Paul Stenquist, lost in a senior moment, allowed his e-mail spellchecker
to change "bokeh" to "booked." Thus, in a rare flash of lucidity, he has
resent this message.:
>
> You're right. The bokeh sucks. However, i'd never use a 40mm lens for
> that type of shot. if I want narrow depth of field and nice bokeh, I'll
> go to at least an 85. I use a 40 for scenery, street people shots where
> I want the environment to be part of it, building interiors, and other
> shots where depth of field and a fairly wide angle of view are
> desirable. Bokeh isn't usually an issue for me when using this type
> of lens.
> paul
>
> Fred wrote:
> >
> > > I've never seen any photos attributed to it that make me say "Ick".
> > > Anyone know how it got such a lousy reputation?
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > I think that the M 40/2.8 can produce decent enough images, and my only
> > "ick" feeling about it is its bokeh, which I have found to be quite
> > harsh. (See http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/4028bok1.jpg ,
> > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/4028bok2.jpg , and especially
> > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/4028bok3.jpg for some examples.)
> >
> > Fred
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
