I said "candid", not "covert"! ;-) My hand holdable limit on the D is about 150mm. Any longer and I need very fast shutter speeds to overcome "heartbeat shake". I can use the 85 down to about 1/30th with little problem. I think that's because it's a rather "stubby" lens with little physical length to accentuate any movement. I have very little luck with physically long lenses like the F 100-300. It's really kinda funny, certain lenses I just seem to get along with better than others. Short, heavy lenses like the 85 and the 50/1.4 work very well for me. Lighter, longer ones, like (VERY unfortunately) the new Tamron 28-75/2.8 I don't do nearly as well with. That's why I'm always amazed at people who can shoot 300s handheld, I never could.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > Doh. That was supposed to read, "With a 300, you can hide around > the corner." > Paul > > > > For candid portraits I prefer something longer than 135. Even > with an 85, you're > > only a half dozen feet away or so. With a e00, you can hide around the > > corner:-). > > Paul > > > > > > > Good points. > > > One of my posts doesn't seem to have made it to the list. > > > I referrred to the 85 as "candid portrait" lens on the D. > > > By this I mean a lens which allows a comfortable and > > > inconspicuous working distance with little distortion of > > > features. > > > Also fast enough to focus manually (ie:without obnoxious > > > flashes or beam) in very low light. > > > The speed is not as much for DOF control as for focusing. > > > I usually shoot at 5.6-8 to allow some room for error and > > > to ensure all facial features are sharp. > > > To me a fast 80-90 fills this bill well, (a little longer > > > on 35mm) the 85/1.9 also does a fine job on skin tones and > > > I like the Bokeh. > > > (Now that I can pronounce it I'll use it!) ;-) > > > > > > Don > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2004 at 18:26, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? > > > > > > > > I don't know, the 77mm is Ok for me, bokeh is nice and smooth, > > > > wide open it's > > > > fine too, it may be too sharp for some though. I must admit that > > > > I'm a little > > > > confused over all this portrait lens talk though, what > > > > constitutes an official > > > > "portrait lens" ? My portrait lenses span 15mm to 300mm. I'd hate > > > > to be stuck > > > > in a photo hell where portraits have to be shot using an 85mm > > > > lens between f2 > > > > and f2.8 :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > > > > > > >
