> When bad bokeh is good bokeh or "artistic", and vintage lens formulas.
For those times when I need to have the optical equivalent of a
nervous breakdown, there is the OM Zuiko 50/1.4 which will let me soak
in a nice warm bubble bath until the feeling dies down. Not only is my
itch satisfied, but I'm clean and my skin is soft.
> What is curious to me is these lenses seem to defy what is considered good
> and bad bokeh by Ken Rockwell's definition, where they would be classified as
> "Poor Bokeh": https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
The think to keep in mind about Ken Rockwell is that he's kinda the
"Kenye West" of the photography world. He'll say some really
outrageous things to prove a point, to get people talking, and of
course, to spend money buying his stuff. Sometimes, his opinion on
what is great/good/bad/ugly may seem a little off, but I think he's
got a tighter handle on what people really need, not what they want.
His grading of bokeh is highly accurate when it comes to maximum
usability. Bubble-Butt-Bokeh is awesome for that one or two pictures a
year that you may think you want to take. But it's highly unusable the
rest of the time.
It's just another "Lensbaby". A rather well-made and expensive
Lensbaby, but it still has that single-use benefit. I couldn't use
that lens for general use in the 100mm focal length.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|