Picture of 45mm at f2

[superon]

Here is a pic I took at 45mm f2. I like the sharpness at f2.

http://pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~superon/

[Brian Sweeney]

Which camera/lens did you use? Very nice shot!

[superon]

Pic was shot using G2 with 45mm f2 wide open.

[taffer]

Agree that looks nice ! Nice shot and nice soft out of focus areas.

[Thomas]

Hello G User
First of all the picture is good and the bokeh from the G lenses is somthing spezial, i personaly dont like the Bokeh and i dont think the lenses are made for pictures of blurred background. The G Lenses are super sharp and crisp and only should be used with open aperture when you havent got the light 4 exposure.

[Socke]

Originally posted by Thomas
Hello G User
First of all the picture is good and the bokeh from the G lenses is somthing spezial, i personaly dont like the Bokeh and i dont think the lenses are made for pictures of blurred background. The G Lenses are super sharp and crisp and only should be used with open aperture when you havent got the light 4 exposure.

Hm, I think the G lenses are pretty fine wide open. On the other hand, I have no problem with a Sumilux 50/1.4 being three times as good as it's three times the price :-)

This is Tri-X @ISO 1600 with a Planar 45 wide open at 1/30th
http://www.fotoschnack.de/postnuke/html/modules/PNphpBB2/files/crop0027.jpg

[RubenBlaedel]

I would have to agree on the bad bokeh but nice picture comment
I think the "unsetteled" background is actually draving attention away from the kid and that is a shame

[Thomas]

I did try some of the people shots wide open with the G Lenses, but the bokeh of the 45mm Is not my cup of tea. The background looks much worse than of a sigma mirror lense.
Its absolutly a no no !
But in some cases it might be interesting like on the picture wich is the topic. I probably had it liked more with aperture No. 4 so you can still see something in the background.
I would use the 90mm for such frames

[Thomas]

I dont belive the 1.4 50mm summilux is 3 times bether than the G 2 45mm.
This is something witch never could be prooved.

[Brian Sweeney]

There is a difference between Background Clutter and "Bokeh", which is an optical property: or more usually an optical by-product of the trade-offs that went to optimize a particular lens prescription.

I like the background in this shot. The child is unaware of the camera, and taken with his surroundings. There is enough information in the out-of-focus background to allow us to piece this puzzle together.

From this particular shot I cannot see "flying doughnuts" or nicely blurred circles, so I can't really tell the Bokeh from the background content. My first thought is back to a Hough Transform that would reconstruct the shopping carts nicely.

[Todd.Hanz]

I like the bokeh as well, I think the issue is the amount of bokeh in comparison to the subject. The bokeh appears to comprise 80% of the whole image, which tends to dominate the subject, the child. The bokeh is soft but it appears the background is being seen through a window?
I have a 50/1.4 summilux (pre asph., E43 version) and it is not 3 times better than the 45/2 planar.........only 2.75 times better ;)

[Doug]

Originally posted by RubenBlaedel
I would have to agree on the bad bokeh but nice picture comment
I think the "unsetteled" background is actually draving attention away from the kid and that is a shame I agree with this view; "unsettled" is a good description.