Hi,
> The 75-150 is a gentle little lens which seems to do nothing badly.
Yes, mine's been sitting in the cupboard unused for several years, but I've
been playing around with it again recently. Took a couple of shots to compare
it to the 90mm/f2 and I'm very curious. One thing I noticed really quickly is
that the colour rendition seems far less punchy. I was looking at a red brick
wall with a tree in front of it, both lit by a low sun, with a great blue sky
behind it. The 90mm/f2 being the impressionist it is, gave a Velvia look,
whereas the 75-150 was a bit pale.
I'll compare the slides before giving an opinion. And I should've shot a few
pictures to check the bokeh.
The 75-150 would make a great travel lens with the B-300 1.7 convertor (my
calculator tells me it would give a 127.5-255/f4.x). I'll be playing around
with that, too !
> I counted the aperture blades in my 50-250 just now - 8. I thought=20
> that bokeh had a lot to do with the number of blades...
It's quite possible to make a lens with a large number of blades that has bad
bokeh. Usually, the blades are a bit rounded off, to make the diaphragm a bit
more round. Straight blades would give regular octangles. Rounding the blades
in the other direction would give stars :-)
I guess that, depending on how the blades are rounded, the bokeh will change
according to the diaphragm. If they're pretty straight, bokeh will be nice
wide open, but not very nice when stopped down. When they're more rounded, I
expect the opposite effect.
Then again, this might all be hogwash from somebody who got up way too early.
Peter.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|