best portrait lenses
Abhijit Gupte
any lenses. My prime interest is portraiture.
I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
portraiture. I guess the ususal 28-80 is a good choice for casual
photography. Someone suggested a 28-70 f4 as a good choice because of
its fixed aperture.
But what about portrait lenses ? How much into the telephoto range do i
need to get? 200 or 300 mm ?? Thats what im confused about. Should i buy
a telephoto zoom like 75-300 or 80-200 f4-5.6? Or should i buy fixed
focal length lenses that offer better quality?
The one thing abt the Pentax ZX-5N is that it takes all pentax manual
lenses (K i think) so is it wiser to buy manual lenses with fixed
lengths that autofocus zooms upto 300mm ?
Sorry 'bout the zillion questions but id really appreciate any
suggestions.
Thanks!
Abhijit Gupte
> >Someone suggested a 28-70 f4 as a good choice because of
> >its fixed aperture.
>
> Are you sure it has a Fixed Aperture? I hope you mean "Same widest
> aperture (f4) regardless of Focal length chosen"... There is a BIG
> difference.
Yup i meant fixed MAXIMUM aperture sorry ! you know, one that doesnt
change with focal length as you zoom.
Lisa Horton
influence your preference in lens length. Some like the 135 for the
extra space between them and the subject. I love the 85 for the exact
opposite reason, I feel that I connect better emotionally with my
subjects when I'm closer.
I feel that fast AF speed is a big plus for a portrait lens because
expressions can be fleeting, but then a skilled photographer could
probably do just as well with a manual focus lens.
If you're willing to trade off some sharpness and convenience for price,
you could probably find a used 70-150/4 or similar manual focus zoom for
a song.
For available light portraiture, a fast max aperture is very useful, at
least f4 I would think preferable.
You should get other responses from people who know a lot more than I do
though:)
Lisa
Abhijit Gupte wrote:
>
> Im new to photography and ive ordered a Pentax ZX-5N camera body without
> any lenses. My prime interest is portraiture.
> I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
> portraiture. I guess the ususal 28-80 is a good choice for casual
> photography. Someone suggested a 28-70 f4 as a good choice because of
> its fixed aperture.
>
Abhijit Gupte
> Adding to what's already been offered, your choice of working style may
> influence your preference in lens length. Some like the 135 for the
> extra space between them and the subject. I love the 85 for the exact
> opposite reason, I feel that I connect better emotionally with my
> subjects when I'm closer.
>
> I feel that fast AF speed is a big plus for a portrait lens because
> expressions can be fleeting, but then a skilled photographer could
> probably do just as well with a manual focus lens.
>
> If you're willing to trade off some sharpness and convenience for price,
> you could probably find a used 70-150/4 or similar manual focus zoom for
> a song.
>
> For available light portraiture, a fast max aperture is very useful, at
> least f4 I would think preferable.
>
> You should get other responses from people who know a lot more than I do
> though:)
I agree! That was great advice !! Thanks a million.
Ted Smith
"Abhijit Gupte" <agu...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:39EDEE96...@sgi.com...
> Im new to photography and ive ordered a Pentax ZX-5N camera body without
> any lenses. My prime interest is portraiture.
> I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
> portraiture. I guess the ususal 28-80 is a good choice for casual
> photography. Someone suggested a 28-70 f4 as a good choice because of
> its fixed aperture.
>
>
Abhijit
A long lens such as a 200 or 300 would not normally be used for portraits.
Portrait focal lengths for 35mm systems usually fall in the 90mm to 105mm
range ... any thing wider or longer tends to cause some unpleasant facial
distortions when used close. My idea of a portrait tends to be a fairly
close crop on the face ... distortion is more evident in close-ups.
A wider aperture lens is useful in portraiture because of its ability to
greatly reduce depth of field, causing the viewers eye to be drawn to the
subject of the portrait. Fast zoom lens (such as a continuous f2.8) are
very expensive and I am not sure if Pentax still makes a very fast zoom for
their AF systems.
However ... as you point out ... you can use ANY Pentax lens on the AF
camera. If you can pick one up used ... I would HIGHLY recommend their MF
105 f2.8. If you can find an SMC Pentax-A series 105 you will be able to
use all the auto exposure functions of the camera. I used one for a number
of years on a Pentax LX and found it to be a good choice for casual
portraits and model portfolios.
Hope this helps.
Ted Smith
Chaffeys Lock ON Canada
Abhijit Gupte
You and Lisa Horton are now in competition for great advice! Thanks so much!
Abhijit Gupte
> > You and Lisa Horton are now in competition for great advice! Thanks so
> much!
>
> What about me? Am I Third ?.. Am I ? ... Please !!!.. I'll get a
> Haircut.. ( A Proper one ).. I mean .. COME ON .. there are only three
> posters to your question so far.. I Must be Third...
Technically you get the silver! There was a tie for the gold...
cheers!
graywolf
Well.... Traditionally, folks usually consider some thing between 85 and
135 to be best for portraits. At least in 35mm. I have recently been using
a 35-70 and find that it makes a decent head shot at 70 and full length at
35. So, I would recommend going with that 28-70 that you mentioned, at
least for a start. Later you may want something else, but what that would
be would depend on your own experience.
"Abhijit Gupte" <agu...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:39EDEE96...@sgi.com...
> Im new to photography and ive ordered a Pentax ZX-5N camera body without
> any lenses. My prime interest is portraiture.
> I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
> portraiture. I guess the ususal 28-80 is a good choice for casual
> photography. Someone suggested a 28-70 f4 as a good choice because of
> its fixed aperture.
>
Richard Knight
the 80-135mm range although longer lenses have become more popular in the
last few years. A large maximum aperture is considered desirable to throw
the background out of focus, thus insuring the subject to be the main focal
point of the image. Telephotos are use to compress facial features, so as
not to accentuate a protruding nose or chin. Of equal or greater importance
in portrait photography is the use of lighting, posing and camera angle. The
lens can't do it all.
Richard
Cliff Hawker
The contest is rigged. Anyway, Lisa looks better than you.
Wonko The Sane <nz...@ZAPHODxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:qPrH5.342$xpid.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Wonko The Sane
>its fixed aperture.
Are you sure it has a Fixed Aperture? I hope you mean "Same widest
Wonko The Sane
for 35 mm.. I prefer around 135mm, others will prefer 80mm... Of course
depending what you are into theres no reason you cant do a portrait with a
24mm or a 500mm but they produce extremely unconventional portraits that
scream in the face of some experts here... A Lens that can give you 80 to
150 will be ideal for starters.
WONKO THE SANE
Wonko The Sane
>You should get other responses from people who know a lot more than I do
though:)
>Lisa.
You know a lot more than most of the idiots here Lisa.
Wonko The Sane
Karen Simmons
> I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
> portraiture.
It really depends on your taste in portraits. Personally I like the 85
1.4 (Nikon) for most of my portrait work. I usually shoot it wide open
(or one stop from wide open) because I like the shallow depth of field.
Take a look at the work of George Hurrell sometime to see the effect
used by a master.
In general I'd stick with 85 - 135 or in that range. Any less will give
you facial distortion, any more will give you unnatural compression. I
also recommend shooting at a fairly wide aperture. I'd recommend 3.5 -
5.6 on average. Certainly no more than f8.
Karen
Jsn234
portrait lens possibilities...
85mm - Great for full length to mid torso shots. Not really that great for
headshots because it forces you to get too close to your subject when you do
tight crops on head shots.
100/105mm - This is the best all round lens for portraits. You can do decently
close crops on tight head shots as well as indoors you don't have to back
through a wall (usually) in order to get more of your subject in. It also
solves the dilmen of "should I get the 85mm or the 100/105mm?" question. Pentax
makes an excellently sharp macro in this range (their f/2.8 aperture version)
as well as a Cosina? made 100mm f/3.5 "budget" (cheaper) macro lens w/c got a
good rating in Pop? Photography a while back (I believe this lens is also
badged under the Vivitar name).
135mm - I am *very* partial to this focal length. For fashion photos of tight
head shots this is *the* lens to have because you get a much more pleasing
perspective at 4.5-5 feet for a tight head shot using this lens than you do
from a meter to 3.5 feet away when using a 100/105mm lens. There is a "slight
flattening" of perspective, most evident in the way that the nose seems to
stick out less, relative to the rest of the face at the 4.5 feet distance you'd
use this lens at (as opposed to the shorter distances you'd need to get a tight
crop), that makes it a real sweet optic if all you want to do is tight head
shots. For wider crops (midlength and wider) you are probably better off with a
fast 85mm (f/1.4 or f/1.8 or f/2) as a complement to this lens. I wouldn't get
the 135mm by itself if I was just starting to do portraiture as I'd be too
restricted by limited space to back up indoors and possibly too far way from my
subject out doors to have an intimate interaction with my subject, however, as
a complement to an 85mm lens it is just fine as a 2 fast prime lens telephoto
set for portraiture.
200mm and 300mm lenses - These are definitely not all around lenses for
portraiture use because you usually need a megaphone to talk/interact with your
subject when you shoot 10, 15 or even more feet away from your subject. The
advantage to these lenses is that they are very good for selecting and
enlarging a small piece of your background so that your subject doesn't have to
compete with the business of the environment at wider focal lengths. Also,
there is a very evident flattening of perspective as a result of the long
distances these focal lengths force you to be away from your subject - even in
a relatively tight head shot you might have to be about 6 or more feet away,
for a mid length shot you might have to be 10-20 feet or even more (with the
300mm lens). This very flat perspective of facial features/etc. is flattering
and definitely has a nice "look" to it but is not necessary suitable for all
subjects. At moderately wide apertures, even to f/4 or f/5.6 somewhat busy
backgrounds to to wash out into a blur/paste of diffuse color(s), which is a
good thing as this simplifies the compositional effect and puts extra emphasis
on your subject. Especially at events, unless your subject likes walking with
you to a relatively less busy/populated part of the location it is easy for
people as well as objects to blithely get between you and your subject. So,
eventually, whether you decide to start off with primes or a zoom, explore
these focal lengths too for portraiture - but for beginning portraiture youare
still better off in the 85mm-135mm range.
I would also reccommend either 28mm or 24mm lenses for environmental portaiture
where the environment takes up most of the frame and the subject's head is
relatively small in the frame. I have used even wider, out to 16mm (fisheye)
for environmental portraits, even close up, but you are better of trying to
master the less extreme focal length lenses (28mm-135mm) for beginning
portraiture until you get proficiencey as to which lens(es) works best for your
tastes/needs/subject matter.
I have nothing against zooms (and use them myself) for telephoto portrait
photography other than their smaller maximum apertures than prime/single focal
length lenses - and - the larger constant f/2.8 70/80-200/210mm zooms can cost
as much as $1500-1600 USD. Pentax makes an 80?/85?-320mm zoom of good quality
(my friend has it and it gives nice optical quality despite being a variable
aperture with a rather slow maximum aperture (f/5.6) at the long end. You might
want to go to the Pentax discussion list (sorry, I don't have the URL, perhaps
you can get it from someone else here or at the rec.photo.equipment.35mm
newsgroup) for suggestions as to which Pentax/other lenses are best for
portrait photography.
Pentax has a cheapie 70-210mm f/4-5.6 zoom that's not supposed to be so hot
optically (if I remember correctly) so stay away from it and similar cheap,
slowish maximum aperture variable aperture zooms unless you can get a lens that
will at least give you 300mm for your maximum aperture of f/5.6 and decent
optical quality.
However, I really feel you are better off with a fast single focal length lens
in the 85-135mm range and just using your feet to crop and explore different
compositional possibilities. The primes are usually sharper, and especially at
the wide apertures you want/need to get decent background blur at f/4 and below
as compared to their slowish zoom counterparts that you have to use wide open
just to get an f/4 aperture. The primes usually also have less flare and
distortion than their zoom counterparts. And, unless you expect to be in fast
changing situations, the extra flexibility of a zoom, though nice, is far from
essential, and can promote compositional laziness for those who would rather
twist a zoom ring than explore different angles and distances that might show
off both your subject and foreground/background in a more dynamic/interesting
way. Explore with your feet and your mind, even if you get a zoom, don't allow
its zoom ring to substitute for the magic of your own awareness/sensitivity to
the compositional possibilities inherent and unique for/within each subject.
Two lenses w/c may be less expensive than the Pentax macro lenses but are
reputed to be of excellent optical quality are the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and the
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX macros.
I own a manual focus Tamron 70-150mm zoom (from the '80's) that is of excellent
optical quality/sharpness, has a relatively fast fixed f/3.5 aperture
throughout its range, and takes Tamron's Adaptall 2 interchangeable mount so I
can use it on my Contax cmaer, your Pentax camera, a Nikon or Canon manual
focus camera, etc. by just buying a new mount for it (about $20-30 or so). I
bought it used for about a $100 and it is worth every penny. Its only negatives
are some flare (I use both the hood and my hand to block out the flare when/if
necessary) and a small but noticeable amount of pincushhon distortion (lines
near the edges bow slightly inward/towards the center of the frame), however,
unless you are shooting the edges of walls, door, windows, or buildings the
distortion is not really detectable with most people/portrait
subjects/situations. It close focuses down to .7 meters (quite cole for a zoom)
and is very small/compact and has a metal barrel (built to take abuse). Tamron
made a 70-210mm f/3.5 lens (w/c might also be available today) in the Adaptall
2 mount and if you look around you might find many used (Tamron/Pentax/other)
good optical quality moderately fast f/3.5 or f/4 constant aperture zooms hat
might need your zoom needs for a low price with nothing nothing sacrificed
optically in sharpness (just perhaps a little/somewhat more flare/distortion
than a fixed telephoto prime lens).
Pentax makes some older manual KA and KM mount regular and A* lenses (their
135mm f/1.8 A* and 85mm f/1.4 A* lenses are stellar in optical quality) as well
as older K mount (K and KM) (the 135mm f/2.5 is an excellent lens) and screw
mount lenses (from Pentax and a multitude of other manuafacturers that came out
with compatable screw mount designs) that can be used with an adapter to work
on your ZX-5n (you lose autofocus with the KA lenses, you lose autofcus,
shutter priority and program exposure modes with the KM and K mount lenses). If
you don't need autofocus, since your subjects are relatively stationary in most
(posed anyway) portrait situations) then this may be a/*the* cheaper route to
go with to get excellent optical quality at a steal of a price.
In addition to photo.net and www.photographyreview.com and www.camerareview.com
there is alsoa Pentax site (sorry, I forget the URL) where there are actual
test images and comments for each Pentax lens (telephoto or not) going back to
quite aways in time (manual and autofocus). You might want to look it up either
in a Search engine such as Yahoo! or by asking ERN Reed on the
rec.photo.35mm.equipment group who is a staunch/avid Pentax user. Use the
search terms/words of either "Pentax" or "Pentax Users Gallery" or Pentax
Gallery" to find out the URL for this excellent Pentax lens testing site with
real photo samples (in jpeg form onthe web obviously) from each lens (they test
them for sharpness, distortion, light fall off, "bokeh" (smoothness of the out
of focus area - very important in portraiture at wide apertures where
background blur rendition takes up a significant portion of your frame), etc.
Again, also check out the Pentax discussion group (once you get to this Pentax
Lens Gallery page there might be a link to the discussion group/archives from
there - check it out).
In summary, if you are going to get just one portrait telephoto lens get a
100/105mm (normal or macro) lens. For a two lens set look into an 85/90mm
(normal or macro). Stay away from too expensive f/2.8 constant aperture
80-200mm constant aperture zooms as the cost an arm and a leg and another arm,
stay away from the "cheapie," low optical quality slow maximum aperture tele
zooms except in the case noted above (where you at least get a 320mm focal
length for the f/5.6 maximum aperture of the Pentax 80-320mm lens) or use a
Pentax tele zoom lens w/ at least as good optical quality as this one (ask
around at various Pentax sites and at the photo.net forums for reccomendations
as to w/c Pentax/other zooms have the best optical quality). If you must get a
slowish zoom (try to stay away from the f/5.6 zooms unless it at least goes out
to 300mm where you can get a decent amount of background blur at/near wide
open), supplement it with a fast prime (f/2.8 or preferrably faster, if
possible) in the 85mm-135mm range.
I hope this helps and I wish you success whatever focal length(s)
lens(es)/brand(s) you decide upon :-)
Regards,
Jsn.
Viva!
If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?"
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they
make that in AA?"
Jsn234
From: jsn...@aol.commybrain (Jsn234)
Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 11:59 PM
Message-id: <20001019025905...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
I am going to go into more detail as well as add some other advice about
portrait lens possibilities... >>
One thing I left out... Fast 50mm lenses can also be used as "all purpose"
portrait lenses, they cost a song (the f/1.8 or f/2 versions, they cost a more
expensive song for the f/1.4 and faster normals), deliver excellent optical
quality and make for quite pleasing background blur when used at or near wide
open aperture. You might not want to get too close to your subject with them
for tight head shots as the perspective at close quarters with these lenses
tends to make the nose appear to project forward and the ears backward from the
main plane of the face (forehead/front cheeks/chin) but you can do some nice
close profile shots with this lens used relatively tight/up close. Head on to
your subject you can even get some nice waist/mid torso shots with pleasing
perspective (especially with children as your subjects whose noses usually
project outward far less than adult noses/features). Not as convenient as a
zoom but the optical quality and pleasing out of focus/selective background
focus effects you can get with these lenses makes them an interesting
alternative and/or supplement to many slower wide angle to telephoto zooms. For
a beginner as yourself, stick to 100mm or longer for your tight headshots for
pleasing facial perspective and you'll do fine. I just wanted to give you
another possibility though...
Abhijit Gupte
> << Subject: Re: best portrait lenses (Many thoughts...)
> From: jsn...@aol.commybrain (Jsn234)
> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 11:59 PM
> Message-id: <20001019025905...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>
> I am going to go into more detail as well as add some other advice about
> portrait lens possibilities... >>
>
> One thing I left out... Fast 50mm lenses can also be used as "all purpose"
> portrait lenses, they cost a song (the f/1.8 or f/2 versions, they cost a more
> expensive song for the f/1.4 and faster normals), deliver excellent optical
> quality and make for quite pleasing background blur when used at or near wide
> open aperture. You might not want to get too close to your subject with them
> for tight head shots as the perspective at close quarters with these lenses
> tends to make the nose appear to project forward and the ears backward from the
> main plane of the face (forehead/front cheeks/chin) but you can do some nice
> close profile shots with this lens used relatively tight/up close. Head on to
> your subject you can even get some nice waist/mid torso shots with pleasing
> perspective (especially with children as your subjects whose noses usually
> project outward far less than adult noses/features). Not as convenient as a
> zoom but the optical quality and pleasing out of focus/selective background
> focus effects you can get with these lenses makes them an interesting
> alternative and/or supplement to many slower wide angle to telephoto zooms. For
> a beginner as yourself, stick to 100mm or longer for your tight headshots for
> pleasing facial perspective and you'll do fine. I just wanted to give you
> another possibility though...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jsn.
>
> Viva!
>
> If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
> go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?"
> "Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they
> make that in AA?"
Wohhhh !! that was some killer advice! That was an encyclopaedia in itself! Thanks
so much!
I think im gonna go for the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm prime lenses. Im gonna see if i
get any used ones. For general shooting i think ill buy a 28mm prime lens.
Thanks again!
Abe
Jsn234
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 12:15 PM
Message-id: <39EF486A...@sgi.com>
Jsn234 wrote:
Thanks again!
Abe >>
Your welcome Abe. Happy Shooting! :-)
Dan Moore
distance you want, and the focal length needed to achieve that while giving
you the framing you wish. ie. you want a head and shoulders portrait, with
"natural" perspective. Conventional wisdom dictates you position the
camera 6 feet or so away from the subject, so with that in mind the lens
you want is around the 100mm range.
Sometimes you may want a slightly wider lens, and sometimes a longer lens,
to get a different effect....
A 50mm used for H&S would give you a fairly unattractively exaggerated
face, while a 200mm lens would give you a "flattened" face, most often seen
in fashion work (though not so much these days). Assuming identical
cropping in both cases, the change in look comes from the distance between
the camera and the subject, not the lens choice.
That being said, usually people start at the 5-6 feet away 100mm lens area,
and buy additional lenses according to thier tastes. i would suggest a 35-
105 zoom for a first lens. While the quality isn't up to prime lenses,
it's pretty good these days....
hope this helps....
John G. Silver
"Karen Simmons" <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39EE8263...@mindspring.com...
> > My prime interest is portraiture.
> > I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
> > portraiture.
>
> It really depends on your taste in portraits. Personally I like the 85
> 1.4 (Nikon) for most of my portrait work. I usually shoot it wide open
> (or one stop from wide open) because I like the shallow depth of field.
> Take a look at the work of George Hurrell sometime to see the effect
> used by a master.
>
Actually, Karen's reply is closer to my view than any of the other views.
Firstly it depends on what you call a "portrait". If you look at some of
the masters, you will see that a "portrait" is often a photo of the
individual in his surroundings, so as to give some insight into his
personality.
For others it is a full length shot, showing his clothes and posture, if
any. All of this can say something about the person, how he/she thinks and
feels.
For still others it is a 3/4 shot or bust shot. Still again some see a head
shot as a "Portrait" Of these some will like it as sharp as possible to get
all the pores of the skin showing, complete with blips, while others will
prefer a smoother skin to show on the print.
So the answer I'd give is there is no such thing as "a portrait lens" All
lenses have their uses and really which you choose is the one that best
gives you your vision of the person you are photographing, your insight into
his or her character.
If you have one, that is.
JS
zeitgeist
>
> Im new to photography and ive ordered a Pentax ZX-5N camera body without
> I just wanna know what lenses i should buy for a good start in
> its fixed aperture.
>
> need to get? 200 or 300 mm ?? Thats what im confused about. Should i buy
> a telephoto zoom like 75-300 or 80-200 f4-5.6? Or should i buy fixed
> focal length lenses that offer better quality?
> The one thing abt the Pentax ZX-5N is that it takes all pentax manual
> lenses (K i think) so is it wiser to buy manual lenses with fixed
> lengths that autofocus zooms upto 300mm ?
>
I can't count on zoom's since I've never owned one and most of my work
is in medium format lately. A slightly long lens is the most workable
in studio portraiture. I use a 110mm in mf as my go to lens for
weddings and groups, that's about a 70mm. a 145mm (a way cool soft
lens) for close ups. when I shot 35mm a lot I used an 85mm. allows you
to work close enough but avoids most problems with distortion.
Very long lenses are almost useless in studio situations, though fashion
photographers use them on location often, especially those super long
big aperature things that you see on the sidelines of sports events.
The tele compression and super shallow depth of field renders
backgrounds to blurry suggestions of trees or buildings. But for
portraiture I can't see that anything longer than a 135mm could be
practical, you do need to communicate with your clients. I use a 210mm
(again MF format) on beach or other locations where I want a background
to reveal it's nature but quickly loose focus, hiking trails, stream
beds etc.
Two things that I would consider:
fixed f/stop, when you get to thinking for yourself instead of relying
on the camera to expose the film it is a real help if you can actually
have a clue as to your f/stop and not somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5.
true, pro films do have a wider exposure range than ever before but...
I use a vignette a lot, it is a simple but effective method of enhancing
your images, boosting that glowing skin tone, fading thick hips and
waists. So would want a lens whose front barrel does not rotate as it
focuses since many of my vignettes are off center.
This reply echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
freeze...@my-deja.com
almost perfect but 85 is ideal.
In article <39EFFBC3...@yahoo.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Cliff Hawker
In article <8sq72r$mgh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
--
Cliff Hawker
Medina, Oh
Foto Freak
Oh you are a broken record. Why would anyone feel it important to show
YOU anything, farmer? You are just a troll and you're the village
idiot. Why don't you go play at Eric's feet or something? Maybe you
can help him find a new forum to post in... since he can't last long in
too many. (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! - You wanna join him?)
--
A Foto Freak on Usenet via Deja!
(afoto...@my-deja.com)
Cliff Hawker
you post them? What do you have to hide?
In article <8ssju4$ecf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8sr1tm$bqp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Where may we see some of your images?
>
> Oh you are a broken record. Why would anyone feel it important to
show
> YOU anything, farmer? You are just a troll and you're the village
> idiot. Why don't you go play at Eric's feet or something? Maybe you
> can help him find a new forum to post in... since he can't last long
in
> too many. (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! - You wanna join him?)
>
> --
> A Foto Freak on Usenet via Deja!
> (afoto...@my-deja.com)
>
Foto Freak
pants and need to change. When you have a new pair of coveralls on, go
pick sweet potatoes and sell them online. Pumpkins too! Soon you
shall become one with the Great Pumpkin, gramps! Now, if it's not too
much to ask, can you stop your trolling and flames and return to nose
picking, or whatever it is you do when you're not online?
Danky!
In article <8st2lg$pae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> I am sure that several would like to see your expert images. Why
won't
> you post them? What do you have to hide?
>
> In article <8ssju4$ecf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8sr1tm$bqp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Where may we see some of your images?
> >
> > Oh you are a broken record. Why would anyone feel it important to
> show
> > YOU anything, farmer? You are just a troll and you're the village
> > idiot. Why don't you go play at Eric's feet or something? Maybe
you
> > can help him find a new forum to post in... since he can't last long
> in
> > too many. (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! - You wanna join him?)
> >
> > --
> > A Foto Freak on Usenet via Deja!
> > (afoto...@my-deja.com)
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> Cliff Hawker
> Medina, Oh
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
A Foto Freak on Usenet via Deja!
(afoto...@my-deja.com)
Cliff Hawker
ducking the question of posting your work. You prove my statements
that you are a troll bent on disrupting most threads. That simple.
In article <8st4m4$qo0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In all the excitement of fighting the evil troll, you have wet your
> pants and need to change. When you have a new pair of coveralls on,
go
> pick sweet potatoes and sell them online. Pumpkins too! Soon you
> shall become one with the Great Pumpkin, gramps! Now, if it's not too
> much to ask, can you stop your trolling and flames and return to nose
> picking, or whatever it is you do when you're not online?
>
> Danky!
>
> In article <8st2lg$pae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> > I am sure that several would like to see your expert images. Why
> won't
> > you post them? What do you have to hide?
> >
> > In article <8ssju4$ecf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8sr1tm$bqp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > Where may we see some of your images?
> > >
> > > Oh you are a broken record. Why would anyone feel it important to
> > show
> > > YOU anything, farmer? You are just a troll and you're the village
> > > idiot. Why don't you go play at Eric's feet or something? Maybe
> you
> > > can help him find a new forum to post in... since he can't last
long
> > in
> > > too many. (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! - You wanna join him?)
> > >
> > > --
> > > A Foto Freak on Usenet via Deja!
> > > (afoto...@my-deja.com)
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Cliff Hawker
> > Medina, Oh
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> A Foto Freak on Usenet via Deja!
> (afoto...@my-deja.com)
>
Foto Freak
That makes you the terrorist troll who is crapping up the legitimate
threads. That simple.
If anyone disagrees with that, let them post their opinion - but they
won't because everyone has figured out that you, Cliff, are the real
problem.
In article <8stuea$cmk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker
however, did not attack it. I simply asked where we could see his
images. That is all. I and many others ask that question of many.
Funny how there was no response from "freezerburn". You blew it, Foto
Fake (director). That simple. You still have no idea how.
In article <8sul77$s29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The frozen freezer dude made a legitimate post and YOU attacked it.
> That makes you the terrorist troll who is crapping up the legitimate
> threads. That simple.
>
> If anyone disagrees with that, let them post their opinion - but they
> won't because everyone has figured out that you, Cliff, are the real
> problem.
>
> In article <8stuea$cmk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak
do so shall result in situations you cannot anticipate. Cease and
desist from your trolling hatred and net terrorism immediately.
In article <8sv65g$7rv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> The freezerburn post may have been an attempt at a legitimate post.
I,
> however, did not attack it. I simply asked where we could see his
> images. That is all. I and many others ask that question of many.
> Funny how there was no response from "freezerburn". You blew it, Foto
> Fake (director). That simple. You still have no idea how.
>
> In article <8sul77$s29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > The frozen freezer dude made a legitimate post and YOU attacked it.
> > That makes you the terrorist troll who is crapping up the legitimate
> > threads. That simple.
> >
> > If anyone disagrees with that, let them post their opinion - but
they
> > won't because everyone has figured out that you, Cliff, are the real
> > problem.
> >
> > In article <8stuea$cmk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker
you want. You always start threatening when you are proved to be the
Foto Fake you are YOu are the one that follows legitimate posts with
your flame crap. You are the one stalking others to other forums with
your terroristic games. You are the one that keeps getting accounts
closed for abuse. That is because the proof of your abuse exists. It
is in every malicious post you make. That simple.
In article <8sv7eg$8oh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I demand that you stop your abuse of this newsgroup. Your failure to
> do so shall result in situations you cannot anticipate. Cease and
> desist from your trolling hatred and net terrorism immediately.
>
> In article <8sv65g$7rv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> > The freezerburn post may have been an attempt at a legitimate post.
> I,
> > however, did not attack it. I simply asked where we could see his
> > images. That is all. I and many others ask that question of many.
> > Funny how there was no response from "freezerburn". You blew it,
Foto
> > Fake (director). That simple. You still have no idea how.
> >
> > In article <8sul77$s29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > The frozen freezer dude made a legitimate post and YOU attacked
it.
> > > That makes you the terrorist troll who is crapping up the
legitimate
> > > threads. That simple.
> > >
> > > If anyone disagrees with that, let them post their opinion - but
> they
> > > won't because everyone has figured out that you, Cliff, are the
real
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > In article <8stuea$cmk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak
posted on topic in this thread. Look up the thread and verify this.
You then followed him or her with your abusive attacks. You are,
therefore, the attacker. I am only asking for you to stop. Please
stop the abuse. Thank you very much and that simple too.
In article <8svaaf$avt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> Demand all you want. Threaten all you want. Bring on any situation
> you want. You always start threatening when you are proved to be the
> Foto Fake you are YOu are the one that follows legitimate posts with
> your flame crap. You are the one stalking others to other forums with
> your terroristic games. You are the one that keeps getting accounts
> closed for abuse. That is because the proof of your abuse exists. It
> is in every malicious post you make. That simple.
>
> In article <8sv7eg$8oh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I demand that you stop your abuse of this newsgroup. Your failure
to
> > do so shall result in situations you cannot anticipate. Cease and
> > desist from your trolling hatred and net terrorism immediately.
> >
> > In article <8sv65g$7rv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > The freezerburn post may have been an attempt at a legitimate
post.
> > I,
> > > however, did not attack it. I simply asked where we could see his
> > > images. That is all. I and many others ask that question of
many.
> > > Funny how there was no response from "freezerburn". You blew it,
> Foto
> > > Fake (director). That simple. You still have no idea how.
> > >
> > > In article <8sul77$s29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > The frozen freezer dude made a legitimate post and YOU attacked
> it.
> > > > That makes you the terrorist troll who is crapping up the
> legitimate
> > > > threads. That simple.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone disagrees with that, let them post their opinion - but
> > they
> > > > won't because everyone has figured out that you, Cliff, are the
> real
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > In article <8stuea$cmk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker
question. As freezerburn, posted once and only once in this thread, a
statement was made. I followed that post with a simple
question, "Where may we see some of your images", there was no attack
as you claim. That simple.
In article <8svelu$e5b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Foto Freak <afoto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Here is the proof that YOU are the troll. The freezer burn guy or gal
> posted on topic in this thread. Look up the thread and verify this.
> You then followed him or her with your abusive attacks. You are,
> therefore, the attacker. I am only asking for you to stop. Please
> stop the abuse. Thank you very much and that simple too.
>
Included posts in question:
In article <8sr1tm$bqp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Cliff Hawker <cliff...@msn.com> wrote:
> Where may we see some of your images?
>
> In article <8sq72r$mgh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> freeze...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I echo the 85mm on this. 50mm just doesn't seem to cut it. 70mm is
> > almost perfect but 85 is ideal.
> >
--
Tom Rittenhouse
An aside to Jsn234's 50mm comment. I sometime use a 50/1.4 with a cheap 2x
teleconverter as a portrait lens. Wide open it give a soft focus effect, stopped
down it is fairly sharp. I seem to be the only one in the world who thinks this is
a good idea, but some of the people who disagree with me spend many hundreds of
dollars for a soft focus portrait lens. Go figure.
Jsn234 wrote:
> << Subject: Re: best portrait lenses (Many thoughts...)
> From: jsn...@aol.commybrain (Jsn234)
> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 11:59 PM
> Message-id: <20001019025905...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>
> I am going to go into more detail as well as add some other advice about
> portrait lens possibilities... >>
>
> One thing I left out... Fast 50mm lenses can also be used as "all purpose"
> portrait lenses, they cost a song (the f/1.8 or f/2 versions, they cost a more
> expensive song for the f/1.4 and faster normals), deliver excellent optical
> quality and make for quite pleasing background blur when used at or near wide
> open aperture. You might not want to get too close to your subject with them
> for tight head shots as the perspective at close quarters with these lenses
> tends to make the nose appear to project forward and the ears backward from the
> main plane of the face (forehead/front cheeks/chin) but you can do some nice
> close profile shots with this lens used relatively tight/up close. Head on to
> your subject you can even get some nice waist/mid torso shots with pleasing
> perspective (especially with children as your subjects whose noses usually
> project outward far less than adult noses/features). Not as convenient as a
> zoom but the optical quality and pleasing out of focus/selective background
> focus effects you can get with these lenses makes them an interesting
> alternative and/or supplement to many slower wide angle to telephoto zooms. For
> a beginner as yourself, stick to 100mm or longer for your tight headshots for
> pleasing facial perspective and you'll do fine. I just wanted to give you
> another possibility though...
>
Ted Smith
"Tom Rittenhouse" <graywo...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:39F398F1...@prodigy.net...
>
> An aside to Jsn234's 50mm comment. I sometime use a 50/1.4 with a cheap
2x
> teleconverter as a portrait lens. Wide open it give a soft focus effect,
stopped
> down it is fairly sharp. I seem to be the only one in the world who
thinks this is
> a good idea, but some of the people who disagree with me spend many
hundreds of
> dollars for a soft focus portrait lens. Go figure.
>
>
The original post asked what focal length to use for portraits ... no
mention of soft focus (although I believe another poster queried that)
You probably already know that using a 50mm on a 2x is not the same as using
a 100 mm lens. A 50 mil has some perspective problems that affect close
portraits. These problems will still be there ... a 2x only magnifies the
image size created by the lens ... it doesn't actually change any of the
lens charactoristics.
That said ... it would be a good way to achieve a nice portrait-working
distance IF you already owned a 50mm. I believe that the original poster
did not own a 50 and was wondering about various zooms ... up to 200 and 300
... and which was the "best" way to go.
I think most cameras today are sold with a wide/mid-tele combo and that the
50mm has fallen out of favour. To bad ... a 50 1.4 is a useful tool in many
situations.
Regards,
Ted Smith
Chaffeys Lock ON Canada
zeitgeist
>
> Jsn234 wrote:
> > >
> > I am going to go into more detail as well as add some other advice about
> > portrait lens possibilities... >>
> >
> > portrait lenses, they cost a song (the f/1.8 or f/2 versions, they cost a more
> > expensive song for the f/1.4 and faster normals), deliver excellent optical
> > quality and make for quite pleasing background blur when used at or near wide
> > open aperture. You might not want to get too close to your subject with them
> > for tight head shots as the perspective at close quarters with these lenses
> > tends to make the nose appear to project forward and the ears backward from the
> > main plane of the face (forehead/front cheeks/chin) but you can do some nice
> > close profile shots with this lens used relatively tight/up close. Head on to
> > your subject you can even get some nice waist/mid torso shots with pleasing
> > perspective (especially with children as your subjects whose noses usually
> > project outward far less than adult noses/features). Not as convenient as a
> > zoom but the optical quality and pleasing out of focus/selective background
> > focus effects you can get with these lenses makes them an interesting
> > alternative and/or supplement to many slower wide angle to telephoto zooms. For
> > a beginner as yourself, stick to 100mm or longer for your tight headshots for
> > pleasing facial perspective and you'll do fine. I just wanted to give you
> > another possibility though...
> >
> Wohhhh !! that was some killer advice! That was an encyclopaedia in itself! Thanks
> so much!
> I think im gonna go for the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm prime lenses. Im gonna see if i
> get any used ones. For general shooting i think ill buy a 28mm prime lens.
>
Using a 50mm (normal) lens for general portraiture is extremely
difficult and is sure to cause the beginner some real problems that is
sure to slow down their artistic advancement till they figure out what
the problems are. The verticle plane of the face (imagine a face
without a nose, a board could lay flat on the cheekbones, chin point and
forehead, note I said could not should it's just a concept) anyway this
plane should be parallel to the film plane. with a 50mm any slight
variation can set up some serious distortion that can make the forehead
seem incrementally larger. most of the problems seem to be noticed
later when viewing the prints.
half lengths or more, especially those sitting, hands on the knee can
seem to be almost %50 percent larger in relation to the face just from
the forward position of six to 12 inches.
The differences in faces, that make one person recognizable out of all
the people you see over the years, are subtle, barely measurable
differences between the shape and distances of the features.
this post echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
Jsn234
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 6:48 PM
Message-id: <39F398F1...@prodigy.net>
An aside to Jsn234's 50mm comment. I sometime use a 50/1.4 with a cheap 2x
teleconverter as a portrait lens. Wide open it give a soft focus effect,
stopped
down it is fairly sharp. I seem to be the only one in the world who thinks
this is
a good idea, but some of the people who disagree with me spend many hundreds of
dollars for a soft focus portrait lens. Go figure. >>
Good and useful advice! :-)
Jsn234
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 9:39 PM
Message-id: <39F3C117...@yahoo.com>
If you are aware of the 50mm's limitations (advantages/disadvantages) for
portrait work you can work w/i them or around them and use them to your own
advantage. When I first dtarted getting paid for doing family portraiture I
used a 50mm lens on group shots from a distance and closer mid-torso shots of
kids and got along just fine w/ it and got paid for my work. Today, f I was
going tos hoot an adult at mid torso or a closer crop I wouldn't even bother w/
an 85mm but would skip straight to the 105mm - its all about what you and the
client find interesting and/or acceptable. I've even used 1a 6mm fisheye for
portraits wher I wanted to include lots of environment and for more
charicaturesque type head shots. I find perspective to be just as much a matter
of taste (just like bokeh) instead of allowing myself to be locked into various
conventions of angle and distance. If it looks good I shoot it both/either
conventionally and my own way. Just because something has been done for many
years and for good reasons doesn't mean that I/you/etc. shouldn't try things
outside the norm, whether its choice of lens focal length, perspective (angle
and distance), etc. I never got into classical photographic portraiture,even
though I understand many of its principles, I find my own self-expression to be
far more important than any well founded conventions. When I want to see a
convention I'll go to the Jacob Javitz center. :-) YMMV...
Tom Rittenhouse
Sir: If you don't know what you are talking about, don't. Perspective is
purely determined by subject distance so using a 2x on a 50 and a 100 alone from
the same distance gives exactly the same perspective. As for the 2x magnifying
lens defects, that was the point magnifying the spherical aberration of the lens
is why using the 2x with wide openings gives a soft focus effect. Further my
post was clearly labeled as an aside to jsn234's post about using a 50mm for
portraiture, I had already made my suggestion to the original poster far back in
the thread, also he has already indicated a few posts back that he has made his
decision. Does that mean YOU should not post a follow up in the thread?
"Ted Smith
> "Tom Rittenhouse" <graywo...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:39F398F1...@prodigy.net...
> >
> > An aside to Jsn234's 50mm comment. I sometime use a 50/1.4 with a cheap
> 2x
> > teleconverter as a portrait lens. Wide open it give a soft focus effect,
> stopped
> > down it is fairly sharp. I seem to be the only one in the world who
> thinks this is
> > a good idea, but some of the people who disagree with me spend many
> hundreds of
> > dollars for a soft focus portrait lens. Go figure.
> >
> >
Ted Smith
>
> Sir: If you don't know what you are talking about, don't. Perspective is
> purely determined by subject distance so using a 2x on a 50 and a 100
alone from
> the same distance gives exactly the same perspective. As for the 2x
magnifying
> lens defects, that was the point magnifying the spherical aberration of
the lens
> is why using the 2x with wide openings gives a soft focus effect.
Further my
> post was clearly labeled as an aside to jsn234's post about using a 50mm
for
> portraiture, I had already made my suggestion to the original poster far
back in
> the thread, also he has already indicated a few posts back that he has
made his
> decision. Does that mean YOU should not post a follow up in the thread?
>
The term "Perspective" is often used improperly to describe effects created
by specific focal lengths ... I've heard shots referred to as using a "wide
angle perspective" ... and I guess I goofed. I was referring to the minor
broadening of features that can occur when a "normal" lens is used close to
a face. Those were the "lens defects" I had in mind ... nothing to do with
spherical aberration.
I agree with you that a 50mm and a 2x could be used for some portraits. My
original post suggested that the photographer try and find a used MF Pentax
105 2.8 which I believe would probably not cost much more than a 50 1.4 and
a 2x ... 105 lens seem to go cheap now that most people want zooms. If he
already owned a 50 ... then sure ... buy the 2x.
I think my main complaint SHOULD have been that camera makers seemed to have
made 50mm a thing of the past ... which is too bad. Using a 50mm on a PK
reverse adapter is a cheap way to do some near-macro work ... you used to be
able to buy fisheye adapters from Spiratone that fit the filter threads of a
standard lens that created some interesting images.
Now everyone gets a wide/tele zoom with their camera ... slower f-stops and
bulkier.
As far your last line goes ... I sure wasn't being critical of you for
posting any sort of follow-up to the original thread and I am sorry if it
sounded that way. I enjoy reading the opinions of the different
photographers here ... they all have a diferent life experience and all have
things of value that everyone may learn from.
And I must confess ... I was one of those guys who bought an expensive 85mm
soft focus lens ... and you are right ... it didn't work out at ALL the way
I hoped.
Glad to have the opportunity to have this exchange with you ... and I hope
to be able to do so again.
Wonko The Sane
lens. Wide open it give a soft focus effect,
I used that with my old screw Pentax.... It was brilliant.. Ahhh memories
Jsn234
the right newsgroup? :-)
<< Subject: Re: best portrait lenses (Many thoughts...)
From: "Ted Smith" esmith<NOSPAM @kingston.net>
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 8:27 PM
Message-id: <sva0kqk...@corp.supernews.com>
Viva!
Tom Rittenhouse
Yes! I am now somewhat ashamed of my reaction and have email
Ted and apology.
Ted Smith
"Jsn234" <jsn...@aol.commybrain> wrote in message
news:20001024070346...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> Wow! Thanks Ted! A dispute solved w/ politeness and good naturedness. Am I
on
> the right newsgroup? :-)
>
parent's, and the way he dresses ... and I WOULD have ... dagnab it! ... but
I used the word incorrectly ... so Tom was right and I was wrong.
It's probably not the first time I've been wrong ... and I'm pretty sure it
won't be the last.
Tom did indeed e-mail me an apology ... but for the life of me ... I don't
think that was necessary.
I wasn't insulted by Tom ... and I hope that he'll give his opinion on
anything else that I post.
I think that many people come here to get help from other photographers.
The opportunity to recieve answers from so many different photographers is
very worthwhile. I think that by encouraging more posative posts from more
people, the some what abrasive nature of the NG will be improved.
Ted
Jsn234
From: "Ted Smith" esmith<NOSPAM @kingston.net>
Message-id: <svci4ji...@corp.supernews.com>
Ted >>
I agree w/ you about trying to encourage positiveness here/elsewhere.
Unfortunately, most (OK, some) threads start w/ a legitimate question or
statement and then end up off topic. I have no complaints about that because in
extending the circle of discussion, ironically, the discussion becomes less
"circular" and broadened into other important and/or related and/or unrelated
topics w/ deeper insight/understanding as one of the benefits. What I do object
to is when a thread devolves into the kind of circularity of you stink, no you
stink, w/c reminds me of a bad version of that early video game Pong (I was
thinking perhaps PacMan, but it was probably Pong), where the insults are the
ball and it gets bounced back and forth between the players in an endless
volley and the "conversation" goes from circular to a flattened/squashed
circle, back and forth as a line, more boring than an insult as at least
circular arguments are at least circular and at least give the illusion of
going somewhere.
Though, for all intents and purposes, this group has become somewhat of a
wasteland, I believe there are still a few valuable posters out there. And w/o
naming names as to who I think are the valuable posters and who I believe the
trolls to be, I will probably drop out/tune out those threads w/c, though I'd
like to have participated in them, have now become merely playgrounds for
backbiting children.
So, and yes there is a "so" or a final point here, though I still plan to lurk
around here and occassionally answer a question or two (or five),
unfortunately, once a thread becomes, for lack of a better term, "poisoned", I
will either put it into my kill filter and/or disregard it. Sad, but necessary.
The "Re: Photographing Ballerinas" thread is a case in point though there are
probably others that my filters are filtering out because of their
authors/titles/etc. People (some of them, anyways) have so much to give) yet
waste their time in pointless barrages of insults disguised as arguments w/c
can go nowhere because they begin from nowhere and have no end point, save to
obliterate the other person verbally.
To get back on target, though the question(s) of the original poster have long
been answered/hashed out, the best portrait lenses are any lenses/focal lengths
that serve to best show off the subject the way you want them to, whether it be
a 16mm fisheye or a 400mm - conventions and conventional focal lengths should
only be used when they are useful, not every face/head shot demands a 100mm
lens, though its a good place to start for a beginner. Though there is
something to be said for FFLs or at least using the FFL mentality w/ a zoom
lens, not because it forces you to think, you should already be doing that if
you call yourself a photographer, but because it forces you as the Mac
commercials say, to "think differently," to search out other possibilities of
composition and shot angles to make a shot work and turn a restriction into an
advantage, lemons into lemonade, blah blah blah (and yadda yadda yadda) into
D'oh! D'oh! D'oh (sometimes the mistakes - as in "D'oh!" are better than the
best laid plans - I once, about ten years ago, unintentionally double exposed
one of my rolls on the same fashion shoot and the model and I loved the
results! If memory serves me correctly, one of the shots was taken w/ a fisheye
and the other w/ a 90mm?). But, mistakes aside, a good people photographer is
better than the best portrait lens, the shot literally is in the eye of the
beholder. Just like driving a car, any lens can get you "there" if you have a
good idea (or discover in the process) where the "there" (the final
aim/thought/idea/goal behind the shot ) is. Just make sure to check the tire
pressure and watch out for the roll overs (beware of their limitations and try
to use and/or get around those limitations :-).
Regards and...
Bill Kenner
subject. If you are going with one portrait lens, then get a 90-105 macro
lens. It eliminates the need for the addition of close-up lenses or
extension tubes for tight head shots or just eyes, lips, etc. According to
Practical Photography, a British photo mag, the Sigma macro gets slightly
higher marks than Tamron or Tokina. Auto focus is a help, but for shallow
depth of field shots, turn it off and focus on the eyes.
Bill Kenner
Nashville, TN
Jsn234
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 2:33 AM
Message-id: <39F6A8E3...@telalink.net>
Bill Kenner
Nashville, TN >>
Bill:
The person who posted the original question I believe has already decided on
50mm, 85mm, and 135mm lenses. That being said, anybody who considers getting a
90/100/105mm macro might also want to consider some kindof black netting and/or
a soft focus filter to take some of the bite off the sharpness as these lenses,
while being considered "portrait focal length lenses" are also brutally/too
sharp, unless its a photographer's desire to show skin discolorations,
blackheads, wrinkles (where/if appropriate) in all their glorious splendor.
Also, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX macro, though reputed to have superb sharpness
is supposed to have lousy bokeh, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is supposed to be much
better in this respect (bokeh) (I read about this at the Minolta User's Group
archives and saw a picture there, through a link, that showed the ugly b.g.
blur effect of this lens though I have forgotten the URL to the picture) but w/
similar sharpness to the Sigma. I can vouch for the sharpness of the older
Tamron (manual focus) 90mm f/2.5 lens w/c itself is more than sharp and is so
sharp that it too can benefit w/ a soft filter on it for older people. Any
decent macro lens should give you more sharpness than you'll ever want for
"standard" portraiture unless you consider e.c.u.s of eyes and lip details to
be your form of "standard portraiture" and want every last line per millimeter
and contrast to show all their cracks and crevices and nooks and crannies (just
like Thomas's English muffins! :-))!
David Grabowski
wrote:
>I have a different suggest than most of the posts I've read on this
>subject. If you are going with one portrait lens, then get a 90-105 macro
>lens. It eliminates the need for the addition of close-up lenses or
>extension tubes for tight head shots or just eyes, lips, etc. According to
>Practical Photography, a British photo mag, the Sigma macro gets slightly
>higher marks than Tamron or Tokina. Auto focus is a help, but for shallow
>depth of field shots, turn it off and focus on the eyes.
>
>Bill Kenner
>Nashville, TN
I was going to suggest the macro route myself, when using 35mm. we use
macro lenses and so happens the one we use most is the Sigma 90mm.
macro. We also use a 70-150 zoom. I've read reviews in the past where
people really liked the Tamrom 90mm. macro as well. The reviews I've
read and also what we use were/are manual focus lenses FWIW.
The above is for head and shoulder shooting or if you don't know where
you might be shooting to include very close up. For distant or so
called environmental portraits, I would suggest wider angle lenses and
I wouldn't rule out a nice fast 50mm.
David Grabowski
John G. Silver
> Practical Photography, a British photo mag, the Sigma macro gets slightly
> higher marks than Tamron or Tokina. Auto focus is a help, but for shallow
> depth of field shots, turn it off and focus on the eyes.
>
> Bill Kenner
> Nashville, TN
does Sigma advertise in any big way in Practical Photography? 'Cause if it
does, then PP would say that, no?
JS
Wonko The Sane
>does, then PP would say that, no?
CYNIC! How does that help the orig. poster?