> I'd prefere a > 2.0 or 2,8 40-105mm :-))) Does something like this exist for digital?
How about the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di 42-102.5?! John ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:45:24 +0100 Subject: RE: Digital portrait lens > BTW: For 35mm I find my 3.5/70-150mm (Tamran Adaptall) brilliant. > Translated to digital (APS) this should be 47-100mm. I'd prefere a > 2.0 or 2,8 40-105mm :-))) Does something like this exist for digital? > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 26. januar 2005 17:23 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: Digital portrait lens > > I guess, I would like to know what folks here on the list consider a > portrait. > Because I have never considered just one lens to be adequate > )especially for small format images where cropping is not so nice). > > This is what I consider proper for 35mm (I could easly get by with > just the focal length on either side): > > Big heads; 135mm > Head shots: 100mm > Head and Shoulder: 85mm > Head and Torso: 70mm > 3/4 shots: 50mm > Full: 35mm > Groups would be shot with the 35-50mm moving farther away for bigger > groups. > > Note how nicely a 35mm-100mm zoom fits in there. > > The characteristic all of those have in common is they are used at > about 5-6 feet which gives the expected perspective for most North > Americans of Northern European extraction (Interaction distances > very in other cultures). Intimate portraits can be shot nicely from > 3 feet or so. People shots from a distance can not, in my personal > opinion, properly be called portraits. > > Since this thread asked about digital portrait lenses, just move > down one focal length for APS sized sensors. Once again, it is the > distance that important, just select the focal length that minimizes > cropping. The old view camera rule of thumb (for head and torso > shots) was for a focal length equal to the short side of the > negative plus the long side of the negative; with 35mm that would be > a 60mm lens, and with an istD it would be 40mm (much shorter than > most folks think they need. > > So, as I asked, what do you consider a portrait? > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005 ------- End of Original Message -------
