Isn't that clever. It would never have occurred to me to fix the
donuts and bokeh.
Long Beach, California, USA
On Feb 11, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Walt Wayman wrote:
> I agree about the sometimes disturbing bokeh of the CAT lenses.
> I've had my 500/8 for over 20 years, and before the E-1 came here,
> I bet I didn't take 100 shots using it for precisely that reason.
> But with digital and the usual and customary "adjustments" we make
> in the process, correcting the bad bokeh and those annoying donut
> highlights that sometimes appear is not a major problem. Couple
> that with the fact the 500/8 weighs less than a pound and a half
> and fits in my under-12-pounds LowePro digital gear bag, and I can
> live with its shortcomings. The 300/2.8 Tamron requires a Sherpa
> to drag it more than a furlong from the car, and they are now
> starting to become surly and disrespectful unless guaranteed double
> pay for overtime and provided a dental plan.
> That weird bokeh could fairly easily be fixed, but in the other
> shot I posted, such remedial measures aren't necessary. It you
> hadn't already been told, would you know this was shot with a
> mirror lens?
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Mike <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> It's a mystery.
>> No mystery. It's a mirror lens. Can't fault Walt's craftsmanship
>> but I
>> just can't get past the bokeh of that type of lens. Looking
>> forward to
>> the results from his 'real' lens. :)
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx