But... if you clone those soft, dark green shadows over the top of the
harsh orange balls in the background you end up with a spectacular
image. I wouldn't throw it out. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
C.H.Ling wrote:
> Sorry to break yours and many people's dream, I found the bokeh problem of
> 90/2 for quite some time but was too lazy to do a more systematic test with
> the FF sensor. Anyway here are two shots I took with the 90/2 (most likely
> at F2.8 or F4), you will see what I mean:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_2164.JPG
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_2166.JPG
>
> Due to the problem I didn't post any of the 90/2 shot in my 09 flower show
> gallery:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/FS2009/FS2009.htm
>
> Fortunately, most of the shots I took in the show were with the 135/4.5 this
> year. May be other than this specific focusing distance the bokeh of 90/2 is
> good, I remember it do very well for people portrait.
>
> The 90/2 seems works better with the 4/3 sensor as I remember.
>
> A good news about the 90/2 as I have mentioned before, it has excellent edge
> to edge performance even wide open. Although it is very slight less in
> resolution than the 100/2 at the center but it beat the 100/2 for edges
> performance hands down. Same case happen to 50/2 vs 50/1.4.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dawid Loubser"
>
> The 90/2.0 was "OK"?
> "OK" ?!?!?!?!
>
> The 90/2.0 is magical... mystical... übersmoothicalicious bokeh...
> Really, I have come to agree with Moose that it's really not the world's
> best lens at Macro magnifications, it is clearly optimised for
> near-macro. But in terms of smoothness, with near perfect bokeh
> (I have never managed to coax hard-edged out-of-focus highlights out
> of mine, always smooth gaussian-blurred circles) I find the bokeh of
> this lens impeccable.
>
> I have a back-log of about 200 photos with this lens to print in the
> darkroom,
> but with each one I get a better idea of its character. Complex
> optical design
> or not, it's bokeh is wonderful.
>
> As mentioned in my previous mail, not an EF 85/1.2L, no, but closer
> than anything
> else I've seen.
>
> :-)
>
>
> On 06 May 2009, at 3:51 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>> the 90/2 was ok.
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
