Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   That bokeh doesn't look like $1800 worth (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t752636-that-bokeh-doesnt-look-like-1800-worth.html)

RichA 08-09-2011 09:26 PM

That bokeh doesn't look like $1800 worth
 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN 08-09-2011 09:41 PM

rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>
> Looks very "busy."


You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
inability to comprehend written material.

--
Peter

Charles 08-09-2011 10:20 PM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and boring
studio shot. To each his own.

"PeterN" wrote in message
news:4e41a9c6$0$12478$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...

On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>
> Looks very "busy."


You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
inability to comprehend written material.

--
Peter


OG 08-09-2011 10:46 PM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>>
>> Looks very "busy."

>
> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
> inability to comprehend written material.
>


You really like the bokeh in the first photo?



Robert Coe 08-09-2011 11:37 PM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:
: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
: >
: > Looks very "busy."
:
: You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
: inability to comprehend written material.

Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.

Bob

PeterN 08-10-2011 12:30 AM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>>>
>>> Looks very "busy."

>>
>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
>> inability to comprehend written material.
>>

>
> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
>
>


Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
that are fine.

--
Peter

PeterN 08-10-2011 12:32 AM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
On 8/9/2011 7:37 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<peter.new@nospam.verizon.net>
> wrote:
> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> :> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
> :>
> :> Looks very "busy."
> :
> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
> : inability to comprehend written material.
>
> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.


But that was only one shot out of a series. See the Duck's comment.


--
Peter

Bruce 08-10-2011 12:51 AM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net>
>wrote:
>: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>: >
>: > Looks very "busy."
>:
>: You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
>: inability to comprehend written material.
>
>Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
>and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
>dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.



+1 here.

For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
highlights, this is a poor result.

For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.

When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
ONE SIXTH of the price? Surely learning how to focus manually is
worth a $1500 saving?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qpv56d
or:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ical_Lens.html


Robert Coe 08-10-2011 01:12 AM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:51:36 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: >On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net>
: >wrote:
: >: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
: >: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
: >: >
: >: > Looks very "busy."
: >:
: >: You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
: >: inability to comprehend written material.
: >
: >Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
: >and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
: >dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.
:
:
: +1 here.
:
: For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
: reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
: highlights, this is a poor result.
:
: For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
: costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.
:
: When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
: almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
: ONE SIXTH of the price? Surely learning how to focus manually is
: worth a $1500 saving?

For the kind of event work I do, I'd never be able to keep up if I had to
focus manually. For posed portraits, sure.

But my wife's Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro is a decent portrait lens with AF and
nice bokeh, and I'm pretty sure I paid less than $500 for it.

Bob

Bruce 08-10-2011 10:46 AM

Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
 
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> Robert Coe<bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<peter.new@nospam.verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> :> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=39064364
>>> :>
>>> :> Looks very "busy."
>>> :
>>> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
>>> : inability to comprehend written material.
>>>
>>> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
>>> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
>>> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.

>>
>>
>> +1 here.
>>
>> For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
>> reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
>> highlights, this is a poor result.
>>
>> For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
>> costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.

>
>Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included.
>
>
>> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh

>
>Got anything to substantiate that?



http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mmf14g/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1437990@N23/



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.