my opinion:
bokeh /is/ an important part of macro lenses (perhaps not as important as
it's made to be here given recent discussion, but important
nonetheless). here's why: in macro, you have very little depth of field
(relatively speaking). what isn't in focus is out of focus (duh)...and if
it looks awful, then well, it detracts from the picture. take a look at
what i mean:
http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01/bokeh.html
most of the stuff from the 50/3.5 is awful
that cycad curl, in color, looks like it was dropped on a wet road and
cars went over it.
the bad bokeh bells (jimson weed), my eye first goes to the highlights.
here're some good macros (with 55/1.2 zuik!):
http:/home2.pi.be/pin28795
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/dylansweb/macro/index.html
http://www.kalmeijer.net/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/8827/TamronBokeh.html
http://www.whitneygallery.com/olympus/html/aditl1_20.html
http://www.whitneygallery.com/Olympus2/html/aditl2_3.html
http://www.whitneygallery.com/Olympus2/html/aditl2_20.html
http://www.whitneygallery.com/Olympus2/html/aditl2_25.html
http://www.millennics.com/cgi-bin/aditl3_show_entry.cgi?pic=31&width=640&height=447
did i overdo the links? <gg>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|