[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Do you know if Nikkor 105/2.5 is better/worse than Pentax 105? > Alek
Me? No. I don't own nor use Nikons, so I don't use Nikkor lenses. Perhaps someone else on the list does. keith > [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: > >Thanks! > >But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only >shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. > >Do you have this lens? > >Alek > >U�ytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> > >>> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? > >>> How to describe bokeh in other words? > >>> Alek > >> > >>First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. > >>A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: > >> > >>http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf > >> > >>Keith Whaley > >> > >>> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >>> >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh > >>> >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to > >>> >> N*k*n users. > >>> > > >>> >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its > >>> >bokeh: > >>> > > >>> >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ > >>> > > >>> >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants > >>> >at f/2.8" link - <g>.] > >>> > > >>> >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, > >>> >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a > >>> >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent > >>> >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... > >>> > > >>> >Fred > >> > >--------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a----------------- > > > >Masz do�� p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? > >mBank - za3� konto > >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > > --------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a----------------- > > Masz do�� p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? > mBank - za3� konto > http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
