I've added a couple of cropped shots, for those who want a closer look.
They're here, or just click on the slide show arrows from the previous links.
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724231.html
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724232.html
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman):
--------------
> Last summer I did a short series (about half a roll of Provia 100F) of test
> shots to compare the 90/2 Zuiko and the 90/2.8 Tamron macros. I couldn't tell
> any real difference. Now, since the bokeh subject has reared its fuzzy head
> again, and because the 90/2 Zuiko is said by many to have the most wonderful
> bokeh, I'm putting up a couple of shots, one taken with each lens. About the
> only things these lenses have in common is that they both have nine-blade
> diaphragms.
>
> These are straight scans, with no sharpening or other adjustments whatsoever,
> of
> a deliberatly chosen "difficult" subject in fairly harsh lighting. For some
> reason, although scanned at 2700 d.p.i. before being JPGed down to 800 pixels
> wide, they look kinda "soft." I promise, though, that they are equally sharp
> and have oodles of detail. But anyway, I'm doing this only for the bokeh, so
> "soft" don't much matter.
>
> If anybody can see any difference, I hope they'll 'splain it to me. I guess
> I'm
> just not all that sensitive, because bokeh has never been that important to
> me.
> Unless it's really bad and/or the subject is really boring, I usually don't
> even
> notice it.
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724214.html
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724215.html
>
>
> Walt, the bokeh clod
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|