Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Olympus F/1.2 primes officially announced
#51
Here is something interesting about new lenses from Oly

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20...-pro-prime
#52
The bokeh wasn't exactly a strength of Oly lenses so far (especially Oly actually) so it's good that they care ... finally.

#53
Quote:Here is something interesting about new lenses from Oly

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20...-pro-prime
 

Controlling the spherical aberrations to influence the bokeh is not a new concept.  

 

The Pentax-FA* 85mm F1.4 [IF] was/is renowned for it's creamy soft bokeh. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/Penta...mm%20f1.4/

 

My friend Dave (no relation to me), often claimed that he'd been told that the FA* 85mm was designed to front focus to create the background blur:

 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28573381

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">the FA 85 f1.4 may have been designed primarily (but not exclusively) for portrait work..that is exactly correct and I can assure you that was Pentax's intent,with absolute certainty (long story).

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">it introduced a bit of "front focusing", which put the the subject at the rear of the zone of focus (depth of field) so that just behind the portrait subject, a beautiful soft background would be apparent, which in turn contributed to this lens's desirable bokeh.

 

I never really understood that but what he was trying to convey was that the spherical aberrations were front focused, exactly what Olympus describes in their marketing.

 

This lens was introduced in 1992.  Amazing that Olympus needs 25 years to "crack this code".  

#54
Quote:The bokeh wasn't exactly a strength of Oly lenses so far (especially Oly actually) so it's good that they care ... finally.
This is a bit confusing for me. I think the 75/1.8 has a very good bokeh, the 60/f2.8 macro is pretty fine  and the 45/f1.8 is not bad.  But ok, some of their zooms are a disappointment. Is that what you mean?
#55
Quote:This is a bit confusing for me. I think the 75/1.8 has a very good bokeh, the 60/f2.8 macro is pretty fine  and the 45/f1.8 is not bad.  But ok, some of their zooms are a disappointment. Is that what you mean?
 

Yup, the Oly 50-140mm PRO was particularly disappointing. Same goes for the older Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 (still loved this one).

#56
The "problem" with bokeh will always remain that it is very subjective; what one person likes, someone else does not.

 

What many see as good bokeh, e.g., the Canon 85L and L II, is the standard bokeh described in the article referenced by borisbg. It appears to have nice bokeh in the OOF background, but if you look carefully, you'll notice doubling of lines, even if they are blurred. This is very noticeable if you need to do some extreme edits on your images (for whatever reason), especially if the background is not very distant. And foreground bokeh is not as good as the background one.

 

They do mention in that article that if you have nice blur in the foreground, you get rings in the background, and vice versa. This is caused by the raypaths of light through a lens, and normally unavoidable.

 

However, the whole idea of these F/1.2 Olympus lenses is that they have good bokeh both in foreground and in background OOF zones. It is one of the reasons why they have so many elements: they do correct for the ring shaped OOF blurs, resulting in very nice gradual blurring both in foreground and in background. This, IMO, is what makes them special - not many lenses are capable of this feat.

 

I also find that looking at any images created with these lenses, that the 25 F/1.2 is best at this. The 17 is of course a moderate WA, which makes it harder to do, IOW, more a function of increased DoF, and the 45 shows some doubling of blurs if you look very carefully, but certainly to a much lesser degree than its competition, like any other MFT lenses in that FL range, or the Canon 85L for that matter.

 

Some FF lenses which are very good at gradual, smooth background and foregound OOF blurring, are funnily enough the Canon TS-Es (all of them). I think this is accidental rather than by design, and probably is a side effect of the much larger image circle they are designed for, stretching the blur zones as it were. The 50L is also quite good at this, although in the tests here it appears to have some busy background blur under certain conditions, which I haven't experienced yet myself.

 

Anyway, in the end it is a matter of taste. Some like it, some don't. Personally I do.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

Gear: a gaggle of Canon primes, a lone Canon zoom (sold 5D II recently Smile), an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#57
For my taste the 45mm renders very nicely. And as usual the photographer has to know how to use the lens. Unpleasant background can be the case with almost any lens.

 

Here is the ling that Florent posted earlyer; very nice:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
#58
http://bokehtests.com/styled/index.html

 

Good article about it.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)