I can speak to the FA 85, 135 and 200 as I have and use all three. Of the
three, only the 135 ends up not being used much. You didn't really mention
whether you wanted the image to only contain the eyes, or having the eyes
the only thing in focus. We'll assume the latter. In that case, the FA 85
gives you more working room with DOF and a head & shoulders portrait. With
the 1.4 aperture you can easily have just the tip of the nose, or the eyes
in focus. I have ruined more than a few shots with that narrow DOF.
That being said, outside of pure portrait use, my FA 200 gets used more.
One of my favorite lenses.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:44 AM
Subject: Ever shrinking depth of field
> Hey Folks,
>
> I must confess that lately, I've been shooting with less and less depth of
> field. To that end, I've been looking for a portrait lens that can be shot
> wide open but still retain a fair amount of sharpness. I have the SMCP
> 105/2.8. It's an excellent lens but doesn't really give me that eyes sharp
> but everything else out of focus look. Well, not as dramatically as I'd
> like.
> So, I'm considering the FA 77/1.8, FA 85/1.4, FA 135/2.8, or FA 200/2.8.
I'm
> also open to the A*200/4 Macro. I'm wondering if anyone can give me some
> feedback about the performance of these lenses in the scenario I
described.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mark
> -
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
