which is the best portrait lens?
Pat
are all super takumar lens: a 28/3.5, 55/1.8, and a 200/4.0 I want a
lens that is going to give me the sharpest pictures for portrait use.
I was thinking that a 105mm/2.8 super takumar might be my best bet.
But I have not bought it yet because I wanted to make sure it was a
better portrait lens than both the 200/4 and 55/1.8 Any feedback is
much appreciated as always.
B. Skelton
I prefer the "usual" focal lengths of 70 to 135mm for portraits. Smaller
than 70mm and you have to watch out for distortion of facial features
(i.e. nose) and greater than 135mm and your depth of field gets quite
shallow.
The 105mm should be great.
Bruce
In article <43c71e28.0308...@posting.google.com>,
Hickster0711
the best My experience w/ Pentax is that they are so sharp and contrasty, that
they're just not very flattering. But finding a nice combination is easier said
than done. Pentax, as nice as they are wouldn't be my first choice for
portraits. Bob Hickey
Avogadro
wrote:
>Hi Pat,
>
>I prefer the "usual" focal lengths of 70 to 135mm for portraits. Smaller
>than 70mm and you have to watch out for distortion of facial features
>(i.e. nose) and greater than 135mm and your depth of field gets quite
>shallow.
The best general-purpose portrait lens for 35mm photography has a
focal length of about 85mm. It gives the right image size at a
camera-subject distance that is comfortable for both model and
photographer. But that's not to say you should follow the crowd.
Consider doing something quite different... depending on what you want
to do, a 300 mm lens might give you great results.
Depth of field is the SAME no matter what the focal length of the lens
is, as long as you keep the image size and f stop the same. Now that
is counter-intuitive, and I can hear you arguing already, so here are
some examples.
We are going to shoot a portrait. Format is 35mm. This is going to be
a head-and-shoulder shot, so we want to include about 600 mm (2 feet)
of the subject in my picture. Vertical format. Circle of confusion
(sharpness criterion) is 0.032 mm.
With a 50mm lens and an f4 aperture, our DoF is 80 mm (3 1/8").
Now switching to the 85mm, still at f4, the DoF is still 80 mm.
Let's try the 300mm lens now, at f4. DoF is 79.9mm. We can probably
call 79.9 and 80 the same, right?
Obviously we are a lot farther away with the 300, but we said we
wanted a head-and-shoulder shot.
Again on the subject of DoF, the 50mm and 85mm lenses you are likely
to have will usually have larger max apertures than the longer lenses.
So actually, you will be able to achieve less depth of field with the
SHORTER lenses if you decide to use them wide open. Shallow depth of
field is often considered to be attractive in portrait work.
Avogadro
Alan Browne
Hello Pat,
Consider what you mean by "portrait", and where you will be shooting
them before committing to the lens choice. Portraits can be head and
shoulder up to full standing. The 105 may be a bit constrained for full
standing shots if you don't have enough room.
If the subject is say, 6' tall and the background is 5' from the
subject, and you want to get all of the standing subject in (and some
border top and bottom, call it 7.5 height), then with a 105mm lens you
will need about 18' PLUS 5' for the space to the background PLUS room to
move around behind the camera....26 feet would be 'cozy'.
Same conditions for an 85mm lens comes to 15' plus background room, plus
room for you.
With the 55mm it comes to 9' camera to the 6' tall subject... but the
perspective may seem crowded...
Sitting subjects and headshots, of course will fit in less room.
Cheers,
Alan.
Lewis Lang
>From: hickst...@aol.com (Hickster0711)
>Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2003 1:53 AM
>Message-id: <20030811215328...@mb-m24.aol.com>
What would be your first choice in 35mm format lenses for portraiture, Bob?
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Joseph Meehan
length" is about 80-105mm (for full frame 35mm cameras). However some of
the very portraits ever made were made using lenses far outside that range.
Focal length is only one factor. The aperture and "sharpness"
charactericts play very important parts as well.
All in all, it is the lens that works best for the way you work and what
you want, and not what someone else likes.
After all that, since you asked the question I suggest something between
80-105.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Pat" <sis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:43c71e28.0308...@posting.google.com...
Hickster0711
read the ratings it would have a less than stellar reputation, but they came
out the best. I used to use a Mamiya 220 for weddings, which made truly boring
scenic shots, but very nice portraits. The Rollei makes scenics beautifully,
but I would never use it for portraits. Bob Hickey
T P
I own a Pentax 105mm f/2.8 SMC Takumar. It's a good lens, but there
were several contemporary independent brand lenses that at least
equalled (and in many people's opinion, beat) any of the Pentax screw
mount optics for their suitability as portrait lenses.
The best of these is probably the Kiron 105mm Macro. Others include
the Vivitar, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses which
were very similar optically. All have the excellent, smooth rendition
of out-of-focus elements of the shot, especially highlights, which is
a real boon in portraiture. This is sometimes called "bokeh".
The Tamron 90mm SP 1:1 Macro is the only one still available new, and
it comes in a manual focus version with an Adaptall mount to fit your
camera (M42 screw). I work as a social and commercial photographer
and this is my lens of choice for portraiture in 35mm. In my opinion,
it beats every 85-105mm camera brand lens I have ever used, including
Nikon, Canon and Pentax. However, some say that the Kiron 105mm is
even better and my limited experience of using it tends to support
that view.
One huge advantage of all these lenses is that they are very good
macro lenses as well as outstanding portrait lenses.
Just my $0.02.
(Caveat: Avoid any Vivitar lenses made after 1990, because they are
mostly re-badged Cosinas and almost all are junk optics.)
T P
>
>The best general-purpose portrait lens for 35mm photography has a
>focal length of about 85mm. It gives the right image size at a
>camera-subject distance that is comfortable for both model and
>photographer.
That's a matter of opinion. For a head and shoulders portrait, a
longer lens is often a better choice, such as a 105mm. In Japan, the
most popular FL for portraiture is 135mm.
There are no hard and fast rules. You should choose what best suits
you and, more important, your subject.
Michael Scarpitti
A lens in the 85-90 range is prefrred by most. I use a 90mm
Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time.
Alan Browne
Will these lenses fit his Spotmatic, Mike? No, eh? So why did you
answer ...it is not relevant to the posters question.
Art Salmons
> Better is rather subjective. The general wisdom is the best "focal
> length" is about 80-105mm (for full frame 35mm cameras). However some of
> the very portraits ever made were made using lenses far outside that range.
>
> Focal length is only one factor. The aperture and "sharpness"
> charactericts play very important parts as well.
>
> All in all, it is the lens that works best for the way you work and what
> you want, and not what someone else likes.
I think the 85mm has worked best for me but I've also used the 100mm
with a lot of success.
Art
Charles Sugg
I have no experience with the 105. but I used to own the 85/1.8
(1.9?) and I'd have to say you really can't go wrong with it. It's
also a nice lens to have around for other work and you'll appreciate
the speed when needed. Do try it out first. I almost always bought
used. Oddly enough, the extremes of your current range were the two
worst Takumars I owned. The 200/4 was not particularly sharp and the
28/3.5 was just useless in the corners. I could get an acceptable
centered 8x10 out of it, but forget full frame or cropping to one
edge. I don't think this was typical. I can see why the previous
owners ditched them.
There are also many other makes of lenses for this mount. I'd be
curious to know what Fuji made in this range. Likely some sleepers
out there. The super-Takumars are built like tanks though. I just
retrieved my 30 year old SP500 and the 55/1.8 focusing is still smooth
and solid, despite having been used regularly for 20 years and sitting
in storage for another 10.
One factor not mentioned yet is the personallity of the subject.
Some people are not comfortable with the camera being too close, then
with others you have to be almost in their face to engage them.
When you say "portrait" I guess you mean the standard approach, a
relatively non-enviromental record shot. I tend to like the work of
photographers like Arnold Newman. In that case, you've already got
the 28/3.5.
sugg1?@?visi.net
question not and you will reach me
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Michael Scarpitti
Did I say...that he could use a 90mm Summicron on his Pentax? Why
would you make such a comment?
I said: "A lens in the 85-90 range is prefrred by most." Then I added:
"I use a 90mm Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time."
They're two separate comments, as you'll note by the PERIOD ending the
first sentence and the CAPITAL LETTER that begins the second
sentence. I was pointing out that a lens in this range was highly
useful WHATEVER the system you own, and in no way claiming that the
Summicron could be used on HIS camera.
Why would you try so hard to misinterpret my post? It's clear that I
was referring in the first sentence to this class of lenses, and in
the second sentence to my personal system, which was cited
***merely*** as an example of that class. If I had mentioned merely
that I use a 90mm, when most Japanese lenses are 85mm, there would be
a question anyway.
Alan Browne
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F390038...@videotron.ca>...
>>
>>Will these lenses fit his Spotmatic, Mike? No, eh? So why did you
>>answer ...it is not relevant to the posters question.
>
>
>
> Did I say...that he could use a 90mm Summicron on his Pentax? Why
> would you make such a comment?
>
> I said: "A lens in the 85-90 range is prefrred by most." Then I added:
> "I use a 90mm Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time."
>
What you don't understnad about usenet (not to mention other subjects)
is that it is useless to declare your Leica's to somebody looking for a
Pentax opinion. I could have mentioned my portrait lenses (3 of them),
but I did not. You have this habit of bringing up your Leica's in every
post. We know you are a "Leica" nut. Who cares? Talk about your
Leica's specifically when it is appropriate, not just to proudly wave
your little red Leica flag.
When you mention a lens in specific context (and that is the context of
the original poster) it should fit his needs, not be yet another
pedestal for you to shout "Leica is Dead, Long Live Leica"
And by the way, portraiture classically begins around 85 and ends around
135. A lot of fashion portraiture (really commercial) goes up to 300,
as that is the "flat look" the advertisers want.
Keep trying Michael, we know you're new to this...
Cheers,
Alan.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F390038...@videotron.ca>...
>
> >>
> >>Will these lenses fit his Spotmatic, Mike? No, eh? So why did you
> >>answer ...it is not relevant to the posters question.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did I say...that he could use a 90mm Summicron on his Pentax? Why
> > would you make such a comment?
> >
> > "I use a 90mm Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time."
> >
>
> What you don't understnad about usenet (not to mention other subjects)
> is that it is useless to declare your Leica's to somebody looking for a
> Pentax opinion.
I didn't. I just said that. Are you illiterate?
> I could have mentioned my portrait lenses (3 of them),
> but I did not. You have this habit of bringing up your Leica's in every
> post. We know you are a "Leica" nut. Who cares? Talk about your
> Leica's specifically when it is appropriate, not just to proudly wave
> your little red Leica flag.
What did I say other than the fact that it's a 90mm f/2 lens? I made
no fuss about any feature or quality of the lens, but simply pointed
out it's a very useful focal length and speed.
>
> When you mention a lens in specific context (and that is the context of
> the original poster) it should fit his needs, not be yet another
> pedestal for you to shout "Leica is Dead, Long Live Leica".
> And by the way, portraiture classically begins around 85 and ends around
> 135.
I agree, but I said "A lens in the 85-90 range is preferred by most."
> A lot of fashion portraiture (really commercial) goes up to 300,
> as that is the "flat look" the advertisers want.
>
> Keep trying Michael, we know you're new to this...
New to what? Photography? Since 1964, buddy!
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
Alan Browne
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>>
>
>
> New to what? Photography? Since 1964, buddy!
>
>
Usenet.
Photography (let's see some, huh?)
And I am not your "buddy".
Rob Wild
Hi Pat,
FWIW; I am currently doing a portraiture course, and they recommend a
zoom lens something like 25mm to 120/130 mm, with an aperature between
2.8 & 4. The theory is that with a lens such as this, it would be
possible for portraiture (Head&shoulders) without getting in the
person's face, 3/4 & full length, plus zooming out to wide angle for
group shots. The fast shutter speed would be useful especially for
windowlight photography and also for various existing light stuff.
Whilst not a pentax lens, I am looking at Canon's 28-135 IS USM as an
option for me.
Perhaps an equiv would be the Pentax SMC-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL? Or,
if you only wanted primes, the Pentax SMC-FA 135mm f/2.8 (IF), however
this sounds pricey.
cheers
Rob
Allen Zak
> On 11 Aug 2003 17:21:50 -0700, sis...@aol.com (Pat) wrote:
>
> >Hey everyone. I currently own a petax spotmatic with 3 lens'. They
> >are all super takumar lens: a 28/3.5, 55/1.8, and a 200/4.0 I want a
> >lens that is going to give me the sharpest pictures for portrait use.
> >I was thinking that a 105mm/2.8 super takumar might be my best bet.
> >But I have not bought it yet because I wanted to make sure it was a
> >better portrait lens than both the 200/4 and 55/1.8 Any feedback is
> >much appreciated as always.
>
> I have no experience with the 105. but I used to own the 85/1.8
> (1.9?) and I'd have to say you really can't go wrong with it. It's
> also a nice lens to have around for other work and you'll appreciate
> the speed when needed. Do try it out first. I almost always bought
> used. Oddly enough, the extremes of your current range were the two
> worst Takumars I owned. The 200/4 was not particularly sharp and the
> 28/3.5 was just useless in the corners. I could get an acceptable
> centered 8x10 out of it, but forget full frame or cropping to one
> edge. I don't think this was typical. I can see why the previous
> owners ditched them.
(snip)
Charles,
Back in my Pentax days I had 200, 105, 85 f1.8 and 28 mm Super
Takumars, all among the best performing lenses of their focal lengths
I ever used. You got screw mounted ;->
To Pat's question; strictly for portraits I slightly prefer a 105 mm,
somewhat for the sake of the sitters because I am intruding less in
their
space. As an all-arounder, however, I usually carried the 85. I made
my way with these (plus a 35 CZ Flektogon and 50 mm f1.4 ST) for 13
years until the bodies finally wore out and I went Nikon. I still
think the 85 f1.8 was the best, better than Nikon, Canon or anything
else I ever used before or since.
Allen Zak
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <20030812090331...@mb-m21.aol.com>
Hi Bob:
Thanks for the info, though I still don't get why both the Mamiya and the
Rollei (with same focal length lenses) would do better with one subject and
"horribly" with the other subject... Why? How?
TIA
Johan Lexington
and an 85mm 1.8.
sis...@aol.com (Pat) wrote in message news:<43c71e28.0308...@posting.google.com>...
T P
>Thanks for the info, though I still don't get why both the Mamiya and the
>Rollei (with same focal length lenses) would do better with one subject and
>"horribly" with the other subject... Why? How?
Bokeh?
T P
>
>These lenses overcome portrait perspective distortions of 50/55mm normal
>lenses.
Complete nonsense. The effect you describe as "perspective
distortion" is NOT distortion, it is simply a consequence of
the camera-to-subject distance chosen by the photographer.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the focal length in use.
Michael Scarpitti
> Sell the Pentax gear and start over again with a good Canon EOS body
> and an 85mm 1.8.
Anything but Pentax would be better. It all depends on your cash
supply. Contax, Leica, Nikon, Canon all would be superior.
Alan Browne
The only part of your reply to the OP that was useful (!) was your
opinion on FL. If you must add what you use, just name the FL and aperture.
Every posting since you discoved this NG has been "Leica, Leica, Leica".
Give the Leica ads a break. We've heard it before. We are impressed to
the degree that we are impressionable.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
I got a real cool question for ya? Why is someone from "Capetown, S.A."
using a New York dial up for his postings? Hmmmm? Details below.
Cheers,
Alan
Johan Lexington wrote:
>
-------- Original Message --------
Path:
weber.videotron.net!wesley.videotron.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: lexi...@webmail.co.za (Johan Lexington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: which is the best portrait lens?
Date: 13 Aug 2003 03:22:57 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <86fca816.03081...@posting.google.com>
References: <43c71e28.0308...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.149.76.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060770177 17275 127.0.0.1 (13 Aug 2003
10:22:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2003 10:22:57 GMT
Xref: wesley.videotron.net rec.photo.equipment.35mm:820779
****************************** Traceroute:
3 130.152.80.30 6.177 ms isi-1-lngw2-pos.ln.net [AS226] Los
Nettos origin AS
4 198.172.117.161 9.126 ms ge-9-3.a01.lsanca02.us.ra.verio.net
[AS2914] Verio
5 129.250.46.121 4.834 ms ge-1-2-0.a00.lsanca02.us.ra.verio.net
[AS2914] Verio
6 129.250.29.120 5.109 ms
xe-1-0-0-4.r20.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [AS2914] Verio
7 129.250.2.9 8.884 ms
p16-0-0-0.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [AS2914] Verio
8 205.171.4.37 9.928 ms bur-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net (Fake
rDNS) [AS209] Qwest Communications
9 205.171.13.9 9.871 ms bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net (Fake
rDNS) [AS209] Qwest Communications
10 205.171.205.26 41.183 ms iah-core-02.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
11 205.171.31.42 40.176 ms iah-core-03.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
12 205.171.8.146 73.868 ms atl-core-01.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
13 205.171.21.150 73.202 ms atl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
14 205.171.8.154 72.213 ms dca-core-02.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
15 205.171.9.50 71.813 ms dca-core-03.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
16 205.171.9.90 72.984 ms dca-edge-02.inet.qwest.net (Fake rDNS)
[AS209] Qwest Communications
17 63.147.15.154 76.323 ms DNS error [AS209] Qwest Communications
18 65.134.106.136 76.850 ms DNS error [AS209] Qwest Communications
19 65.149.76.1 848.589 ms
0-1pool76-1.nas8.new-york1.ny.us.da.qwest.net [AS209] Qwest Communications
Rob Wild
Impressive. What tracking program if I may?
cheers
Rob
Alan Browne
Any "traceroute" site or program will do this.... reading the tea leaves
that you get is another story...
Mark Roberts
>Rob Wild wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> Impressive. What tracking program if I may?
>
>Any "traceroute" site or program will do this.... reading the tea leaves
>that you get is another story...
Sam Spade for Windows is a pretty good DIY package of tools (if you're
running Windows, of course):
http://samspade.org/ssw/
And, yes, reading the tea leaves afterward is the real trick.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Hickster0711
Minimising them is just not Pentax or Zeiss strong suit.
Bob Hickey
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 2:48 PM
>Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.03081...@posting.google.com>
>
>lexi...@webmail.co.za (Johan Lexington) wrote in message
news:<86fca816.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>> Sell the Pentax gear and start over again with a good Canon EOS body
>> and an 85mm 1.8.
>
>
>Anything but Pentax would be better. It all depends on your cash
>supply. Contax, Leica, Nikon, Canon all would be superior.
Wrong, Mike. This is sort of a sweeping generalization that doesn't take into
account alot of important factors in a desirable portrait lens. It all depends
upon your definition of the term "better" and who's defining that term (their
tastes/preferences). A sharper lens is not always the best lens for portraiture
and the older lenses had both bokeh and color rendition that might be more
pleasing to a portrait user (depending on user preference/taste).
Pentax lenses are renowned for their excellent bokeh and their fine color
rendition and overall high quality for low prices. While I can't comment on the
105/2.8, the 85/1.4 FA (autofocus) lenses is supposed to be superb for portrait
work (though on the expensive side). The Pentax 100/2.8 FA (unfortunately a K
mount lens and not a screw mounbt lens) macro lens is also supposed to be one
of the sharpest lenses in its range on the planet - in an old PP? test I
believe it tied or beat out (probably tied) the then non-USM Canon 100 f/2.8
which is also one of te best macro lenses on the planet. The 77/1.8 Ltd. is
also supposed to be an excellent portrait lens (but expensive and only in
KA-type mount). The only screw mount Pentax that I saw results from was the
135/2.5 (either in K or screw mount plus adapter, I believe it was the same
lens regardless of mount though) and if my faint memory serves, it was a fine
lens (sharp/colorful) though a little on the long side for you.
Why not go to either www.photographyreview.com and look at the comments for
this older lens (if there are any on the "old lenses" Pentax page - I think you
have to click a link on the regular Pentax lens page to get there), or
photo.net or do a search on Yahoo! for Bob DImitri's/Dimitrov's? (I forget the
spelling) and/or some other Pentax lens test/user comment sites to get a handle
on the performance of the 105/2.8.
But here are some links to get you started anyways... :-):
<A HREF="http://www.phred.org/pentax/lensgal/k105_28/k105_28.html">k105_28</A>
(I am not sure if the above link is for a K mount lens and whether/if there was
an optical design change between the screw mount (Super Takumar) version and
the K mount version or not, the below link is for comments on the K mount
version of the lens)
http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/BriefComments.html#105%20mm%20f/2.8
Sharpness isn't everything in a portrait lens as not everybody wants to see
inside someone else's crow's feet or wrinkles, though it certainly doesn't hurt
to have a sharp lens for other subject matter. For women, especially, a slight
softening filter and/or shoting at or near wide open aperture cuts just enough
edge off of the sharpness to be very useful.
I have used the 90/2.8 Leica R lens for fashion but it is brutally sharp and
requires either flat light and/or a softening filter and/or someone with
perfect/unblemished skin.
Rather than have the OP of this thread listen to any of us, why don't you try
out the 105/2.8 Pentax lens at a store/swap meet/etc. with some film and a
subject (see if they'll let you shoot either outside or in a well lit area with
windows and/or some kind of sky light that's not too overhead/more coming from
the side) and judge for yourself how you like its lens signature (sharpness,
bokeh (rendition of out of focus areas), color rendition, contrast, etc.)?
Hope this helps.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 1:57 AM
>Message-id: <20030813215715...@mb-m15.aol.com>
>
>Some lenses just have a lot of contrast. By design. Wrinkles are contrasty.
>Minimising them is just not Pentax or Zeiss strong suit.
>
> Bob Hickey
That makes sense, thanks, Bob :-).
Frank Pittel
: Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F39528F...@videotron.ca>...
:> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
:> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F390038...@videotron.ca>...
:>
:> >>
:> >>Will these lenses fit his Spotmatic, Mike? No, eh? So why did you
:> >>answer ...it is not relevant to the posters question.
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> > Did I say...that he could use a 90mm Summicron on his Pentax? Why
:> > would you make such a comment?
:> >
:> > I said: "A lens in the 85-90 range is preferred by most." Then I added:
:> > "I use a 90mm Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time."
:> >
:>
:> What you don't understnad about usenet (not to mention other subjects)
:> is that it is useless to declare your Leica's to somebody looking for a
:> Pentax opinion.
: I didn't. I just said that. Are you illiterate?
I see we have another person disagreeing with mike being called
illiterate.
:> Leica's specifically when it is appropriate, not just to proudly wave
:> your little red Leica flag.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Daniel ROCHA
> But I have not bought it yet because I wanted to make sure it was a
> better portrait lens than both the 200/4 and 55/1.8 Any feedback is
> much appreciated as always.
I use a 105/2,8 Macro lens for portraits. Il really like it !
See some samples :
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_202.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_067.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_079.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_075.html
But I really like mu 50/1,4 for portraits too.
It's depend a lot of your own feeling ! :)
--
<+> WEb ~ hTML ~ PhOTo <+>
<http://www.monochromatique.com>
Association de Photographes - <http://ecpa.eu.org>
<http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/canoneos_fr>
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F39528F...@videotron.ca>...
> :> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> :> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F390038...@videotron.ca>...
>
> :> >>
> :> >>Will these lenses fit his Spotmatic, Mike? No, eh? So why did you
> :> >>answer ...it is not relevant to the posters question.
> :> >
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > Did I say...that he could use a 90mm Summicron on his Pentax? Why
> :> > would you make such a comment?
> :> >
> :> > I said: "A lens in the 85-90 range is preferred by most." Then I added:
> :> > "I use a 90mm Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time."
> :> >
> :>
> :> What you don't understnad about usenet (not to mention other subjects)
> :> is that it is useless to declare your Leica's to somebody looking for a
> :> Pentax opinion.
>
> : I didn't. I just said that. Are you illiterate?
>
> I see we have another person disagreeing with mike being called
> illiterate.
Disagreement is not possible when post not understood to begin with
beaause of illiteracy of respondent.
If I say 'X', and somebody says 'Why did you say "Z" ', that's
illiteracy.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<ToudnRqIM8O...@giganews.com>...
:> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> : Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F39528F...@videotron.ca>...
:> :> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
:> :> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F390038...@videotron.ca>...
:>
:> :> >>
:> :> >>Will these lenses fit his Spotmatic, Mike? No, eh? So why did you
:> :> >>answer ...it is not relevant to the posters question.
:> :> >
:> :> >
:> :> >
:> :> > Did I say...that he could use a 90mm Summicron on his Pentax? Why
:> :> > would you make such a comment?
:> :> >
:> :> > I said: "A lens in the 85-90 range is preferred by most." Then I added:
:> :> > "I use a 90mm Summicron-R on my Leicaflex all the time."
:> :> >
:> :>
:> :> What you don't understnad about usenet (not to mention other subjects)
:> :> is that it is useless to declare your Leica's to somebody looking for a
:> :> Pentax opinion.
:>
:> : I didn't. I just said that. Are you illiterate?
:>
:> I see we have another person disagreeing with mike being called
:> illiterate.
: Disagreement is not possible when post not understood to begin with
: beaause of illiteracy of respondent.
Of course in your mind disagreements with you aren't possible since you're
always right.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 1:02 PM
>Message-id: <umdkjvcnbbbft39pu...@4ax.com>
Could be... ;-)
Michael Scarpitti
> >Subject: Re: which is the best portrait lens?
> >From: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
> >Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 2:48 PM
> >Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.03081...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >lexi...@webmail.co.za (Johan Lexington) wrote in message
> news:<86fca816.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Sell the Pentax gear and start over again with a good Canon EOS body
> >> and an 85mm 1.8.
> >
> >
> >Anything but Pentax would be better. It all depends on your cash
> >supply. Contax, Leica, Nikon, Canon all would be superior.
>
> Wrong, Mike. This is sort of a sweeping generalization that doesn't take into
> account alot of important factors in a desirable portrait lens. It all depends
> upon your definition of the term "better" and who's defining that term (their
> tastes/preferences). A sharper lens is not always the best lens for portraiture
> and the older lenses had both bokeh and color rendition that might be more
> pleasing to a portrait user (depending on user preference/taste).
From the screw-mount days, I doubt it. Who says portraits should be
blurry, with flare, astigmatism, coma, etc?
See these, taken with a 90mm Summicron-R:
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/images/hirez/Helen_adjusted_elements.jpg
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/images/hirez/Helen_close_adjusted.jpg
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com>
Doubt all you like - it doesn't change anything. The 135/2.5 Pentax screw mount
lens is renowned for its sharpness and other good qualities and if what little
memory I have of it serves correctly, my friend's shots with it were quite
pleasant and not flarey or unsharp by any means. Rather than believing or
doubting someone's claim automatically, how 'bout gaining just a little bit of
real experience (first, or even secondhand, not just an opinion) before you
make a sweeping statement?
Who said that old screw mount lenses (especially those with Pentax's coatings)
or any other screw mount or older lenses were blurry, had flare, etc.? I've
owned both the 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit and the 90mm f/2 Summicron for the R as well
as used the 100mm f/2.8 Leica macro lens _with Kodachrome_ and so I am probably
as aware if not (much) more aware fo their properties as you are. And Leica
lenses in particular are brutal in revealing every last crack and crevice in a
face. Whether you want to believe it or not, especially when it comes to
_flattering_ portraiture there is such a thing as too much sharpness - even a
Nikon 105/2.5 AIS or a Minolta Maxxum 70-210/4 zoom may be overkill in this
department unless the subject is a child and/or has perfect skin. That's why
soft filters were invented, unless one is doing a character study or PJ work
(and/or surrealism) the amount of sharpness Leica lenses give is usually
overkill.
Lewis
P.S. - Besides the fact that I have an older machine that can't load such large
jpegs into the browser, there's no reason to have 365K jpegs over the web. I am
not going to make large prints off of your image documents so all the extra
info is wasted. A simple 4x6" sized document at 72ppi or thereabouts under 100K
would do fine, larger files, just like un-softened Leica lenses for flattering
portraiture/headshots, are a bit of overkill for me. :-)
Hickster0711
like pinpoints, but it made very nice portraits. Too bad the cameras didn't
last very long. Others had very clean elements, but didn't make portraits as
well. Bob Hickey
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2003 8:33 PM
>Message-id: <B0a1b.5410$sV....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20030821154553...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>> >> Wrong, Mike. This is sort of a sweeping generalization that doesn't
>take
>> >into
>> >> account alot of important factors in a desirable portrait lens.
>
>is
>*always*best, and no amount of data will convince him otherwise.
>
>He has repeated his silly one-liners about Leica so often that one can
>predict in advance what he will say. It's old hat . . .
>
>Now I guess I'll just dump my existing gear and go out and buy a Leica--so
>I
>can become a good photographer at last.
I've already brought to Mike's attention that the two main answers he gives
are:
1) Leica
and...
that's right, you guessed it ;-)...
2) Kodachrome
If there's ever a third possibility why its, of course...
3) Leica and Kodachrome
Over and out from Channel One, the Leica/Kodachrome channel ;-).
Regards,
Lewis
P.S. - Mike, you know I'm teasing (half humor/half serious) you here but you do
seem to have a Leica/Kodachrome obsession, don't you? ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2003 1:03 AM
>Message-id: <20030821210316...@mb-m18.aol.com>
Thanks for the explanation, Bob :-)
Tiny spcs in the rear element? Sort of an unintentional soft focus/flare filter
;-)?
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2003 1:44 PM
>Message-id: <V6p1b.282$O03...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>> >Subject: Re: which is the best portrait lens?
>> >From: hickst...@aol.com (Hickster0711)
>> >Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2003 1:03 AM
>> >Message-id: <20030821210316...@mb-m18.aol.com>
>> >
>> >One of the old YashicaMats I had, had tiny specks in the rear element.
>Looked
>> >like pinpoints, but it made very nice portraits. Too bad the cameras
>didn't
>> >last very long. Others had very clean elements, but didn't make portraits
>> >as
>> >well. Bob Hickey
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation, Bob :-)
>>
>> Tiny spcs in the rear element? Sort of an unintentional soft focus/flare
>filter
>> ;-)?
>>
>
>
>a
>135mm lens that had a significant amount of fungus on the internal elements.
>Rather than offer it as a parts lens, he characterized it as the perfect
>soft focus lens ("ideal for portraits") . . .
>
>P.T. Barnum said it best.
:-)