Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Hmmm, interesting - this might be matter of personal preference. As long as there are no halos or other artifacts and sharpening doesn\'t cause depth of field to look enormous I can\'t find photo oversharpened.
To my eyes, a picture can very well be \"too sharp\" on a monitor even if there\'s no halos at all. A very high sharpness \"reveals the screen\", since you can see the pixels to clearly.
Yes rock stands out, there is separation from background. However there is no shape seen in the rock, either because it doesn\'t have any shape or then it\'s not rendered to photo.
I think you\'re right on that one. The picture is old, and I probaly used severe local sharpening with a quite large radius.
This is not problem of image circle size, there is no vignetting. If you look at your photo the top corners very far away are in focus, similarly front corners are blurred. This is because this lens does have field curvature, meaning that in different parts of image circle are focused to different distance. There are many wide angle lenses suffering from this problem, even some tele lenses suffer from this problem.
There IS vignetting, but not clearly visible in this particular shot. About the image circle; I meant that if it was larger, the extreme curvature of field would not have been visible. I actually beleive that the extended DOF is not only due to curvature of field, but also because of the iris being smaller (\"cats eye effect\") in the corners. You can see that sharpness is alot better radially than tangentially in the grass infront of the stone.
Yes not bad, the actual bokeh is nice and smooth, some people prefer that kind of bokeh. The transition from focal plane to blur could be better thou. What I have learned in this forum that there is no \"good bokeh\", majority of people consider \"butter smooth bokeh\" as good, while other want some character to be present in bokeh. From big masses point of view the bokeh in middle of the frame is pleasing = smooth.
I like both smooth and harsh bokeh, depending on how you use it. I\'m well acquainted with the different drawing style of lenses when it comes to bokeh. And as you say; \"good bokeh\" can be anything, depending on who\'s judging. Buttery smooth isn\'t my favourite, but sometimes it\'s very nice. Especially when DOF is fairly large, since it gives a nice separation from the background without being distracting. At shorter DOF, i prefer a less smooth bokeh.
--------------------------------
Now, how about this for 3D? I bought a Distagon 35/2 ZF yesterday, and I think it is outstanding!
f/2.8:
Feb 09, 2010 at 02:59 PM
Previous versions of Makten's message #8111650 « what is '3d' ? »
I\'m well acquainted with the different drawing style of lenses when it comes to bokeh. And as you say; \"good bokeh\" can be anything, depending on who\'s judging. Buttery smooth isn\'t my favourite, but sometimes it\'s very nice. Especially when DOF is fairly large, since it gives a nice separation from the background without being distracting. At shorter DOF, i prefer a less smooth bokeh.