>
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Acer V <siddim01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Re: macro bokeh.....
>
>my opinion:
>
>bokeh /is/ an important part of macro lenses (perhaps not as important as
>it's made to be here given recent discussion, but important
>nonetheless). here's why: in macro, you have very little depth of field
>(relatively speaking). what isn't in focus is out of focus (duh)...and if
>it looks awful, then well, it detracts from the picture
>
What I intended to say was that, perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that the
market for most of the macro gear was for the scientific types rather than
the artsy types. I doubt the scientific types couldn't give a bokeh about
what the out of focus stuff looked like, they just wanted a sharp lens to
study bug nose hairs or some such small stuff....
I agree that the 80/4 has nasty, ugly, really pathetic and stupid bokeh as
compared to some of the other OM lenses. I just didn't think Oly cared about
it because the targeted market didn't care either....
--
Be Seeing You.
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|