For candid portraits I prefer something longer than 135. Even with an 85, you're only a half dozen feet away or so. With a e00, you can hide around the corner:-). Paul
> 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 > > >
