Hi,
> It's a great lens.
No argument there. :)
> If you know how to use it, why not take portraits with it?
Well, I was merely stating that it is _my_ personal preference to not use
this lens for portraits. Some additional reasons why I (myself!) wouldn't
choose this lens that quickly for taking portraits:
-The lens is optimised for close focusing, which is something that is not
exactly used very often when taking portraits, I would say. So I don't see
any additional advantage of using a macro lens instead of a normal one.
-The lens is F3.5, whereas I also have a 50/1.8, which gives shallower DOF
and which I assume to be more optimised for the distance range you would use
for taking portraits.
> The best lens is usually the one that is on the camera :-)...you just plan
> differently for other focal lengths.
Of course, I do the same to. When I want to take a posed portrait, say
shoulders and up I go for the 100/2 as I think it's unbeatable at that. If
OTOH I want to go for a candid portrait I prefer the 65-200/4 (@ 200mm), as
you then can quickly change focal lengths whilst standing away far enough
for your subject not to directly notice you. The "slow" F4 aperture of the
lens then also doesn't pose too much problems (provided light is abundant),
as the used focal length (i.e. the 200mm) still allows for a shallow DOF.
Nevertheless I personally don't really like using short focal lengths for
portraits. If all else fails (cramped interiors) I use 35mm or 50mm, also,
when I need to take a picture of an adult where the whole person is to
appear in the picture, I would go for the 50/1.8 (but not the 50/3.5).
> I've seen some magnificent portraits with very wide angle lenses and no
> distortion.
Of course this can be done, but using any focal length shorter than 35mm
will increasingly complicate the photographer's life, as it's difficult to
avoid perspective distortion with these lenses.
Last summer there was a photo exposition near Amsterdam, both Hans and I
went and we were amazed at one stand. The stand had portrait pictures of KLM
personnel, however, all of these pictures seemed to have at least one
photographic "error" in them (e.g. tremendously big noses, poorly cropped
pictures, too shallow DOF, not properly focused pictures, etc.). We were
looking at the explanations to see if we could find a line saying something
like "going against all rules" or "these pictures go to demonstrate how NOT
to take portraits", however, we couldn't find such a thing. So, up until
today we're still wondering whether these pictures were taken by some kid
who had just been given their first camera, or whether the photogrpher
deliberately made all these mistakes (Hmmm, maybe they were Coco's
pictures?!? :) ) Either way, we were left wondering about their choice of
focal lengths too, as some pictures were obviously taken with wide angles at
close distances, and these all looked terrible...
> Some need toys, others evaluate the situation and go from there.
Sure, I'm not saying I _need_ that 100/2 for all these pictures (although it
_is_ convenient for it ;) ), and I'm very aware that there are situations
where picking a "measly" 50/1.8 for taking your pictures is probably your
best choice (heck, I have to do that too at times), I'm just stating my
_own_ personal preferences, and giving reasons for why I myself wouldn't
really pick the 50/3.5 that quickly for portraits...
> Enough said on a rather silly topic.
Indeed, let's get back to discussions about SC vs. MC ;))))
> (Used a Rollei and 80mm, the equiv of a 50 for waist up portraits for
> years.) Why not the 3.5 macro?
Well, I hope I've cleared up my reasons for being reluctant to pick that
lens for portraits...:)
Cheerio!
Olafo
< 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 >
|