--- "James B.Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:42:45 -0700, "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>
> >You are probably right and better off with a zoom for informal
> portraits
> >unless you take more formal protraits regularly, in which case you
> may
> >benefit from a fixed focal length of 85mm (132mm with 1.55x factor
> of
> >some DSLRs) and a F1.8 aperture. The reason being with a smaller
> size
> >image sensor has considerably more depth of field so your F2.8 is
> >probably closer to an F4 when used on a DSLR. An F1.8 would be about
> an
> >F2.5.
> >When you do move to something like a EOS1D Mark II then the 85mm
> becomes
> >a 110mm, a much better portrait length for portraits. Actually the
> 50mm
> >F1.4 would be a great portrait length on a EOS10D.
>
> Oboy, too much free time here these days, but it could be the recent
> lack of any real discussion on the EOS list has prompted me to stir
> things up here.
>
> I kind of picked up the 50 and 85 in fact for portraits and stuff.
> And
> I have used them a bit. Lovely to have that bright viewfinder back
> and
> roll that wheel all the way over into the 1s woohoo. But when I get
> back any shots at these immense apertures I'm always so disappointed
> with my DOF. Like one hair on the eyebrow is really sharp and the
> rest
> of the person's face is out of focus. Now, I think more about DOF and
> use the DOF preview before cranking my aperture to bigger than f5.6
> on
> any lens except maybe the wide angles, but hey, we shoot them at
> small
> apertures anyway.
>
> I haven't done many portraits lately, but one thing I really hate is
> moving forward and backward for frames just right. Zooms are great in
> this respect as the photographer can relax a bit more and frame by
> twisting a zoom ring.
>
> This page illustrates this point:
> http://jimdavis.oberro.com/Stuff/temp/temp.htm
>
> And don't 'cha just hate changing lenses in the middle of a portrait
> shoot. First you shoot all the close ups with the 85, then change and
> do the half and full body shots with the 50, yuck! You'd have to
> schedule the shoot for the lenses.
>
> zoom zoom zoom - this L hype is nasty stuff. Now we got 3d imaging
> going with an L lens :-) Big smiley guys, big smiley... And without
> a
> tripod or IS! Damn, I'd love to have a lens that magical. No, wait,
> my
> images are always fantastically magical and 3-dimensional now :-)
>
> I think primes have had their day. Sweet looking to have around to
> look at. I'm cashing mine in. I'll let you all know just how magical
> the new lens is for me. I can always resell for the same price on
> auction!
>
Jim, I know, people become addicted to IS and some may swear by that
holly thing. Surely, there are the sutuations (and I also encounter
such sometimes bearign my shooting style (rock stage performance, for
instance) where IS would clearly benefit acquiring the shoot when
otherwise it would be lost), but that doesn't have to blind the
obvious.:-)
talking about 3D quality, I guess most of the member here got the
point. Obviously, this is for a general feeling produced by the optics,
kind of
"live" picture, not the literal 3D of course. I wonder you didn't get
the point and rasied up with sarcasm not even bothering to try
personally first what you're bashing.
I would now likely to start flaming about MkII, 500/4IS and others, no
matter that I never tried these and even never had a chance to see personally...
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
