It seems to me that CH has done bokeh testing of several lenses. Was
the 50/3.5 included? I just don't recall the details of his tests.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/3/2012 6:43 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Moose wrote
>
>> On 5/31/2012 4:39 PM, Rick Beckrich wrote:
>>> Thanks all... I don't know if it was the distance or the aperture,,, I
>>> think I've had softer results
>>>
>>> in the past... I think.
>>
>> My limited experience is the closer the subject in focus and the farther
>> the background, the worse it gets. Limited experience because I was
>> shooting film and stopped wasting it on shots I knew I wouldn't like.
>>
>> Macro Bokeh Moose
>
> I am quite puzzled by this on several counts.
>
> 1) The background was already busy, and lousy bokeh could have been
> expected as a matter of course. Now that I think of this, I remember Wayne
> H asking us a few years ago to comment on the relative rendering of the
> bokeh of about 20 lenses - and in my opinion none of them had a chance
> because the background consisted of a lot of tortuously bent branches that
> were simply too close to the subject - one of his daughters if I remember
> correctly.
>
> 2) The background was too close to the subject. Moose wrote " the closer
> the subject in focus and the farther the background, the worse it gets"..
>
> My experience is opposite, as I recall. The closer the subject usually means
> the background is relatively far away ( better).
>
> The further away the background is ( especially when highly detailed and
> messy), the better. Better because every little bit of detail becomes
> relatively
> smaller, more out of focus, and therefore matters less.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|