I would feel negligent if I don't suggest the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens as a beautiful portrait lens. Not only does it double as a 1:1 macro lens, but the f/2.8 in the 100mm focal length is wide enough for selective focusing, and one can get in real close for the portrait with a different bent.
Allan On Tuesday, March 26, 2002, at 10:07 PM, Icoz, Evrim wrote: > > 105 vs 135 really does not make that much of a difference imho for > portraits > purposes. both of these are slow lenses for portrait work. > > 28-135 is not really sharper then 28-105. or even my Tokina 28-80 2.8. > All > of them have advantages and disadvantages. I have all three of these > lenses. > I will keep the Tokina 2.8 since it is 2.8 but still debating the > 28-105 vs > 28-135.... IS is really nice to have, but then 28-105 is so much > cheaper and > it is lightweight! * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
