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

Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and boring
studio shot. To each his own.

"PeterN" wrote in message
...

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

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?

On 2011-08-09 15:46:46 -0700, OG said:

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?

There is more to this than condemning a lens on one piece of work from
one photographer, and posted with unknown exposure data.

The result is more likely to be due to photographer error and
unfamiliarity with his equipment, than an issue with the lens. It is
quite possible the photographer had no idea what he was going to end up
with, and didn't even notice the quality of the bokeh, or even
understood what bokeh is.

Rich is going to find fault with anything, and everything. That is his
role in this World.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, 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.

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

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

On 8/9/2011 7:37 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400,
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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:51:36 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, 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.
:
: 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 wrote:
Robert wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400,
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?


- 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

"Charles" wrote in
:

Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and
boring studio shot. To each his own.

I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander
lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they
look great.