Re: Limiteds Question :) - THANKS GUYS AND GIRLS!!! :D

[Paul Stenquist]

I would think that the 77 Limited would make an excellent portrait 
lens. I have never found sharpness to be a detriment in a portrait 
lens. It's quite easy to soften an image before printing. If the image 
is sharp, you have the option of leaving the eyes sharp when you soften 
the rest of the portrait. And I'd rather have too much information to 
work with than too little.
This example, which was seen in a previous inferior version, was shot 
razor sharp with the 6x7 and 165/4, so every pore was in evidence. 
Softened in PS. The eyes are even softened a wee bit. The rest of the 
image is softened considerably. But I had the option of choosing my 
level of detail, because I had full detail to work with:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1176185&size=lg
On Apr 2, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Quasi Modo wrote:

Gotta say I'm with you there William on both film and digital it's
just too sharp.   I actually prefer the results from the (F) 50/2.8
macro.   Has anyone used the 85/2.8 soft-focus?   Seen that floating
around but have found user experience hard to find on this.
On Apr 3, 2005 12:08 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
Subject: RE: Limiteds Question :) - THANKS GUYS AND GIRLS!!! :D
I am very interested in your conclusions about using the 77 for
portraits without the crop. I may have missed some, but all the
portrait samples I saw in that thread about the 77 were on a -D(s).
Which is why I have never bothered with it[1].
I don't really like the 77 as a portrait lens.
I find it to be too sharp, and it has very high micro contrast.
It is not an especially flattering portrait lens.
This is on film.
William Robb