Daniel Flather wrote:
> Sorry if this a silly question but it bugs me not to know.
> In what way are they different from each other to warrant one
> for male portraits and one for female portraits??
Hard to say; conventional wisdom holds that portraits of women should be a
little soft (to hide all the supposed �defects�) while very sharp portraits of
men supposedly give a sense of strength and �manliness.� Whether this is rubbish
I leave for you to decide. In any case, perhaps Canon thinks the 85/1.8 is a
little soft compared to the 100/2 (although Photodo's MTF results for the two
are nearly identical), or perhaps the slightly greater telephoto compression you
get with the 100/2 is beneficial when shooting men by reducing the apparent size
of some features that can often be rather large (nose, ears, Jay Leno's chin).
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
