Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Shel, I for one am glad you sent this to the LUG even if it was a mistake. I followed the link and then checked out the rest of Mark Cassino's site; a lot of very nice shots, and a good sampling of nice bokeh with other than Leica glass. Regards, Paul Connet Shel wrote: << Whoops ... wrong list! -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:belinkoff@earthlink.net Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Earlier today someone posted a photo by Mark Cassino showing an > example of poor Pentax bokeh. Well, Mark's a friend and an avid > long-lens photographer, and the choice of the image used to show the > poor quality of the Pentax lens seems to have been rather > subjective. > > First, that shot was made with a teleconverter, which, for some > reason, sometimes plays havoc with the bokeh on the 400/2.8 lens. > Here's what Mark had to say: > > > > > Thanks, Shel - that is one butt-ugly bokeh, isn't it? > > > > But it's also the product of a unique set of > > circumstances. If you are able to post to the list, > > show 'em this one: > > > > http://www.markcassino.com/0002/0002n01.htm > > > > But the truth is, the 2x-L teleconverter does seem to > > wreck havoc on the bokeh - though in certain > > circumsntaces. Shot a bunch of ducks this last weekend > > with the 400 f2.8 and the 2x-L with nothing ususual in > > the Bokehs. > > > > - > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:belinkoff@earthlink.net > There are no rules for good photographs, > there are only good photographs. >>