Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
#1
Very sharp but the bokeh could be better

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro

#2
Ugh... the bokeh could be better is quite an understatement....

It does seem to be somewhat focusing distance related,  does the outlining not appear so strong when focussing closer by?

 

http://robinwong.blogspot.nl/2014/10/oly...-lens.html

#3
Well, if you choose something closer by you tend to increase the focus spread thus suppressing the issue.

 

I think it is a very common misconception that bokeh = blur.

I can force any lens on the planet, even the very worst, to produce a beautiful blur. You just need to defocus beyond the point where details are still guessable. 

#4
Quote:Well, if you choose something closer by you tend to increase the focus spread thus suppressing the issue.

 

I think it is a very common misconception that bokeh = blur.

I can force any lens on the planet, even the very worst, to produce a beautiful blur. You just need to defocus beyond the point where details are still guessable. 
No, I don't mean that. I posted a link with certain images, where with closer focussing things look ok, and the outlining seems to be gone (flower close up, glasses hanging. While with some images with a tad further focussing, it looks as bad as with your samples.

 

You should already be aware of the fact that I know the difference between the amount and the quality of blur Tongue
#5
The image with the swimming Tiger shows some of this roughness although the low contrast of the highlights are preventing the worst. Same goes for the Tiger walking. The sitting lady has also some harsh lines on the chair and the first table.

 

Most of these images just show comparatively distant blur so it's in the "sufficient focus spread" category.

 

I'm aware that you are a bokeh lover. ;-) 

#6
I know the tiger ones and some others show the outlining, my point was that it seems focus distance dependent... I don't have access to the lens to explore that, though.

#7
Sometimes I just despair when reading stuff like this... "terms of depth-of-field - thus the creative potential" Since when does the shallow DOF equal the creative potential? You of all people should know that there's a lot more to photography than the "one eyelash in focus" stuff...  Rolleyes And unless you specifically aim for this, my experience has been that the narrow depth of field is usually more of a hindrance than an asset..........................

#8
It is very simple. That you have the ABILITY to use more shallow DOF gives you more creative potential than when that ability is non-existant. Why? Because when you don't have that ability, that option is not there. Same as with FOV. If you only can shoot with a 45 degree FOV, you have less creative potential than when you have for instance 125 to 10 degree to work with.

 

That does not mean that you have to shoot with shallow DOF all the time. Just means you have the potential to do so.
#9
Very disappointed in the bokeh - esp after the 50-200. I understand what brightcolours is asking; not so much the spread but initial distance to focus point; it might make a difference but given your samples there are enough common cases that have bad bokeh it still makes the lens a bit too sensitive.

 

I wonder how the fuji version will compare. Realize that the magnification will be slightly less (aspc vs u4:3) but fuji seems to have a done a better job (in general) mixing sharpness and bokeh. The 90f2 is getting rave comments.

#10
Well, a shorter distance does ultimately translate into a higher focus spread unless you stop down but then why would you want that. Admittedly the bokeh should be better at f/4 though - the outlining effect would be gone then.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)