Walter Hamler wrote: > Scott, I used a 645 outfit back when I was actively doing portraits > and weddings. > Because of the size constraints of my studio, I chose the 120 macro as > my portrait lens. It would allow full lengths at the max distance > available to me and yet still work for head shots. Occasionally I > would use the 200 for head shots but mostly the 120. > A lot will depend on your shooting style. I tend to fill the frame as > much as possible, and the lab folks used to bitch at me all the time > for shooting so tight. Most labs really prefer a little wiggle room so > a shorter lens worked to my advantage in that case. > Another advantage of the 120 is, being a macro, you never run out of > close focus capability! (unless you are shooting ants!) > Thanks, Walt. I have the 120 and 200. The 200 is a tad longer than I like for portraits and the 120, while an appropriate length, is a bit fiddly trying to focus it at 6 or 8 feet. It's a good performer as far as I can tell. The bokeh is quite nice. No complaints there.
-- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
