Well, as usual, I'm on the horns of a dilemma. I've been thinking of doing
some "portrait" work. Nothing fancy, and certainly nothing professional.
Just some better shots of family.
There've been discussions here regarding the various 100mm Zuikos. I already
own a 135/2.8 Zuiko. So...
What's everyone's opinion? Is it worthwhile investing in either of the 100s
(and which one) for this type of shooting when I already have the 135? Is
there a good reason to own either of the 100s *other* than portraiture when
I already have the 135? Better bokeh with the 100 or something else I may be
unaware of?
Let's look at it from a practical standpoint--like that'll ever happen :-)
--not from the Zuikoholic standpoint. I already know the answer from the
Zuikoholic position quite well on my own (and that's what I'm trying to
fight off--or at least justify--at the moment).
---
Scott Gomez
I usually think of "portrait length" as 85 to 100 mm. Lenses of that
length give, to my eye, a very pleasing and natural perspective even
with a tightly framed head shot. Shorter and the nose grows and the
chin recedes. Longer and the features seem to flatten out. You may
want to work farther back with the 135 and then crop.
I have a tendency to go for a faster lens unless there is something
wrong with it like flare or vignetting, too sharp to be suitable, or
it is just beyond my means. But you can take a good portrait with
almost any focal length. Take a look at the TOPE portrait gallery
for some wonderful examples.
And by all means look what James Kiker did with the 100mm/2.8 in the
Bokeh gallery. Wow. No lens could have done a better portrait.
Sharp as a tack and wide open.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|