From: "Chris Crawford"
> I've got a couple "Made in Japan" 50mm f1.8 lenses and hate them because of
> their harsh, ugly Bokeh, as in this example:
>
> http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/antiwar/photopages/annivers
> ary3.htm
>
> I've heard that the 50 and 55mm f1.2 lenses were better in that respect......
>
> Mike Johnson, the former magazine editor who runs the Online Photographer
> blog says that the 40mm f2 has beautiful bokeh, but its expensive ($525 at
> Keh) and I haven't seen much taken with it either.
>
As I believe you know, bokeh varies with the distance of the subject and
the distance from subject to background. I also changes with aperture,
getting better as the lens is stopped down. I have no idea where my
notes are at the moment, but I believe these two shots are at f2.8 and
f8. I was playing with DOF, but ended up with a lesson in bokeh.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/5018bokeh.htm
Your sample has everything to result in bad bokeh, relatively dark,
close subject against relatively far, bright background and shot wider
than f8. Since this appears to be a portrait, you would have been better
served to get the subject in open shade against a relatively quiet,
dark, nearer background. Of course it would be nice to have a lens with
perfect bokeh characteristics, but photography is always an act of
compromise and working around less than perfect equipment.
Herb Keppler's column in PopPhoto that arrived today points out that
virtually all f2 and faster, "normal" focal length lenses for 35 mm SLRs
are very close to the Zeiss Biotar design of 1936. He provides lab tests
of a 1950 biotar vs. a contemporary 50/1.8 Nikkor, and the Biotar wins
by a nose.
A quick look at the optical layouts of the Zuikos shows that all the
lenses from the 40/2 to the 55/1.2 are very similar in design to the
Biotar and each other. The f1.4 & f1.2 versions add a thin element at
the back. So the obvious question is whether ANY standard fl lens is
going to give you mush better results. There are, of course other
designs out there, like the Tessars, but none for OM mount, auto
diaphragm operation.
I think the 50/1.4 is better than the 1.8, but not a lot. I've never
used either of the f1/2s. The 55/1.2 might be better simply by virtue of
being a little softer to begin with. By going faster, you are just
paying for extra speed for shots that will still require small apertures
for good relatively good bokeh. Whatever Mike may say about the 40/2,
it's very pricey and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It was
originally designed as an inexpensive, tiny lens for casual shooting. It
was not a commercial success, so relatively few were made. The high
prices reflect rarity, not optical superiority.
How about trying a 35 mm lens? The 35/2.8 is inexpensive and a different
optical design type and the difference between 35 and 40 mm is not
great. A lot of street photographers prefer shorter focal lengths. In
the other direction, as Charlie has pointed out, the 85/2 is a great
portrait lens with better bokeh in general than the 50s. I still
wouldn't bet on perfect bokeh from either direction in the sample set-up
you posted, but certainly better.
Also, have you considered a small, light zoom, like the 35-70/3.5-4.5?
I've honestly never done any bokeh testing with it, but I also don't
recall any results that annoyed me with bad bokeh like the 50/1.8, either.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|