Hi Peter, I have the 85/2, it's lovely, and yes it was. ;-) It's a bit long sometimes on the D for my portraits. 70mm seems the perfect length for what I want to do, 105 is my favorite on 35mm so that follows. The nice thing about the 35-70 is it's shortest physical length is when it's set for 70 unlike some that go the other way. It is larger than the 85 by quite a bit but much smaller than the 28-75, which is a very imposing looking critter. I've found that smaller, older looking lenses seem to put people more at ease, like your not really serious. It shows in the relaxed, ignoring you, poses. My spec-i-al-i-ty is relaxed, ignoring me, poses. ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: SMCP-M35-70/2.8-3.5 comments please. > > > I guess this would leave out the 85 f2 as these can also be quite pricey. > The M 35-70 looks to be quite a bit bigger than that. > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > >Before I spend too much on one of these what do you > >think of this lens for an "unobtrusive" portrait lens on > >the ist-D? > >I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 but it's hardly unobtrusive > >and I find the bokeh very ugly for portraits. > >Ultimate sharpness is not a factor, but a flattering > >bokeh is very important, as is a reasonably fast speed. > >The 77 Ltd. would be my dream lens but it'll be a > >long time before I can afford one. > > > >TIA > >Don > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). >
