>Yup, the 85 is much more intimidating - although FA 85/1.4 is the >smallest compared to Nikon's gigantic 85/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.2. Unless >you put the 'show off' factor into the shopping list, the FA 85/1.4 is >still ok :)
The only thing intimidating about any lens is nothing to so with the hardware. It's all about the photographer, the way you move, present yourself. An 85 mil lens isn't meant to be shoved into a face, it's meant to stand back a bit, to meald in with surroundings, say other people (maybe at a function). You would think that a 400mm 2.8 would be intimidating for candids, right? Wrong. Here's why: with a 400 2.8, you'd be so far away that the subjects wouldn't even see you if they looked with the naked eye. A lens - any lens - offers the photographer a range of characteristics that go far beyond just looking at the physical size of the thing. Think more about how you are using a lens, how you want the results to feel - subjects aware, or unaware - about how the act of photographing effects what you are photographing - about what your desires are in wanting to make pictures. If you like being the centre of attention, fine, have a big fast mid range zoom aboard, flash, drive, whatever, and stand so close that you burn their retinas. If you like that HCB Moment, travel light, shoot from the hip, go with the flow. And anything else in between. I think that saying a lens is intimidating says more about the attitude of the photographer than that of the subject.... With respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
