Mike,
I agree about the sometimes disturbing bokeh of the CAT lenses. I've had my
500/8 for over 20 years, and before the E-1 came here, I bet I didn't take 100
shots using it for precisely that reason. But with digital and the usual and
customary "adjustments" we make in the process, correcting the bad bokeh and
those annoying donut highlights that sometimes appear is not a major problem.
Couple that with the fact the 500/8 weighs less than a pound and a half and
fits in my under-12-pounds LowePro digital gear bag, and I can live with its
shortcomings. The 300/2.8 Tamron requires a Sherpa to drag it more than a
furlong from the car, and they are now starting to become surly and
disrespectful unless guaranteed double pay for overtime and provided a dental
plan.
That weird bokeh could fairly easily be fixed, but in the other shot I posted,
such remedial measures aren't necessary. It you hadn't already been told,
would you know this was shot with a mirror lens?
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1080.jpg
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Mike <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > It's a mystery.
> >
> No mystery. It's a mirror lens. Can't fault Walt's craftsmanship but I
> just can't get past the bokeh of that type of lens. Looking forward to
> the results from his 'real' lens. :)
>
> Mike
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
