alfredo pagliano wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I've just uploaded two images I shoot with my new OM-2n and 50 f/1,8
>lens at full aperture.
>
>http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=9236&full=1
>
>
Very nice! I don't agree with Bill about the adult arm. To me, it
provides context. Somehow I think I know it is her father, with matching
shirt color. And I like the vertical scale it provides. I agree with him
about the table behind her head. I would tone down the brightness.
>http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=9237&full=1
>
>
Also lovely. The later 50/1.8s are exceptionally good lenses, one of the
great bargains.
On the other hand, they are given to bokeh that I often find unpleasant.
This shot is a case in point. Notice the bright points of light in the
background area that is out of focus (OOF). In the stacks of glasses,
the OOF pints are sort of hard edged, with the center darker than the
edges. In the far background, the bright points of light actually turn
into thin, bright halos of light almost without centers. A lens with
great bokeh would reproduce OOF highlights like these as brightish
centers with brightness fading with distance from the center. The 50/3.5
macro also bugs me with its bokeh. Some people hardly notice bokeh, it
is a big deal for others.
It is a problem with many lenses and depends to some extent on the
aperture and the distance behind the focal plane of the OOF highlights.
Drives me a little crazy sometimes. I really like this image in most
respects, but the busy donut quality of the light through the trees in
the background keeps me from being completely happy with it
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/5018bokeh.htm>.
This is the issue George was talking about in his reply to your question
about portrait lenses when he referred to the reputation of the 85/2 for
good bokeh.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|