My test was a rather simple one, only at one magnification and a fixed
object to background distance. In the test 50/3.5 was giving a more harsh
background when compared with 50/1.4.
http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/b50mm.htm
If my memory serve me well, I remember the 50/3.5's bokeh was not bad for
portrait (that was how I use the lens in film age). With 4/3 it was also
fine in many cases:
50/3.5 with E-1 (F5.6)
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P5231022s.jpg
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P5231031s.jpg
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> It seems to me that CH has done bokeh testing of several lenses. Was
> the 50/3.5 included? I just don't recall the details of his tests.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 6/3/2012 6:43 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>> Moose wrote
>>
>>> On 5/31/2012 4:39 PM, Rick Beckrich wrote:
>>>> Thanks all... I don't know if it was the distance or the aperture,,, I
>>>> think I've had softer results
>>>>
>>>> in the past... I think.
>>>
>>> My limited experience is the closer the subject in focus and the farther
>>> the background, the worse it gets. Limited experience because I was
>>> shooting film and stopped wasting it on shots I knew I wouldn't like.
>>>
>>> Macro Bokeh Moose
>>
>> I am quite puzzled by this on several counts.
>>
>> 1) The background was already busy, and lousy bokeh could have been
>> expected as a matter of course. Now that I think of this, I remember
>> Wayne
>> H asking us a few years ago to comment on the relative rendering of the
>> bokeh of about 20 lenses - and in my opinion none of them had a chance
>> because the background consisted of a lot of tortuously bent branches
>> that
>> were simply too close to the subject - one of his daughters if I remember
>> correctly.
>>
>> 2) The background was too close to the subject. Moose wrote " the closer
>> the subject in focus and the farther the background, the worse it
>> gets"..
>>
>> My experience is opposite, as I recall. The closer the subject usually
>> means
>> the background is relatively far away ( better).
>>
>> The further away the background is ( especially when highly detailed and
>> messy), the better. Better because every little bit of detail becomes
>> relatively
>> smaller, more out of focus, and therefore matters less.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
