AG Schnozz wrote:
> The crop may not be perfect, but this one was setup as a screen
> background for projection systems so the requirements were slightly
> different. Personally, other than the bokeh and color, the image
> isn't one of my favorites anyway.
>
Ah, hoist on my own petard. I too have been known to post an example of
one thing, only to catch criticism for other aspects of an image.
Criticism with which I'm likely to agree, while still crying, "But
that's not what the post and example were about!"
> BTW, nice catch on the extension. Yes, I did have an extension tube
> installed behind the lens.
>
Not my catch. Credit goes to priit. I merely took a quick look at the
eSIF before agreeing with him.
>
> The larger image looks quite a bit better, but this shot does
> illustrate that the 50/3.5 isn't the best at bokeh. I'll take the
> 35/2.8 over the 50 anyday in this department. Even though the 50/3.5
> uses "extension" focusing, its characteristics are quite similar to
> lenses with aspherical elements. I never suggested that #2 was the
> way bokeh was supposed to be, but felt that it made a good contrast
> with #1 which shows just how unique the 200/4 lens is.
>
My mistake again, I misunderstood that your post was a comparison, not
two examples of the same thing.
Never mind.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|