[Brightcolours]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1337418733' post='18300']

Sadly, while it is an attractive option; it does a very poor job (from the images I've seen).

[/quote]

That is not true at all, unless you base that on just that photo on Klaus' review.



Just a random selection of images taken with the 35mm f2 which show front and/or background bokeh:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33209017@N00/4684444058

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pooldodo/46.../lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcftang/467.../lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtualwolf.../lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24540579@N08/6200897077

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11402767@N00/4628509371



Not bad at all for a 35mm lens. Yes, there are some that do better (Sony 30mm macro, some Zeiss 35mm lenses come to mind, as does a Leica Summarit 35mm f2). But really, for a 35mm lens the EF 35mm f2's bokeh is really quite respectable. And yes, with 5 sided highlights when stopped down.



I know this little lens well, I know its bokeh character quite well:





















It does quite well. Saying that it does "very poor" could not be more beside the truth. In situations where it does not do a good job, other 35mm lenses will mess up too. Like in that infamous PZ review shot.

It does not have a busy nisen bokeh, like some other 35mm lenses show. It has smooth bokeh. It can show that "blooming" in the bokeh I mentioned in a post above. It does show 5 sided highlights when stopped down enough.



Even Mike Johnson, who introduced the word "bokeh" to our photography terminology to describe quality of blur, rated the Canon EF 35mm f2 as "7" on a scale from 1 to 10.

In comparison to some other rated 35mm lenses:

Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm f2 a 7.

Leica 35mm Summicron-M (4th generation) a 10.

Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 a 3.

Zeiss Contax Distagon 35mm f2.8 a 5.

Zeiss Contax Distagon 35mm f1.4 a 5.

Nikon AF-Nikkor 35mm f2 a 6.

Leica 35mm Summicron-R a 6.