Fwiw, if it didn't come across, I know bokeh is entirely subjective. I just can't resist digging at Ratty. I hope you took it in good fun, just like I took the rabid fanboy comment as good fun.
Jman13 wrote:
Fwiw, if it didn't come across, I know bokeh is entirely subjective. I just can't resist digging at Ratty. I hope you took it in good fun, just like I took the rabid fanboy comment as good fun.
Likewise....the meant this was all a joke. I am certifiably insane. See how well you are after living in China for 6 years.
Funny, as I wasnt knocking this lens in total, just that one pic. I think the 90mm is probably Fuji's 2nd or 3rd best bokeh lens. I still think the original 35mm f/1.4 lens is their top effort there, with the 23mm lens a close second.
I sold my 5DII and 135L last year. I think the Fuji 90mm will be a worthy successor. Of course I won't get FF DOF but I often stopped down the 135L a bit for some more DOF so that's no problem for me.
rattymouse wrote:
Is this confirmed or speculation?
I was kidding, sorry...but personally, I would assume that every next release would have that option integrated. Otherwise, it would be much harder to compete against Sony, and Olympus.
rattymouse wrote:
For the other viewers, this was my comment that generated Mike's brazen personal attack: "I had the same reaction to that shot....ugly, nervous bokeh. The Canon 135L's bokeh would have melted that a lot more, reducing the nervousness to nothing."
Anyone who is insulted by such a comment like this is antithetical to what FredMiranda.com is all about. Apparently Mike is only comfortable in an environment where everyone agrees with each other, pats each other on the back, and lavishes empty, useless praise upon everything and anything.
It is to this forum's benefit that the likes of Mike are powerless to impose their sterile viewpoint here and are forced to be exposed to viewpoints different than what they are comfortable with. Should even this be too much, Fred has kindly offered tools to prevent their sensibilities from being offended by using the ignore button. I strongly urge Mike to take use of this tool so he never need be bothered again....Show more →
hypersensitive a bit? you've been on my ignore list (total of one on the list) for some time, if you care to know, and not for one comment but for a history of contentious posting you seem to enjoy, judging from volume. once in awhile, i unhide a post from you to see whether you've said something positive and useful. still waiting, because i don't like ignoring any point of view.
Once again it's logical reasoning from Steve Spencer!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think the bokeh has nervousness either, but I do think it is high contrast and that means that when the background has a lot of dynamic range like in the shot of the man on the bench there will be a lot of detail in the bokeh. That is what I think misternikko and ratty are seeing. It isn't double edged or onion rings that are obvious, but it is pretty high contrast. This issue is subjective as some love higher contrast in the bokeh and others do not. So, I do think this comes down to a difference in preference rather than a difference in fact....Show more →
Ok, back to images. These are all at f/2 except for the last, which is at f/4. The purples seen in the shots of the jazz performers is from a spotlight on stage, not from the lens.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
hypersensitive a bit? you've been on my ignore list (total of one on the list) for some time, if you care to know, and not for one comment but for a history of contentious posting you seem to enjoy, judging from volume. once in awhile, i unhide a post from you to see whether you've said something positive and useful. still waiting, because i don't like ignoring any point of view.
Sure, we believe you. We really do. Let's look at the data.
5.2% of your posts are liked vs 46.3% of mine.
So sorry that my mere agreeing with another poster's comment about the bokeh of one single shot posted in this thread being not so great upset you so much.
Jman13 wrote:
Ok, back to images. These are all at f/2 except for the last, which is at f/4. The purples seen in the shots of the jazz performers is from a spotlight on stage, not from the lens.
Jordan, especially appreciate the stage shots (one of my fav subjects). they look great! are u still thinking minimum shutter speed above 1/125 in your experience so far?
It's big and it isn't. Compared to a 135mm on full frame, it's smaller than an f/2 and about the same size as an f/2.8, as expected. At the telephoto end, size gains are harder to come by, especially with larger apertures. Despite being only a bit shorter and a bit lighter, I find it feels notably smaller than the 55-200 when carried around for a while.
However, I thought it a good time to take a Fuji family portrait.
It depends on what you want to make equivalent. If you demand the same depth of field as you get on full frame, then no. Of course not. If you need ultra shallow DOF from big lenses then get full frame. The advantages come if you're ok with losing a bit of blur while still getting top notch glass in a smaller package. On most FF systems, the slower and smaller glass is also cheaper and crappier glass.
Jman13 wrote:
It's big and it isn't. Compared to a 135mm on full frame, it's smaller than an f/2 and about the same size as an f/2.8, as expected. At the telephoto end, size gains are harder to come by, especially with larger apertures. Despite being only a bit shorter and a bit lighter, I find it feels notably smaller than the 55-200 when carried around for a while.
However, I thought it a good time to take a Fuji family portrait.
meant this was all a joke. I am certifiably insane. See how well you are after living in China for 6 years. 