> Le 30 déc. 2016 à 22:12, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On 12/30/2016 1:31 AM, Philippe wrote:
>> In my younger years, 135mm WAS the portrait lens for 24x36 cameras.
>> Everyone wanted one :-)
>> Me too.
>> I had a Takumar 2.8 I think, which I loved.
>> Then a Zuiko,
>> Etc.
>
> I must have missed that memo. Do you suppose it was you - or I - who was
> experiencing a different portrait lens milieu back then? Local vs. global?
> America vs. Europe?
DK - Was Takumar/Pentax selling any 80mm? I don’t remember this either - same
applies for Pentax and others Canon or Nikon?
The debate is not closed it seems
https://www.google.fr/#q=135+mm+lens+for+portrait
<https://www.google.fr/#q=135+mm+lens+for+portrait>
Anyhow, I no longer have any 135 ... :-)
Amities
Philippe
>
> I did, in fact, make some portraits I quite liked by catching people unaware
> with my 80-200 zoom at/near the long end, but at some subject angles,
> perspective compression was a problem. Profiles were best, as I recall.
>
> I do have the OMZ 135 lenses, but seldom found use for them. The f2.8 seemed
> great for the combination of reach and speed, in theory . . .
>
> Short Tele Challenged Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|