Different strokes.......
I find the 50/3.5 to have the worst bokeh of the lot, with the 35-70
also on the lower rungs. Although I looked at several things, my real
test is how uneasy it makes me. I would say the best for my eyes is the
Tokina. However, that appears to be greater DOF, the background shapes
seem to be simply less out of focus than the other lenses. As the only
non Zuiko lens, maybe the marked apertures are slightly different? Or
perhaps just a different design philosophy. Second for me is probably
the 28-48 (sharpness superiority again?). The bokeh differences between
the f1.8 and f1.4 standard lenses are so small I can't make a choice.
As to the difference in background intensity betwen the 35-70/3.6 and
the 28-48/4, it seems to my eyes to be that the details on the 35-70 are
significantly more diffuse. So much so that their darker tones are
spread out enough to significantly reduce contrast and thus the
appearance of brightness in the overall background area. I wonder if an
average densitometer reading of a large background area on each would
show much, if any, overall difference in brightness. Look at the dark
blue squares and the intervening white areas. The darks are not as dark
nor the whites as white on the 35-70.
Moose
Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
Comparing the 3.6 zoom and the 3.5 macro, I notice that lower contrast makes an
out of focus background (bokeh) less objectionable.
The 3.6 probably "measures" as a better lens in res and contrast and it's the
one I'd prefer. On the other hand,if one's criteria
of "quality" is whether the background is distracting, then the 3.5 macro is
"better".
< 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 >
|