Good points. One of my posts doesn't seem to have made it to the list. I referrred to the 85 as "candid portrait" lens on the D. By this I mean a lens which allows a comfortable and inconspicuous working distance with little distortion of features. Also fast enough to focus manually (ie:without obnoxious flashes or beam) in very low light. The speed is not as much for DOF control as for focusing. I usually shoot at 5.6-8 to allow some room for error and to ensure all facial features are sharp. To me a fast 80-90 fills this bill well, (a little longer on 35mm) the 85/1.9 also does a fine job on skin tones and I like the Bokeh. (Now that I can pronounce it I'll use it!) ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > On 16 Dec 2004 at 18:26, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > "Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? > > I don't know, the 77mm is Ok for me, bokeh is nice and smooth, > wide open it's > fine too, it may be too sharp for some though. I must admit that > I'm a little > confused over all this portrait lens talk though, what > constitutes an official > "portrait lens" ? My portrait lenses span 15mm to 300mm. I'd hate > to be stuck > in a photo hell where portraits have to be shot using an 85mm > lens between f2 > and f2.8 :-( > > > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
