Jeff Keller wrote:
>Informed choices are usually better but sometimes uniformed choices work out
>very well (didn't D. Rumsfeld say that on this list several months ago?)
>
ROTFLOL
And where can I get a uniform for my 50/1.4?
>My memory must have been way off. I was quite certain all three of the 1.2
>lenses had been criticized a fair amount for resolution, contrast, AND
>bokeh.
>
I do believe the 50/1.2 has been knocked for poor bokeh. The more I look
at bokeh, the more convinced I become that there are so many variables
that any conclusion based on a couple of images is suspect. Not only
aperture and diaphram shape, but also at least the distance of the OOF
portions from the focal plane and the size and brightness of the OOF
objects make a big difference. The 90/2 has a rep for excellent bokeh.
This shot and the following one were taken within moments of each other
of the same flower
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Garden04/pages/3649_22.htm>. The
first, shot at f2.8, has nice smooth OOF images behind it. The second,
shot at f11, facing 90 deg. different and with background objects at
lots of different distances and in bright light, has some quite
annoying areas of bokeh. There are even some bright edged donuts, the
hallmark of bad bokeh. Some of the bokeh is as bad as the famous foot
Wayne pointed out a bit ago, but with a main subject less likely to keep
one from noticing it. :-)
>It would seem that the 50 f1.2 is almost a must have lens (that sure seems
>like a new opinion - thanks John & Moose).
>
Funny, I don't consider it a must have. I said I would buy one at the
price I paid for a very late 50/1.4. At real world prices, I have no
interest.
>By interchangeable I was referring to focal length, max aperture, size, and
>weight (its pretty easy to say a 90mm macro and 100 f2.8 aren't
>interchangeable).
>
OK, I see.
>Clearly people have their preferences among lenses and
>wouldn't change one for a similar model and it often isn't resolution or
>contrast that is the deciding factor.
>
I agree. Tastes vary. All of this equipment, etc. is in aid of the final
image and it is clear that there are a wide range of preferrences in the
desired "look" of those images among listees. Another factor compounding
confusion is that most of the lenses we are talking about are quite old,
so life history has added to original sample variation to create the
possibility that the xx/y.y lense you love so much actually has quite
different performance than the one I hate.
>However maybe I remember that because it seems too often I'm not able to see
>the differences that others have ...
>
That also happens to me with some of the comparisons drawn and/or
illustrated
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|