[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] How does it look?

Subject: Re: [OM] How does it look?
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 01:55:08 -0800
Ramblin' Jack went on:

I did manage something like I was aiming for, making a focus bracket with a wide aperture with the 45/1.2, then stacking only though the back of the subject, I got deep DoF, nice detail and no edginess. I also found that it makes little visible difference in web viewing or modest print sized images.

OTOH, I think Oly did a great job of OoF rendering in the 45/1.2. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Oly%20F1dot2s/GaneshBokeh.htm> These were shot to see how it handles tiny, bright lights. But what I love is the way it handles the Amaryllis as the aperture varies.

MikeG brought up the Beta depth controlled blur in PS. Here are different backgrounds, F1.2 vs two ways to blur in post. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Oly%20F1dot2s/F1dot2vsf8vsPS.htm>
There's a bit of bother around the stem in #2, and a couple of small halos in 
#5, correctable for finished work.

A very different subject for a similar comparison. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Oly%20F1dot2s/QuanYBokeh.htm> Obviously, the PS tool doesn't get depth right. I wasn't really planning this comparison, so the f1.2 shot has different framing and the fountain blurred by ND filter.

Full disclosure of GAS - first shot with new to me 25/1.2, that just landed. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts/Misc&image=_B008231cr.jpg>

These f1.2 lenses, seen next to their f1.8 siblings, are outrageous. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Oly%20F1dot2s/Oly_F1dot2s.jpg>
Also, oddly, essentially the same size and weight, in spite of difference in FL.

Meandering Moose

On 2/4/2024 4:20 PM, Moose wrote:

On 2/2/2024 7:34 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:

Let me see if I am misunderstanding this incorrectly. You like the LF lens rendering of Winston. Is it because of the LF lens, the way it renders, even at smaller apertures, which does not happen with conventional 35mm alt lenses?

What happens when you use a focal reducer with an alt lens on u43?

So, you are looking for an alt lens/filter, that you can easily travel with, that can render like the LF version of Winston?

I'm looking for something(s) that will render a gentle, organic image with lots of DoF, without clinical sharp/edginess. I'm not looking for exactly what Winston is like, but that big print was one part of whatever made me think of alternate rendering.

On 1/28/2024 10:25 AM, usher99--- via olympus wrote:
They all have their positive attributes but the TTartisans is most "organic" with enough 
sharpness to work and the modified bokeh one is my first choice.  I reluctantly say 
that as you de-bubblefied it and bubbles are the bokeh hallmark of that lens.
Indeed, but it's also an optically simple lens with less hard edged rendering 
than many contemporary lenses.

Well, I'm glad I said "many".  I've been wandering about the web, looking at stuff, doing searches, etc. In my travels, I ran across Oly's Pro series F1.2 lenses. I'd never paid them any attention, assuming they were just about speed. Reading several reviews, I discovered how I'd been wrong. Oly claims that their 17, 25 and 45 mm Pro, F1.2 lenses are about bokeh, the look of OoF areas.

Every reviewer loved the 45 mm and 25 mm lenses. The sample images showed almost every background with smooth, attractive bokeh, every portrait or other close subject with a 3D-ish look and great subject-background separation. At the widest couple of apertures, a little gentle softness. Delicious transitions from focused to OoF.

I've also developed this dichotomy about my gear:

Zooms for looong focal range. Out on the range, I have 14-1120mm FF eq. range 
of FLs.
Mostly about sharp, clear images.
Mostly about responsiveness, super AF, Pro Capture, catching the moment.
Almost never use a tripod.
EXIF just happens.

All but one of my Alt lenses are primes.
About all sorts of looks - except straight, sharp, clear.
About finding interesting, static, or close to it, subjects.
Manual focus.
Tripod use fairly common.
EXIF requires effort, memory or notes, addition after download.

I do have three Alt lenses for µ4/3, but they are like The FF ones in other 

So . . . what if I blur or abandon my lines? What might I be able to do with all the advantages of µ4/3 - and some Alt-ish ideas?

So . . . KEH had a 45/1.2 Pro, LN-, for a not unreasonable price. Now I have it. 

First look: in conventional terms, f1.2 is soft, compared to f5.6 = bad lens. F1.2 is soft, compared to f5.6, perhaps = good lens, for Alt purposes.

Second look: Use focus bracketing with wide open aperture. Hmmm, gentle rendering with great DoF. Isn't that one thing I was looking for? And . . . fine hand held, in camera stack creation, AF, EXIF. NOT Bad.

Unfortunately, the shots I took yesterday, in a hurry to see what they look like, don't quite answer all my questions, no lend themselves to posting. And today is rainy and windy, and my test subject is outdoors. I did try shooting a stack wide open, and it looks pretty good; not edgy, nice detail, deep DoF.

Still Trekking Moose

What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?

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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz