Fred Miranda wrote:
IMO, the Batis 40 renders like the 85mm so at least it's consistent. I have commented that the OOF area is high in contrast and not very smooth at mid-distance but don't recall posting an "imaginative postmodernist defense"...(Your words ) Could you refresh my memory?
Regarding the non-circular specular highlights: At first, I thought this could be caused by aperture mechanism variation as I've seen this effect wide-open in other lenses but after many other samples emerged, this phenomenon seems to only show up at close-up distance.
I was referring to these sentences in your post:
The polygons that appear toward MFD images don't bother me--they never have. To me they mostly just mean that the image was made with a camera and lens and it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the light and colors and forms. They sort of put the camera and lens in the image in the way that a lot of art, especially modern art, includes the context or the maker within the artwork itself. Happens a lot in theater and in novels as well as in painting. I just read the polygons as an artifact and a reference to the lens.
Putting the camera and lens in the image, as you describe it, is an example of a meta-reference: an aesthetic strategy that deliberately draws attention to how the image was produced, in this case by referring to an artifact produced by this particular lens. Such meta-references are a characteristic of postmodernist art practice.
My observation wasn't meant to be interpreted negatively. Rather I was pleasantly surprised to read your post because it argues for photographing in a way that subverts the conventional goal of transparently reproducing the world we see around us. Even so, meta-references can be difficult to do well and, to my eye, the bokeh stop-signs in the image of the car door lock represent an unconvincing example of putting the camera and lens in the image.
) Could you refresh my memory?