I agree with Len here. The portraiture photographer
should be able to bring out the best in people's faces
not to show all their defects. Moreover, Putting a
soft filter or using a soft-lens like FA85 soft is not
the same as using a less sharper lens. Soft filters
are just too soft. I regret having sold my old Fa
35-80.
Herbet.
--- Len Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you 100% Fred. In fact I'm the guy that
> upset
> certain folks by saying I would never knowingly buy
> a soft lens.
> I like 'em as sharp as I can get 'em. I was only
> trying to
> answer the question. I have had customers that
> didn't like how
> they looked when I use the FA*85mm f/1.4 or the
> FA100mm f/2.8
> macro, when that happens, I do a re-shoot (if
> possible) with the
> FA 28-200 zoom. It makes them much happier. I
> didn't buy the
> 28--200 because it was soft, it just works out that
> way. And
> it's really only soft compared to the aforementioned
> lenses,
> it's not terrible. It definitely has its uses.
>
> Len
> ---
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:28 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Lens sharpness
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I don't own the 77mm Limited, but the FA*85mm
> f/1.4
> > is, perhaps a
> > > bit better for portraits if you use it at f/1.4.
> > When you stop it
> > > down, it too is agonizingly sharp, IMO.
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > My wife, after seeing a photo of our son taken
> with
> > the FA 100/2.8,
> > > threatened me with mayhem and murder if she ever
> > caught me aiming
> > > that particular lense anywhere near her. I find
> the
> > thought that
> > > there are even sharper lenses being used for
> portraits a bit
> > > frightening. <g>
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Had the same problems doing actors headshots
> with a
> > Tamron 90mm
> > > Macro - great for getting in close without
> making
> > your subject a bit
> > > squeamish, but not so great for a "flattering
> picture".
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > The 77 is IMHO too sharp for a portrait lens. I
> am
> > not sure if it is
> > > sharper than my A100 2.8 Macro, but it wouldn't
> > surprise me if it
> > > was.
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I made only some images with this lens [77/1.8]
> but
> > agree with
> > > William - too sharp for portrait.
> >
> > +++++
> >
> > This discussion of how some lenses are "too sharp"
> > for portrait use shows up periodically on the PDML
> > (and often prompts a few of us to jump in with a
> > defense of sharp lenses for portraiture). Well,
> > here's my two f-stops worth:
> >
> > Personally, ~I~ like a portrait to be as ~sharp~
> as
> > possible. ~I~ want to see ~every~ detail in a
> > portrait, and I want my portrait lenses to
> faithfully
> > pass as much detail to the film as possible. If
> the
> > subject wants some softening (and I am not
> disputing
> > that many subjects do
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
