I had the same feelings.
It's undoubtable that the donut-shaped bokeh is a real cr*p.
Anyhow - if my eyes aren't fooling me - I can see small DOF differences in
the test shots. Maybe the not-so-prononuced DOF differences are a
consequence of the tester being very near to the focused subject?
After all we're talking about a 300mm lens which is supposed not to have a
huge DOF especially at short distances.
Of course, these are just my humble suppositions: I too was wondering about
how could it be possible to build a variable-aperture CAT...
Ciao!
Fabio
On 7/14/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Fabio Fiorellato wrote:
> > What about this CAT?
> >
> > [ http://homepage3.nifty.com/3rdpartylens-om/ohnar300.htm ]
> >
> > and
> >
> > [
> http://homepage3.nifty.com/3rdpartylens-om/Lens%20Test/ohnar300test.htm ]
> >
> > So far, it's the only one I know with variable aperture!
> Doesn't look like it's really variable aperture. Looks more like it may
> have built in neutral density filters, convenient, but not at all the
> same thing. The reason I say that is that the DOF doesn't change from
> f5.6 to f16. With a true aperture change, the DOF would change a great
> deal over that range.
>
> We've had discussions about whether, and how, variable aperture with a
> mirror lens might be possible. Looks like nobody has yet figured it
> out. :-)
>
> Still has that donut bokeh, particularly awful in the demo shots.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|