> BTW I agree, 135mm is a great longer portrait lens, I often find > myself grabbing great shots at parties without being too "in the > subjects face".
Agreed. If a portrait is in a (more or less) "formal" setting (i.e., the subject is aware of the photo and is willing to "pose" for it), I'll reach for an 85mm lens usually if I can. However, for "informal" or "candid" portraits, I usually try to shoot from further back, and have often used 135mm (f/1.8 and f/2.5) and 200mm (f/2.5) lenses indoors, and even 300mm (f/4) lenses outdoors, for such uses. I make a somewhat similar "compromise" when I employ a zoom lens for "informal" or "candid" portraits. Although I usually use (and prefer to use) a good prime for most "semi-formal" portraits, I often find myself using (and liking) an appropriate zoom for "casual" portraits. Sure, it may be technically better to "zoom with your feet" (as the cliche goes), but the ability to crop on the fly is very helpful at remaining unobtrusive. (For example, over the past few months, I have found myself happily using a Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 more and more for some nice casual portraits outdoors.) Fred
