Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>Now I plan to get a 135/4.5... did anyone tried it as a portrait lens?
>
>
People mean a lot of cifferent things when they say portrait and have
different preferences for perspective, amount of body and/or head
included, sharpness, etc.
The thing about the 135/4.5 that would make it unlikely as a favorite
portrait lens for most is the small max aperture. People like relatively
fast lenses for the limited DOF that helps isolate the subject from
background. It's also the relatively poorer control of abberations wide
open in many fast lenses that creates a 'look' that many photographers
and subjects like, a sharpish appearance but without too much skin detail.
So if one wants those things the 135/4.5 may be too sharp wide open and
not fast enough for adequate DOF. For a razor sharp image with no
background issues, it would be good. According to Gary's tests, it is
very sharp in the center even wide open, with vibration control. In
contrast to its 'A', the 135/2.8 is a high C/low B lens and the 200/4
about the same. In all cases, the tests show that these are lenses with
vibration issues, but the 135/4.5 is inherently sharper wide open. So
unless you want that, it may not be a prime choice for portrait use.
Also, its usefulness will depend a lot on shooting style. In a
controlled situation, it would be fine. In casual use or street shots
like Iwert's, where subject distance and composition can change
quickly, it would be awkward, with the two different focusing
mechanisms. It is certainly excellent for what it was designed to do. I
have one and have taken lots of pics with it, but none of people that I
can recall.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|