keith_w wrote:
> Chris wrote
>
>> Well for one thing, the OM 50 f 1.8 has horrid Bokeh, while Leica lenses are
>> usually better in that regard. The Leica 50mm f2 Summicron R is the only
>> Leica
>> 50 that I have personally used and it's far superior to the Olympus lens. I
>> Like
>> the OM-4T much better then the Leica R4 that I had. I hated the ergonomics
>> of
>> the R4 so much I sold it and bought another OM-4T but I miss that Summicron.
>>
>> Here's a photo taken with the OM 50mm f1.8, shot at aperture of f4.
>> http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/marys-bar/photopages/marys-
>> bar15.htm See how harsh the out of focus areas are?
>>
> That seems a matter of interpretation. I suspect it's a film and/or
> processing problem, not a lens problem.
> Reason I say that is, there seems to be little latitude in the B&W,
> between deep
> shadows and highlights.
> To me, the bokeh doesn't seem untoard.
>
I can't say anything about the Summicron, as I've never used one. But I
can say that the 50/1.8 is capable of some pretty harsh bokeh. Here's a
couple of shots I posted before in this thread
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/5018bokeh.htm>.
Take a look at the bokeh in the top one. It's even managed hard, shiny
donuts in the upper right. The lower one, taken at a smaller aperture,
is much better. I don't think this can be blamed on film or processing
problems, as both shots were taken one after the other on the same roll
of film. I happen to have the comparison as I was trying different
apertures for different DOF. I like the DOF of the top one best, but
couldn't use it because of the bokeh.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|