I am thinking I might claim 12 years - Feb 1997. Have found some more
notes in my "archives" that could have been pulled from the list
archives, but I believe this was during my first year on the list.
Some words of wisdom from a former list member...
stan
Houston, Jerry ([email protected])
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:36:36 -0700
A thread that's run through a few messages lately has held that
there are different games we play using our photographic
equipment. I find myself agreeing with that. Just as you wouldn't
play hockey with a first-baseman's mitt, and you wouldn't wear a
football helmet to play basketball, it's silly to use a zoom lens
for jobs that really require the utmost in resolution and contrast.
What isn't so obvious, is that it's EQUALLY SILLY to use a fine-
quality fixed-length lens as the one lens you carry with you to
unknown photo opportunities. That's where a zoom lens is needed,
and nothing else will work well.
So I really believe that the old debate of zooms-vs-fixed-length
lenses is patently moot. I really don't think there IS anything to
debate, unless it's which lens to buy first and which one to put
off until there's more discretionary cash available. Usually you
can narrow down the subject by specifying a particular purpose for
the lens, but in this case (portraits) I'm going to disagree with
those who insist on the traditional 85mm or 90mm, or 100mm or
135mm fixed-focus lens for portraits.
In the first place, I don't believe that the usual head-and-
shoulders portrait is necessarily the most desirable, and it's
CERTAINLY not the only portrait option available. If I were to
photograph a violin maker, I'd want to capture his concentration
as he hand-fits one of his masterpieces with a wood chisel. My
portrait of a winemaker would show him tasting a work-in-progress,
in the cellars, next to the casks. Does this make sense to anyone
else? Depending on the person, their interests, their usual
surroundings, and so on, you might find that the most meaningful
portraits require anything from mild wide-angle to a moderate
telephoto. Sounds like a typical 28-80 or 35-105 might fit pretty
well, doesn't it?
And considering the special effects gizmos that even pros use for
portraits, ranging from soft-focus lenses to optical garbage like
"soft spot" filters (not to mention Vaseline), I don't think
anyone could make a reasonable case against a zoom lens on the
basis of its sharpness or contrast, or lack of either.
I think one of the most exciting things about photography as a
creative outlet is that we can feel free to break all the rules
and not get into trouble over it. It's all part of developing a
personal style. My 2-cents worth.
--
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.
