Re: [OM] Quick, before the storm hits...

[Chuck Norcutt]

I had already downloaded the full size images and did side-by-side 
comparisons before I rendered my (non) judgment.

Chuck Norcutt


On 6/3/2012 10:58 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> I intentionally set the background closer so all of them won't look good but
> you can still see which is better. It will be easier to see the difference
> if you download the images and compare them size by size or switch to A/B
> view.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt"<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> I can't decide.  The 50/1.4s are a little softer looking but I don't
>> find any of them particularly pleasing to look at.  I think it's the
>> repetitive pattern on the wall paper.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/2012 11:25 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> 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
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/