I really like this shot, Moose. I don't find the bokeh objectionable,
though another lens (or even a different aperture with this lens) would
have rendered it differently, and it might have been "better". In many
cases it's personal preference, as has been noted.
Earl
Moose wrote:
>Also lovely. The later 50/1.8s are exceptionally good lenses, one of the
>great bargains.
>
>On the other hand, they are given to bokeh that I often find unpleasant.
>This shot is a case in point. Notice the bright points of light in the
>background area that is out of focus (OOF). In the stacks of glasses,
>the OOF pints are sort of hard edged, with the center darker than the
>edges. In the far background, the bright points of light actually turn
>into thin, bright halos of light almost without centers. A lens with
>great bokeh would reproduce OOF highlights like these as brightish
>centers with brightness fading with distance from the center. The 50/3.5
>macro also bugs me with its bokeh. Some people hardly notice bokeh, it
>is a big deal for others.
>
>It is a problem with many lenses and depends to some extent on the
>aperture and the distance behind the focal plane of the OOF highlights.
>Drives me a little crazy sometimes. I really like this image in most
>respects, but the busy donut quality of the light through the trees in
>the background keeps me from being completely happy with it
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/5018bokeh.htm>.
>
>This is the issue George was talking about in his reply to your question
>about portrait lenses when he referred to the reputation of the 85/2 for
>good bokeh.
>
>Moose
>
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|