That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the true 85mm shot? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: first question Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same camera position! JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question >should >be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem >to >find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There >are >a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we are used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses" the relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the facial features. SNIPPED
