> >It also depends (just a teeny bit) on the look you are after. There is
> >a subtle difference between a 100 and an 85.
> Can you please explain?
>
> >But, I've taken effective portraits with a 24. Notice that I said
> >"effective" - which is not necessarily the same thing as "flattering".
> True--I've done the same with 50/1.8. Not too happy.
Look at the portraits you have taken with the 50. Compare with similar
shots (same image size) taken with a 100. Compare with similar shots
taken with a 300. Shorter focal lengths, used to produce the same image
size, tend to exaggerate differences in depth (e.g.,noses get longer).
Longer focal lengths tend to flatten. Just simple perspective. Note
that this has little to do with the focla length of the lens - but
rather distance that you take the picture from.
Now, the difference between 85 and 100 is not large - but it's there.
My all-time favorite portrait lens (note that this is purely
subjective!) was a Vivitar 105, mounted on a Petri (anyone still
remember them? - mine was stolen in 1975, or so) For most of my "Olympus
life" I've made do with the venerable 70-150 f/4 zoom - but I just
acquired a 100 f/2.8 and am having great fun. Almost as much fun as the
24 f/2.8 (the nice thing about the 24 is that people refuse to believe
that you are really taking their picture from that close - the down side
is that they usually don't like the pictures...but I do).
--
Kenneth Sloan sloan@xxxxxxx
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|