On 6/21/2017 9:55 AM, ChrisB wrote:
Thanks for that long and informative reply, Moose.
My pleasure.
It's interesting and useful how being forced to write down the details of knowledge helps clarify it. So yes, it took
some time, but you and possible other readers aren't the only ones to benefit.
I had noticed that it was fairly large, but it weighs about the same as the Fuji
56/1.2, but is a little longer (or wider, I can’t make out which).
I notice that the only real shortcoming is the inability to control the DoF
independently of the artistic effect.; however the necessity to place the point
of sharp focus in the centre is also a bit of a drawback.
Add another limitation to the list. Again, with a soft filter, that's not the
case.
I'm not advocating that a filter is always the best choice, but that it sometimes, for some purposes, is better than a
soft lens. All the myriad aberrations in the Velvet and my other soft lenses give various different results than a soft
filter and each other.
I suppose one might carry a Nikkor Soft filter with LB Velvet, for use when a smaller aperture is needed. I was just
thinking about a handful of shots where there are two focal points, as in flowers, where a filter would be the only way
to balance DoF, to get both in focus, and equal softness for both, at least in a single shot.
Softie Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|