I can't decide. The 50/1.4s are a little softer looking but I don't
find any of them particularly pleasing to look at. I think it's the
repetitive pattern on the wall paper.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/3/2012 11:25 AM, C.H.Ling 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/
|
