Chip Louie wrote (edited): > As to 135mm being a "better" focal length for people, this is > simply not true. I own an EF 135 2L and as a pure > head shot lens 135mm is a superb focal length. > But you can certainly take a step closer and > get the same shot, potentially even a better one > with a faster shutter speed and with > prettier background blur with the later 28-105USM series I > lens. Of course you could also pull the 28-135IS back > to 100mm and get a similar shot but > that would reduce the value of your argument that the 135mm > end is better for portraits somewhat.
Nice write up. 135mm provides a greater working distance and IMO a nicer length for portraits than say 105mm. Let me mention one thing. Everyone on this list is so caught up on "sharp, sharp, sharp..." that people are forgetting "image." If you are using the 135mm F2L or 28-135mm, it is often tooooo sharp for people. My latest portraits with the 28-135 IS are proof of this. I took a close up of a cowboy and the lighting added drama but you can see every crevice and whisker. If it were of a woman she would hate to see all the detail. Next time I use the lens for this I will use softer lighting and a soft filter. For those who shoot scenics, doesn't matter since you want clarity, but for people this lens (28-135mm IS) is too sharp. Just my 2 cents. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
