Bokeh quality EM1X + Olympus 300/f4

[sanjaykool]

How about this ?



Or







- Sanjay

 

[mcabato]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

You need to find the correct relationship between object distance and background distance. Envy different relationship shows different bokeh character.



br gusti

 

[nzmacro]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

br gusti

Huh. So finding bad examples says everything?

Strange.

--
------------
Birds and BIF's https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
Need for speed https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/albums

 

[nzmacro]

How about this ?



Or



- Sanjay

No I don't think so Sanjay ;-)

Danny.

--
------------
Birds and BIF's https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
Need for speed https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/albums

 

[mcabato]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

br gusti

Huh. So finding bad examples says everything?

Strange.

 

[whumber]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

You need to find the correct relationship between object distance and background distance. Envy different relationship shows different bokeh character.

br gusti

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

 

[mcabato]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

You need to find the correct relationship between object distance and background distance. Envy different relationship shows different bokeh character.

br gusti

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

you like to fight and discredit, eh?

Loading…

www.fotocommunity.de

Look in this linked thread for the first pic and then behave.

br gusti

 

[whumber]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

You need to find the correct relationship between object distance and background distance. Envy different relationship shows different bokeh character.

br gusti

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

you like to fight and discredit, eh?

http://www.fotocommunity.de/forum/d-slr-fortgeschritten/bokeh--2---88351/1275343#p1275343

Look in this linked thread for the first pic and then behave.

br gusti

That's a decent example, not as severe as the 40-150 but a similar quality; the author of the post implies that it only seems to occur when the 1,4x TC is attached a few posts later.

 

[mcabato]

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

Yesterday we took the identical pics from a hoop on the ground out of the car.

the bokeh of ground 1 m behind the hoop was far worse taken with d850 and nikkor 4/600 compared to e-m1ii and 4/300.

anyhow i regretted not having used the 2.8/90-250 with converter bokeh wise.

believe it or not.

you are fighting the wrong war.

br gusti

I've never use the Nikkor 600 f/4 so I can't comment at all but I'd be very intersted to see the comparison images you took. That said, I have no idea how that relates to your original implication that the CaNikon 70-200 lenses have worse bokeh than the 40-150 image I posted.

Finding goodexamples says nothing.

You need to find the correct relationship between object distance and background distance. Envy different relationship shows different bokeh character.

br gusti

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

you like to fight and discredit, eh?

http://www.fotocommunity.de/forum/d-slr-fortgeschritten/bokeh--2---88351/1275343#p1275343

Look in this linked thread for the first pic and then behave.

br gusti

That's a decent example, not as severe as the 40-150 but a similar quality; the author of the post implies that it only seems to occur when the 1,4x TC is attached a few posts later.

Remember: if I as a colleague tell something then I do not have any reason to lie - but you are implying dishonesty. And that is a style not worth to discuss with you.

And 200000 shots with one lens does not give experience for other lenses.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Bobby V]

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

I personally don't disagree that a FF 70-200 F/2.8 will do better to isolate a subject than the 40-150 in that shooting scenario, but saying the 40-150 has horrendous bokeh is doing a disservice to that lens. I think people shoot this lens with false expectation that's going to behave just like a full-frame 80-300 lens in terms of depth of field.

Comparing the two in a real world situation, you'd have to stop down the full frame lens to F/5.6 (which defeats the purpose, IMO) to match the DOF of the M43 setup.

For example, take a subject focused at 5 meters.

A DOF calculator says that the depth of field of a FF 70-200 F/2.8 is 0.66 meters (@ 80mm) to 0.1 meters (@ 200mm).

Similarly, the M43 40-150 F/2.8 would be 1.34 meters (@ 40mm) to .21 meters (@ 100mm)

I think anyone shooting different formats without equivalent lenses and expecting the same depth of field and background rendering is kidding themselves. Doesn't mean the small format has horrendous bokeh.





--
Instagram 500px

 

[whumber]

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

I personally don't disagree that a FF 70-200 F/2.8 will do better to isolate a subject than the 40-150 in that shooting scenario, but saying the 40-150 has horrendous bokeh is doing a disservice to that lens. I think people shoot this lens with false expectation that's going to behave just like a full-frame 80-300 lens in terms of depth of field.

Comparing the two in a real world situation, you'd have to stop down the full frame lens to F/5.6 (which defeats the purpose, IMO) to match the DOF of the M43 setup.

We were talking about bokeh, the quality of blur, not depth of field, the quantity of the blur.

 

[Bobby V]

The point of the comparison is that in the same situation that the 40-150 Pro gives horrendous bokeh, the 70-200 f/2.8 gives a very good bokeh. I shot well over 100K images with that lens and I never saw anything like I get with the 40-150 PRO. If you have any example of one of the CaNikon 70-200 lenses producing anything close to what I showed from the 40-150, you're more than welcome to present it. You claim that the 70-200 lenses are worse, yet so far you've been unable to provide even a single example of it.

I personally don't disagree that a FF 70-200 F/2.8 will do better to isolate a subject than the 40-150 in that shooting scenario, but saying the 40-150 has horrendous bokeh is doing a disservice to that lens. I think people shoot this lens with false expectation that's going to behave just like a full-frame 80-300 lens in terms of depth of field.

Comparing the two in a real world situation, you'd have to stop down the full frame lens to F/5.6 (which defeats the purpose, IMO) to match the DOF of the M43 setup.

We were talking about bokeh, the quality of blur, not depth of field, the quantity of the blur.

That's exactly my point, that people confuse the two when comparing a full frame lens to a micro four-thirds lens when evaluating background blur. If you stop the FF lens down to F/5.6 the comparison becomes slightly more relevant.

 

[Jeff]

Those are all beautiful shots with backgrounds which don’t detract from the subject.

However I’ve seen lots of images posted here where that lens renders close-background grass and foliage as a horrible mess.

We can’t always choose or arrange the background and often we are stuck with what’s there.

Peter

yes, and that's also the fate of canoconsony users. and thy all have in some object-background distance Relations similar issues.

the mz 4/300 is a very excellent lens.

br gusti

The only CaNikon lens I'm aware of that has behavior somewhat similar to what the Olympus PRO lenses exhibit is the old Canon 28mm f/1.8. None of the big DSLR lenses give the reflex lens like bokeh of the Olympus PRO lenses. Some of the zooms can have a nervous quality, but the PRO lenses are on another level, especially the 40-150 PRO.

ever checked the bokeh of some caniokon 70-200?

I have, it's not even close. The CaNikon 70-200 lenses are far superior even if they're not perfect.

https://www.google.at/search?source...j0i13i5i30i19j0i8i13i30i19j33i160.xAiCLwa-v-4

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Am I supposed to do a google search for you to look up some bad bokeh on those lenses? I owned the big 70-200 2.8 lens alongside the 40-150 for quite a while and it's simply not a contest. The 40-150 PRO probably has the worst out of focus rendering of any lens made in the last 20 years, it really is awful. (Cue somebody responding with their shot of a flower at MFD). Find anything close to as bad as the shot below from a FF 70-200 and we can talk (note: I shot the exact same event with my 1DX and 70-200 2.8 and it had zero issues with the same scene).




Not the exact same shot, but enough to show that the 70-200 handled that background without issue.

This is not a valid comparison.

Here you're comparing the 40-150 shot at 150 f/2.8 to the Canon 70-200 shot at 170 f/6.3. The lens opening for the Olympus is 150/2.8 = 54mm, the lens opening for the Canon is 170/6.3 = 24mm. Shoot the same image on the Olympus at 85mm and f/3.5 and we might have an apples-to-apples comparison.

Looking more closely at these images, the tandem bike is much closer to the background. You can see this by comparing backgrounds, and the relationship of the riders to the road guard rail.

There's really no conclusion to be drawn from these images.

--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/

 

[VideoPic]

I find it strange, checked out your previous questions on the forum. You asked about the Z7 and other Nikon gear, guess you have a history with Nikon.

You go buy approximately 6K$ gear from Olympus take an image and realize you do not like the bokeh?

Then you post an image with no exif data and asked the forum for help.

I see the great guys on this forum were immediately ready to help you, hope you found your answers.....

 

[VideoPic]

[No message]

 

[VideoPic]

I agree with what's been said above about the angle of the shot, distance from the background relative to the subject, and busy background being the main culprits for less than pleasing bokeh. The subject is too far away and also too close to the background foliage. I've seen these sorts of effects even with big expensive glass on a DSLR. Adjusting the composition is the only option.

As to how the Oly 300 F/4 compares to other lenses, I've used it for several years now and I have to believe that any differences in bokeh quality would be relatively minor if this lens were compared to an equivalent professional quality lens shooting the same exact image. FWIW, I'm not having any issues getting pleasing bokeh out of the combination on a consistent basis.

Must say I love the result in both images, very creative and interesting backgrounds. My fav is the second one, awesome. I never had a lens with this type creativity. If I read correct aperture and angle of view allows the photographer to determine the background blur look. Can I do that with my 75-300mm?

--
See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

VideoPic Blog

Micro Four-Thirds, Photoshop, and Olympus Workspace articles. Olympus O-MD and Panasonic cameras. Discussing photography, video, editing techniques.

myolympusomd.blogspot.com

Real photographers consider application, not sensor size.....

 

[VideoPic]

The bokeh of the EM1X + Oly 300 f4 is indeed terrible

Is this your image?

--
See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

VideoPic Blog

Micro Four-Thirds, Photoshop, and Olympus Workspace articles. Olympus O-MD and Panasonic cameras. Discussing photography, video, editing techniques.

myolympusomd.blogspot.com

Real photographers consider application, not sensor size.....

 

[VideoPic]

The problem with the OP's image is that the vantage point is too high up. Here are two shots of the same Thrush, one taken standing up, and the other lying prone on the grass. World of difference.

E-M1X + 300mm F4 Pro + 1.4x

Mike


Shot standing up


Shot lying down

Wonder what the bird thinks looking at you low down with the camera in the hand...

Great shots...

--
See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

VideoPic Blog

Micro Four-Thirds, Photoshop, and Olympus Workspace articles. Olympus O-MD and Panasonic cameras. Discussing photography, video, editing techniques.

myolympusomd.blogspot.com

Real photographers consider application, not sensor size.....

 

[VideoPic]

How about this ?



Or



- Sanjay

Seems like a challenging but very creative lens......must be a blast when you get use to using it......

It sounds so stupid to say......this lens has a terrible bokeh......maybe its me only...

--
See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

VideoPic Blog

Micro Four-Thirds, Photoshop, and Olympus Workspace articles. Olympus O-MD and Panasonic cameras. Discussing photography, video, editing techniques.

myolympusomd.blogspot.com

Real photographers consider application, not sensor size.....

 

[s_grins]

How about this ?



Or



- Sanjay

You have discovered a new type of bokeh that I'd preliminary call "dusty bokeh" ;-)

Cheers

S.

--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...