Interesting that you choose to upper case "Good Bokeh." I would agree to its importance, but I find it hard to judge. Thee are so many variables: the shape and intensity of the background, the distance between subject and background, even the condition and cleanliness of the front element. It all makes valid comparisons extremely difficult. Paul On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> Note that lens abberations are often an indicator of Good Bokeh, for > which the 85mm f1.2L is well known. Both the 77mm Limited and FA* 85mm > f1.4 are much better generalist lenses than the Canon 85L, but the > Canon > is their equal for portrait work. Canon's generalist 85 is the 1.8, > which is much better on distortion than the L, as well as being > lighter, > much cheaper and faster focusing. > > -Adam > > > Peter Fairweather wrote: >> I wouldn't dream of suggesting that editors are affected by the >> possibility of upsetting major advertisers. However I haven't seen >> another magazine as critical of the EFs 60mm Canon. >> >> Lots of people here like the Tamron. There are even a few of us ( not >> called Godfrey!)have owned decent Sigma lenses so neither of those >> results surprise me. >> >> The French magazine Chasseur D'Image shows photographs of a >> rectilinear grid when they test lenses. I've always found this useful >> as a way of seeing distortion. The super new F1.2 85mm Canon L was a >> lot less impressive than the Pentax 77mm or the FA* 85mm F1.4. >> both of >> which you could have for the same price as one of the Canon's. >> However >> how many of us regularly take pictures of graph paper!! >> >> Peter >> >> >>>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of >>>>> advertising >>>>> space the conclusions will be biased in their favor. At least >>>>> that's >>>>> what I've seemed to notice. >>>>> >>>>> Jens Bladt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or >>>>>> genrally paid >>>>>> for, by the avertisers? >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Jens >>>>>> >>>>>> Jens Bladt >>>>>> http://www.jensbladt.dk >>>>>> +45 56 63 77 11 >>>>>> +45 23 43 85 77 >>>>>> Skype: jensbladt248 >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>>>>> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> vegne af >>>>>> Peter Fairweather >>>>>> Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28 >>>>>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com >>>>>> where >>>>>> there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that >>>>>> phrase >>>>>> get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the >>>>>> latest >>>>>> VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'! >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which >>>>>>>> ranked far above >>>>>>>> the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In >>>>>>>> second place was the >>>>>>>> Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax. >>>>>>>> (86/100) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of >>>>>>>> poor advertising revenue!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ======== >>>>>>> I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very, >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> nice. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Marnie aka Doe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: >>>>>> 09/01/2006 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: >>>>>> 09/01/2006 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. >>>>> >>>>> --Albert Einstein >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. >>> >>> --Albert Einstein >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
