Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I haven't heard about flare but I did see one shot taken with (I think)
> the 70-300 DO lens to illustrate some outrageous bokeh.
Probably the 400 DO
> Made me swear
> off any notion of ever owning one. The bokeh was similar to the donuts
> one gets with a mirror lens but much worse. Each donut was actually
> composed of a series of concentric donuts such that they looked like
> little targets. I believe that the bokeh is actually representative of
> the DO element which I think has a series of concentric rings in it.
> But take this with a larger grain of salt since I can't recall where I
> saw any of this.
>
Large grain taken. I"m well aware of the horror stories, and have seen
some posted pics that are supposed to be awful. It seems to me that the
400 is a bit iffy, but not a big problem and the problem shows up in the
70-300 very seldom, is very mild and can't be seen in prints, only at
full pixel on the screen. Certainly I saw nothing remotely like what I
get with mirror lenses.
For the combo of size, price, speed and IS, it seems to me to be an
attractive lens. But I know I'm weird. I don't get all the noise about
the 24-105 - big, heavy and expensive and with some optical shortcomings
worse than the 70-300 DO and in a range where IS isn't nearly as important.
Oh, well.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|