dmacmillan wrote:
The bokeh in #3 is disturbing. It almost looks like a mirror lens up in the blossoms. I think I'd retire that lens, at least at that aperture.
Doug
Took it with my 50mm f/1.4. Shot it at 1.8 I think. I thought the bk looked pretty cool. Oh well, each to his own I guess!
mpaul73 wrote:
Took it with my 50mm f/1.4. Shot it at 1.8 I think. I thought the bk looked pretty cool. Oh well, each to his own I guess!
The trees in the far background have a lovely quality. It's the blossoms that give me trouble. Maybe it's my astigmatism!
Gee, I hate to ask this, since I don't consider myself an equipment geek or a fanboy for a particular brand, but I'm curious whether this Nikon or Canon. I'm pretty sure it's not Leica! Having used both extensively, I'm guessing Nikon, but I'm probably wrong.
dmacmillan wrote:
The trees in the far background have a lovely quality. It's the blossoms that give me trouble. Maybe it's my astigmatism!
Gee, I hate to ask this, since I don't consider myself an equipment geek or a fanboy for a particular brand, but I'm curious whether this Nikon or Canon. I'm pretty sure it's not Leica! Having used both extensively, I'm guessing Nikon, but I'm probably wrong.
That was what I was afraid of. Must be an anomoly. Reviews and other images I've seen from that lens indicate a better bokeh. It must be situational.
For others, I did a very non scientific test many years ago comparing the bokeh of my copies of a 90mm Summicron, a Nikon 90mm and a Canon FD 100 mm. I showed 11x14 prints of the same scene to both other photogs and friends and asked them to pick the one with the best bokeh. The Leitz Summicron was the clear choice in both groups. The Nikon and Canon were about even. I preferred the Canon slightly. No generalizations can or should be drawn, other than there might be something to the Leica legend.
