On 4/7/2010 9:53 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Moose, I know that you did correctly qualify your statement with a "[that]
> I've used", but I was wondering if you've ever tried the Canon EF 50mm
> f/1.2L? In my time of using it, it has had the most consistently amazing
> performance (not only resolution, but especially smoothness of out-of-focus
> rendition) of any 50 I've ever seen.
>
It's is unlikely that I'll buy even the 50/1.4, let alone f1.2. Although
I admire many of your images, our photographic styles, interests,
whatever you may call it, are quite different. You love very shallow
planes of focus lovingly placed within the subject field. I'm more often
looking for more DOF.
I have only two prime lenses in EF mount, Tammy 90/2.8 and Canon 50/1.8.
I like zooms and use them a lot. I like the 50/1.8 for the combination
of low cost, excellent optical performance and speed to use when I can't
do it with a zoom.
> I have a couple of images somewhere where, at f/1.2, it out-resolves a 1Ds
> MkII sensor to the point of creating möire artifacts.
>
Still, it does so within such a narrow range that I'd be frustrated.
> Sometimes I really miss it... It was just so big and ugly (72mm filter!)Got
> plenty of those around here - zooms, you know. :-)
>
> Very off-topic, but here are some sample shots. Fantastic as the OM 50/1.4
> is, it isn't quite in the same league. But a wonderfully pleasing lens
> nevertheless, and less than half the volume.
>
> http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs26/f/2008/032/5/9/The_road_to_obscurity_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
I'd have shot this @ f16 - a different esthetic. The bokeh is nice up
the center, but a little busy/edgy for me in the rock and foliage at the
edges. Possibly better than the OM would have been?
> http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs32/f/2008/223/2/8/Sparkles_in_the_Big_Blue_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
Fine lens performance except perhaps for a bit of bokeh edginess in the
foreground sparkles. Or maybe sharpening?
> http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2008/017/b/0/The_Wrong_Era_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
LOL! Well, you can't say this one is about wide open resolution. :-)
Still, you nailed the shallow plane of focus. Again, some typical 50mm
bokeh in the hard, bright edges and darker center of the few brightish
reflections and the hard edged "look" of the light poles. Not
complaining, just noticing, as you had stressed the smooooth OOF quality.
Both good examples of their type. I know lots of folks like those sort
of images, but they sort of leave me flat. Nothing wrong with them, just
little or no emotional response.
It may be wrong or 'nuts' to someone else, but certain images grab me in
the gut, while others are just academic exercises.
I go back to the same place, see the same thing, take the same image of
it, and darned if I don't get a little frisson when it comes up on the
screen. I've already got "to many" flower pics, but at least for now,
I'll go on taking them. They bore some folks - oh well. ;-)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
