>
> I posted this informal portrait (I'm not really into formal portraits)
> in another message yesterday, but just to relate it to this thread: If one
> has,
> and loves, the 85/2.0 for portraits that's great, but in all the images
> I've
> seen, it doesn't offer near the subject isolation and "pop" that the 90/2.0
> offers, nor does it render out of focus backgrounds as "smoothly". I
> sometimes
> get the feeling that certain lenses render their out-of-focus areas with
> different degrees of contrast (regardless of smoothness / gaussian-ness of
> the circle of confusion) and the 90/2.0 seems to render it's in-focus area
> with string contrast and "pop", and somehow always renders even
> high-contrast backgrounds with very low contrast.
>
Sorry, that I haven't had a chance yet to post the results, but on Saturday
I did a senior portrait session with the new L1 and 14-50 lens. I also used
as my "B Setup" the E-1 with 100/2.8. On Sunday, using a small statue in our
front yard, I did extensive stop-by-stop testing of all of my lenses at
"head-shot" distance. Also, last Tuesday, I took around 40 portrait pictures
of couples. Basically, enough shooting this past week to get a good idea of
how the new lens stacks up.
The 14-50 lens has a much tighter background. It essentially gives the
background blurring of the 14-54 at one full-stop further closed down. F4 on
the 14-50 looks like F5.6 on the 14-54, but compared to the 50/1.4, it's
more like F8. That said, the bokeh is very comfortable and the contrasting
is such that makes it look a lot more like the classic Zuikos. It has that
dimming effect on the background which I've grown to love with the 100/2.8.
As much as I'd like to shoot all of my portraits with beautiful blurry
backgrounds, that is rarely the case. We do a handful of shots that way
(usually head-shots), but the current style is predominantly "environmental"
images which place the person within a scene. As such, the scene can't go
all soft on you, but what is critical is to get adequate separation from the
background. This separation is easily attainable with some lenses like the
35-80 or many of the F2 Zuikos. Even stopped down, these lenses give a
different look than equivalent lenses of lesser amounts of glass.
The 100/2.8, which remains my all-time favorite lens seems to give doggy
bokeh on the 4/3 cameras as compared to film. What I think is going on here
is the shooting distance. At closer distances (and expecially in
near-macro), the bokeh is to die for. But at longer distances the bokeh gets
a little busy. With the crop-factor of 4/3, I end up doubling my
camera-to-subject distance which then causes the backgrounds to get crunchy.
Probably the one lens in my arsenal that consistanty gives excellent bokeh
at pretty much all apertures, distances and full-frame or 4/3 is the 35-80
F2.8. Just a touch soft in the sharpness department wide-open, the lens
absolutely rocks in the way it draws the scene. The subject separation is
the stuff of legends even when stopped down to the limits of acceptable
diffraction.
But, back to the separation thing for a moment--there are two ways we can
accomplish this: Optically (combined with camera-subject-background
distance alteration) and lighting. Use of the lighting you have at your
disposal is a way to get the subject to stand out from the backround. One of
the key reasons why we use "hair lights" or skimming lights is to provide a
distinct line that pulls the subject out from the background.
I did photograph my lighting setup from Saturday, which I think a few of you
may find a little interesting and is now the basis of my new portable
lighting configuration for 2010. (A few changes, modifications, improvements
and additions to be made).
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|