Cotty wrote:
> keith whaley had written: > > Precisely. Most of us don't actually take photos ~ at least regularly > > ~ at the largest aperture. The prime benefit of a wider aperture is > > the brightness of the view thru the viewfinder! > > With later Pentaxes, the lens stays wide open for everything except > > the moment of the exposure. > > So, you'll find that almost every prime in the neighborhood of 50mm > > will give superior performance, especially if it's stopped down a > > couple of stops from wide open. > I'd agree with you Keith, but shooting portraits, there are many > occasions where I want to use absolute maximum aperture, for the minimal > depth of field. This pic illustrates the effect I adore: > > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/portraits/images/pic19.html Oh, absolutely! I've seen that photo before, and I agree with you. There are indeed times that wide open is the only acceptable way to go. I happen to prefer as wide an aperture as I can put up with, because unless we're talking scenery, almost every subject benefits from a shallow[er] depth of field... > Since I have sold my A*85 f/1.4, my widest lens is now a 50 1.7 on film - > worse f/2.8 shooting a digital. An f1.2 portrait lens would be coooool - > I realise I am in a good position (cost aside) with non-Pentax offerings > for digi, and when the Pentax DSLR is released, the latest and greatest > portrait lens will become the A50 f/1.2 - get one before the price jumps. > However, only for a while - when the full frame chips become the norm, > the 85mm f/1.4s will rule again... > > .02, > > Cotty Thanks... keith
