Is Background Bokeh really necessary in Wildlife Photography.

[Calson]

What is important is not to have bright areas that pull the viewer's eye from the main subject and present a distraction. That happens even when the "bokeh" is fine. I found with the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that I could photograph couples with a f/5.6 aperture and have pleasant OOF backgrounds. The shorter the camera to subject distance the more the distance of the subject to the background elements can affect the image.

With a very busy background one usually has the option of changing their position horizonatally or vertically to have a better one. That is often the case with heavy telephoto lenses mounted on a tripod and so the photographer as a fixed position and a fixed camera height. I became much more aware of the degree to which a tripod was limiting me when I first started shooting with the 500mm PF hand held.

 

[Doomrider74]

That is often the case with heavy telephoto lenses mounted on a tripod and so the photographer as a fixed position and a fixed camera height. I became much more aware of the degree to which a tripod was limiting me when I first started shooting with the 500mm PF hand held.

I see that all the time: People with big 500/600 f4 lenses on a tripod, usually at standing height, shooting down on the subject. Meanwhile, me and my 500pf are rolling all over the ground, trying to get a better background.

 

[Doug Herr]

I always take wildlife photography trips with my wife and we generally have very different setups. For example, I'll usually rent a 600 f4 or 400 f2.8 and she was using the Canon 100-500 for everything. I got permission from my wife to include her pictures here.

On one trip we were on a road in a wildlife refuge that had canals on both sides, so we couldn't really get any closer or farther from our subjects. In the case of the Egret below, we were side-by-side, so these two pictures really demonstrate how a 600 f4 can really smooth out a background. I found the bokeh to be very nervous in the picture from the 100-500. With that said, neither of these pictures are phenomenal or are hanging on our walls, and the 100-500 was slightly out of focus on the eye.

View attachment 103337

View attachment 103338

However, on the flip side, we were at a different wildlife refuge taking photos of owls. I had a Canon R5 with 400mm 2.8 and she had the R6 with 100-500 f7.1. I'm not in love with my picture of the owl (first one below). I feel like it has some composition issues and I just don't get a sense of the environment. But my wife's picture taken at f7.1 is my favorite picture hanging in the house. I feel like it's looking into my soul and I love the leaves around it. Interestingly, we submitted it to a contest and they said it was too busy, but I disagree.

View attachment 103340


View attachment 103341

I guess my point is that composition matters more than the bokeh, but a nervous bokeh can really detract from a picture. I'll also note that my wife's photo of the owl was taken HANDHELD at 1/20 sec shutter speed since her setup was so light (I was very impressed) while I was lugging around a tripod and not getting the angles I wanted.

Excellent comparison and I also prefer the owl photo with defined leaves, but with the 400mm f/2.8 you had the option of stopping the lens down to match her f/7.1, she did not have the option of opening her 100-500 f7.1 to f/2.8.

 

[Doug Herr]

I see that all the time: People with big 500/600 f4 lenses on a tripod, usually at standing height, shooting down on the subject. Meanwhile, me and my 500pf are rolling all over the ground, trying to get a better background.

I agree the flexibility of a hand-held lens allows more compositional options but how many of the people with big f/4 lenses on a tripod have the option of getting up after rolling all over the ground? My hands, elbows, knees and neck have problems with rolling around on the ground, and getting up is quite entertaining for the onlookers. I've gladly accepted assistance regaining my footing but willing onlookers are not always handy. Also consider chiggers.

My tripods have the option of spreading the legs farther out, lowering the camera quickly; it's a feature I've used on multiple occasions. The tripod also assists the process of getting up from the ground without toppling over.

 

[Larry S.]

I always take wildlife photography trips with my wife and we generally have very different setups. For example, I'll usually rent a 600 f4 or 400 f2.8 and she was using the Canon 100-500 for everything. I got permission from my wife to include her pictures here.

On one trip we were on a road in a wildlife refuge that had canals on both sides, so we couldn't really get any closer or farther from our subjects. In the case of the Egret below, we were side-by-side, so these two pictures really demonstrate how a 600 f4 can really smooth out a background. I found the bokeh to be very nervous in the picture from the 100-500. With that said, neither of these pictures are phenomenal or are hanging on our walls, and the 100-500 was slightly out of focus on the eye.

View attachment 103337

View attachment 103338

However, on the flip side, we were at a different wildlife refuge taking photos of owls. I had a Canon R5 with 400mm 2.8 and she had the R6 with 100-500 f7.1. I'm not in love with my picture of the owl (first one below). I feel like it has some composition issues and I just don't get a sense of the environment. But my wife's picture taken at f7.1 is my favorite picture hanging in the house. I feel like it's looking into my soul and I love the leaves around it. Interestingly, we submitted it to a contest and they said it was too busy, but I disagree.

View attachment 103340


View attachment 103341

I guess my point is that composition matters more than the bokeh, but a nervous bokeh can really detract from a picture. I'll also note that my wife's photo of the owl was taken HANDHELD at 1/20 sec shutter speed since her setup was so light (I was very impressed) while I was lugging around a tripod and not getting the angles I wanted.

Very interesting set of images Matt. Of course there are two ways to evaluate these shots and both have validity. Beyond the composition or focus concerns I would want any noticeable background to contribute to the picture as a “whole” and not be a distraction. On the other hand a totally “bokeh obscured” background eliminates the animal’s connection to habitat or environment. These are great images for this discussion….

 

[Lance B]

I always take wildlife photography trips with my wife and we generally have very different setups. For example, I'll usually rent a 600 f4 or 400 f2.8 and she was using the Canon 100-500 for everything. I got permission from my wife to include her pictures here.

On one trip we were on a road in a wildlife refuge that had canals on both sides, so we couldn't really get any closer or farther from our subjects. In the case of the Egret below, we were side-by-side, so these two pictures really demonstrate how a 600 f4 can really smooth out a background. I found the bokeh to be very nervous in the picture from the 100-500. With that said, neither of these pictures are phenomenal or are hanging on our walls, and the 100-500 was slightly out of focus on the eye.

View attachment 103337

View attachment 103338

However, on the flip side, we were at a different wildlife refuge taking photos of owls. I had a Canon R5 with 400mm 2.8 and she had the R6 with 100-500 f7.1. I'm not in love with my picture of the owl (first one below). I feel like it has some composition issues and I just don't get a sense of the environment. But my wife's picture taken at f7.1 is my favorite picture hanging in the house. I feel like it's looking into my soul and I love the leaves around it. Interestingly, we submitted it to a contest and they said it was too busy, but I disagree.

View attachment 103340


View attachment 103341

I guess my point is that composition matters more than the bokeh, but a nervous bokeh can really detract from a picture. I'll also note that my wife's photo of the owl was taken HANDHELD at 1/20 sec shutter speed since her setup was so light (I was very impressed) while I was lugging around a tripod and not getting the angles I wanted.

Wonderful examples, Matt. Your wife's owl shot is fantastic as it is looking right at you and that is what makes it work. However, if your owl was looking at you like your wife's shot is, I do think the better bokeh etc would have made the owl stand out even more and be more powerful. Just my opinion. Having said that, it just goes to show that it's better to get the right shot at the right moment regardless of lens.

 

[O]

Excellent comparisons

Here are two articles - the interview particularly - that give useful insights into how Nikon engineers optimize the rendering of a lens.

The interview published 11 years ago sets the timeline (release of the 85 f1.4G) when Nikon began its sequence of prime lenses designed to optimize the rendering and sharpness: 35 f1.4G, 58 f1.4G, 105 f1.4G.

The Z System followed

Analyzing NIKKOR lens characteristics | Stories | Nikon About Us

Conventionally, the characteristics of lenses were conveyed orally from one designer to another. Nikon has developed a method to more precisely measure these characteristics and employs it to reproduce them. Introducing OPTIA, an aberration measurement device that accurately assesses lens...

www.nikon.com

ニコンが考える“レンズの味”とは? AF-S NIKKOR 58mm F1.4 Gの設計に見るレンズ計測装置「OPTIA」の活躍

既報の通り、 ニコンが交換レンズのすべての収差を測定できるという計測装置「OPTIA」（Optical Performance and Total Image Analyzer）と画像シミュレーターの連携運用を開始した。これにより「“レンズの味”と収差の対応関係を明らかにできる」というが、実際にはどういった計測が行なわれ、どのようにレンズ開発に活かされているのだろうか? 今回は、同社のレンズ設計部門責任者、レンズ設計者とOPTIAの開発支援担当者に話を伺った。（本文中敬称略）

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

Great articles, and stories, thanks for sharing.

 

[Matt N]

Excellent comparison and I also prefer the owl photo with defined leaves, but with the 400mm f/2.8 you had the option of stopping the lens down to match her f/7.1, she did not have the option of opening her 100-500 f7.1 to f/2.8.

Yes, very true. She didn't have that option. I could have gotten the same picture with my setup. . I guess my point was that there is more to making a good picture than just having better bokeh capabilities. She used her tools well, despite having less bokeh flexiblity than the 400 2.8 I had on that trip. My point with the egret pictures was that bad bokeh can really make a difference. If the egret was doing something amazing like throwing a big fish back, I think the nervous bokeh of the 100-500 at 7.1 (in that scene) would have eliminated that picture for me, but with the 600 f4, I would have framed it.

Wonderful examples, Matt. Your wife's owl shot is fantastic as it is looking right at you and that is what makes it work. However, if your owl was looking at you like your wife's shot is, I do think the better bokeh etc would have made the owl stand out even more and be more powerful. Just my opinion. Having said that, it just goes to show that it's better to get the right shot at the right moment regardless of lens.

I totally agree about being in the right place regardless of lens. Most of my best shots were about being in the right place/right time.

 

[Lance B]

Yes, very true. She didn't have that option. I could have gotten the same picture with my setup. . I guess my point was that there is more to making a good picture than just having better bokeh capabilities. She used her tools well, despite having less bokeh flexiblity than the 400 2.8 I had on that trip. My point with the egret pictures was that bad bokeh can really make a difference. If the egret was doing something amazing like throwing a big fish back, I think the nervous bokeh of the 100-500 at 7.1 (in that scene) would have eliminated that picture for me, but with the 600 f4, I would have framed it.


I totally agree about being in the right place regardless of lens. Most of my best shots were about being in the right place/right time.

Exactly!

 

[Doug Herr]

I totally agree about being in the right place regardless of lens. Most of my best shots were about being in the right place/right time.

Being in the right place at the right time has always been important. Having the right lens is icing on the cake.

I like icing. Right place/time is up to me.