I didn't see the bokeh is poor on the second shot, the problem is just too
much DOF. The lens with real problem is very obvious, with astigmatic look
background.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> 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. :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|