Moose wrote:
> Nice shots, and I agree about the bokeh on #1. Although personally
> I don't much like the big fuzzy blob in my face. It's bokeh is
> quite nice, but it's just too big and bright for me, pulls my eye
> over away from the, to me, main subject. I'd crop the right and a
> bit of bottom off.
The crop may not be perfect, but this one was setup as a screen
background for projection systems so the requirements were slightly
different. Personally, other than the bokeh and color, the image
isn't one of my favorites anyway.
BTW, nice catch on the extension. Yes, I did have an extension tube
installed behind the lens.
> On #2, I'm not in agreement about the bokeh. It's great on the
> nearby cluster of flowers as they segue out of focus with
> distance. But on the
> far ones and the tree, it has the same edgy quality that keeps my
> 50/3.5s indoors on the copy stand.
The larger image looks quite a bit better, but this shot does
illustrate that the 50/3.5 isn't the best at bokeh. I'll take the
35/2.8 over the 50 anyday in this department. Even though the 50/3.5
uses "extension" focusing, its characteristics are quite similar to
lenses with aspherical elements. I never suggested that #2 was the
way bokeh was supposed to be, but felt that it made a good contrast
with #1 which shows just how unique the 200/4 lens is.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|