Thanks C.H. - If I had any doubts, you have removed them.
Rick... who needs to do things better.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:25 AM, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My test was a rather simple one, only at one magnification and a fixed
> object to background distance. In the test 50/3.5 was giving a more harsh
> background when compared with 50/1.4.
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/b50mm.htm
>
> If my memory serve me well, I remember the 50/3.5's bokeh was not bad for
> portrait (that was how I use the lens in film age). With 4/3 it was also
> fine in many cases:
>
> 50/3.5 with E-1 (F5.6)
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P5231022s.jpg
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P5231031s.jpg
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
