I think these lenses are pretty close, but I'd give the second the nod, if
you look at the highlight areas on the left.
Walt, you have a 50/3.5? Go try with that. It's probably taken more of my
photos than anything else, but the bokeh can stink. At 5.6-8 highlights that
are only somewhat out of focus can be gruesome.
Andrew
on 2004/08/26 12:24 PM, Donald MacDonald at d1956m198d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:12:34 +0000, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.ht
m>> l
>>
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724215.ht
m>> l
>>
>> Walt, the bokeh clod
>>
>>
>
> Well IMHO, the second one takes it by a nose, but don't ask me why. It may
> be nothing to do with bokeh, contrast or colour, which look pretty much
> the same to me.
>
> D.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|