On Tue, 11 May 1999, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>> >It also depends (just a teeny bit) on the look you are after. There is
>> >a subtle difference between a 100 and an 85.
>> Can you please explain?
>> >But, I've taken effective portraits with a 24. Notice that I said
>> >"effective" - which is not necessarily the same thing as "flattering".
>> True--I've done the same with 50/1.8. Not too happy.
>Look at the portraits you have taken with the 50. Compare with similar
>shots (same image size) taken with a 100. Compare with similar shots
>taken with a 300. Shorter focal lengths, used to produce the same image
>size, tend to exaggerate differences in depth (e.g.,noses get longer).
>Longer focal lengths tend to flatten. Just simple perspective. Note
>that this has little to do with the focla length of the lens - but
>rather distance that you take the picture from.
Makes PERFECT sense now! I took some portraits with a 35mm p/s
camera (Pentax, 35/2.8 fwiw), and there was a lot of disappointment and
complaint that people's faces and dimensions were not even close to being
real. The camera was fine for everything, but as soon as you got close,
the pix would be anything buy flattering.
I don't have access to anything over 50 and under 200 at the
moment, but I shall borrow my friend's C@n0n Rebel 2000 w/28-80 and check
that out <G>.
>Now, the difference between 85 and 100 is not large - but it's there.
I could have tried this with the 75-150/4 I had, but I sold it :-)
>My all-time favorite portrait lens (note that this is purely
>subjective!) was a Vivitar 105, mounted on a Petri (anyone still
>remember them? - mine was stolen in 1975, or so) For most of my "Olympus
>life" I've made do with the venerable 70-150 f/4 zoom - but I just
>acquired a 100 f/2.8 and am having great fun. Almost as much fun as the
>24 f/2.8 (the nice thing about the 24 is that people refuse to believe
>that you are really taking their picture from that close - the down side
>is that they usually don't like the pictures...but I do).
I;ll just have to try a portrait with the 28/3.5 to see how bad
it comes out :-)
Thanks for the explanation.
--
<humming intro riff to Straits' /Money For Nothing ... />
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|