Subject: | Re: [OM] That's Not a Bokeh, This is a Bokeh |
---|---|
From: | Wayne Harridge <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 07 May 2009 08:29:10 +1000 |
> 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: > I see what you mean CH, the 135/4.5 is better, but I've seen much uglier bokeh than the 90/2 shots. ...Wayne Wayne Harridge http://lrh.structuregraphs.com -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] [OT] - how do you catch a rat!, Michael Collins |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] [OT] - how do you catch a rat!, Andrew Fildes |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] That's Not a Bokeh, This is a Bokeh, Wayne Harridge |
Next by Thread: | [OM] That's Not a Bokeh, This is a Bokeh, usher99 |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |