focal length, distance to subject and aperture. At a given aperture and distance longer focal lengths result in shorter DOF. A short DOF is what we need to effectively blur the background highlights to produce bokeh. Getting close to the foreground subject and zooming to the longest setting on your lens will likely put you where you need to be to capture killer bokeh.

Here we have an example of close focus on the foreground subject coupled with a wide open aperture and longer focal length to create bokeh from small lights in the background:

When I took this shot I was at the minimum focus distance for my 50mm 1.7 lens (about 18-20″). The white (gold colored here) twinkle lights were on another Christmas tree approximately 8-10′ behind the light bulb and branch I focused on. The other smaller colored bokeh highlights were from other lights on the same tree that I focused on.

TUTORIAL:

Now that I’ve rambled on ad nauseam about all the intricate details of capturing bokeh, let’s get on to the part where you actually go do it!

For DSLR users (point ‘n shooters will have to wait for another tutorial):

1. Set your camera to Aperture Priority mode (A or Av on the program dial).
2. Select the smallest possible aperture (f) number for your lens (should be ≤f/4).
3. Switch your camera to manual focus and manually adjust the focus to the closest setting.
4. Zoom your lens to somewhere around 50mm.
5. Find some nice points of light at a distance of 10′ or greater from the camera (your Christmas tree is the perfect subject this time of year).
6. Fire away!

If you get a shutter speed that’s too slow (ie: less than 1/30 second), try bumping the ISO up to 400 or more. If you do the Christmas tree thing what you should get is something like this:

Depending on how dark the background is (darker usually = better) you might have to dial in some exposure compensation to get your bokeh to really pop. This image looks like it came out fine without any, but I often have to dial in +2/3 to +1 EV for my 50mm 1.7 on my Pentax K10D.

Next, try putting a subject of some sort in front of the camera at the minimum focus distance (or there about) with the bokeh highlights in the background. It’ll take a little playing around with subject matter and lighting (both foreground and background) but in no time you should be shooting bokeh like a pro! For more examples, be sure to check out my bokehliscious set on Flickr.

Please let me know in comments if this is helpful to you and/or if you have any questions or suggestions. Also, feel free to post links of your bokeh attempts for everyone to enjoy. Thanks for stopping by.

Happy bokeh-ing!

UPDATE: This is my single most popular post on my blog. Please let me know what else you would like for me to share about bokeh!

ISO 100, 18mm, f/20, 30 seconds, IS off

I grew up in Mountain Brook, Alabama and these Christmas decorations always put me into the holiday spirit. I took this 30 second exposure back during Thanksgiving. I used a tripod and the 2 second self timer delay to prevent camera shake. I experimented with a few settings while in manual mode to get the right balance of ISO, aperture and shutter speed. I love all the starbursts from the small aperture and the way the wet streets reflect all the lights. I had another shot with no headlight trails but I liked they way they added some motion to this otherwise static shot.

This photo is a good illustration of where shooting RAW pays the most dividends. I know that you can get wonderful JPEGs straight out of the camera (SOOC), but I hate standing around in the rain tweaking white balance presets and hoping I got it right. Here, I just played around with my WB settings in Lightroom in the heated comfort of my living room until I got the right mix of white for the twinkle lights and blue for the sky. This is especially useful when you are shooting in mixed lighting conditions like this. I hate the orange cast sodium vapor lights give to everything. It is very difficult to remove this color cast in a JPEG but one click of the Temp slider in Lightroom and it’s all gone! (This shot = 2250 on Temp and 0 on Tint).

Here’s the original unedited shot. You can also see that I had to straighten it a bit as I didn’t realize that my tripod was a little cock-eyed on the sloping sidewalk where I was shooting.

original unedited RAW shot

Anything else you want to know?