Couple of interesting points. The converse of AG's situation also
appears to be true. The Z. 200/4 seems to have very nice bokeh on the
E-1 but so-so on film. I remember iwert's wonderful portrait and am
glad he provided the link again. I suspect the 100/2 has nice bokeh on
film
FF. Why use USM on the background which can only harshen the bokeh,
unless time limits selecting out the subject?
Mike
The bokeh issue is part optics, part film. I have noticed that
high-speed
films--even Delta 400 pushed two stops, don't react the same to bokeh as
lower-speed films. You will see this with digital too. A lens which
works
great on film isn't necessarily so great on digital. My 100/2.8 is
awesome
on film, hohum on the E-1. I suspect that it has to do with USM. What
does
USM have to do with film? During the development process, some
film-developer combinations allow substantial grain migration which
forms
the same type of edge brightness artifacts as USM. (halos and such).
AG
>
> . I wonder what
> aperture was used by Chris. Perhaps the 100 F2 is the bokeh king for
> portraits?
> Mike
it certainly ain't bad:
http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=24990
I can say the 100/2 is my favourite OM lens.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|