I've almost decided that I've bitten off something larger than I can
chew. Here's what I did:
I wanted to do a bokeh comparison test of several lenses. On the E-1.
I do consider the crop-sensor format a viable point of reference
because most poeple are now using the OM Zuikos on Four-Thirds and
Micro Four-Thrids cameras. So, I take the camea, mount it on a tripod
and photograph what I think is a flowering pear tree in a strong wind.
Yeah, the wind, but for bokeh testing, that's really not an issue.
I shot the 50mm lenses at 1.5m from the tree and included a sidewalk,
bench and another tree in the background. For the 100mm lenses, I
backed off to 3m. The 200mm to 6m and the 300mm at 9m. Oh, and the
24mm was in there someplace too, but you get the idea.
Then I repeated the test with the 50mm and 100mm lenses at 1m distance
to the flowers themselves, making sure I had flowers in front of and
behind the point of focus.
So, I've been comparing the images of matching apertures...
Where are the stinking differences? If I showed the images full-frame
at 800 pixels width, you are really hard pressed to tell the
difference between the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, or the 100/2.8 and 100/2.0.
In a full-frame presentation you really have to nitpick to see the
differences and even when you do see the differences you are hard
pressed to say that a picture is from one or the other. However, when
you drop down to pixel viewing, the differences to become visible. In
fact, much more than just visible!
I'm looking for suggestions here. BTW, the differences are so
significant that I just made a management decision regarding lens
selection for my primary kit this spring.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|