I know nothing of the m.4/3 lenses and how they perform, though I
thought the samples looked very good.
The battle for bokeh is somewhat of a lost cause with 4/3 anyway. I can
occasionally get somewhat decent blur from close-focusing the DZ 50-200,
or even the DZ 40-150 (except that it doesn't focus very close).
I think this is decent blur (though the background could be a little
more interesting):
http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/Wallace%20Garden%20Center%20Orchid%20Show/#_3106589w.jpg
This has a busier background, but I think the lens does OK:
http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/Wallace%20Garden%20Center%20Orchid%20Show/#_3106603w.jpg
(DZ 40-150 in both cases at f5.6 -- essentially wide open or close to.)
I am mainly content if the result is not simply awful. :\
Joel W.
On Wed, May 2, 2012, at 08:24 PM, Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
> I think I would like the camera too, but I'm not so fond of the lenses.
> F3.5-6.3 for the 12-50mm does not leave much room for shallow DOF on 4/3.
> Mounting the E-system lenses does not do justice to the small body of the
> OM-D.
>
> Just my 2 cents though.
>
> Wiliam
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
