In a message dated 12/16/99 5:25:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
visigoth@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >Well, if you're taking insect portraits it may not be a bad choice, but
> >for people the 50/3.5 would be about the last lens I would choose for
> >those purposes (apart from my wide angles). Why? 1-I don't like to take
> >portraits with the 50mm focal length (just a personal preference); 2-Th
> >50/3.5 reportedly has terrible bokeh -> a real portrait killer...
>
>
> The supposedly terrible bokeh on the 50/3.5 only manifests at great
> distances: ie. seriously out of focus. The closer out-of-focus
> characteristics are wonderful (which is what matters in
> portraiture). I happen to like ultra-close 50mm portraits, but I have a
> somewhat funky disposition...
>
It's a great lens. If you know how to use it, why not take portraits with it?
The best lens is usually the one that is on the camera :-)...you just plan
differently for other focal lengths. I've seen some magnificent portraits
with very wide angle lenses and no distortion. Some need toys, others
evaluate the situation and go from there.
Enough said on a rather silly topic. (Used a Rollei and 80mm, the equiv of a
50 for waist up portraits for years.) Why not the 3.5 macro?
Roger Skully
robinsnestphotography.com
< 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 >
|