Moose writes:
>>Yes, it's fine at non close-up distances. I've only had real trouble
with the
>>macro subject and distant background
>>situations. My solution has been simple; don't use it in the field.
The 50/1.8s
>>are much the same, as in the image I
>>just posted. I think the 50/1.4s are similar, but perhaps not quite
as bad.
> this lens can get downright classical in nature and punches way above
its
> weight.
The bokeh clearly gets very busy on the 50/3.5. At a distance the
blurring is largely a function the physical size of the aperture
according to the Nasse article, so it is not clear to me why this lens
behaves so. Perhaps it is related to how distant, distant is at the
risk of sounding Clintonian. Have read that the 50f2 macro has the
"nicest rendition" when used for intermediate distances but really have
not directly compared images taken with it and the 50/1.4. I recall
CH's direct resolution performance images though.
Oh, here is a 50/3.5 image on FM today.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/28/551028.jpg
Busy bokeh can work sometimes.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
