Digital portrait lens
Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks
Re: Digital portrait lens
A K55/1.8 is the perfect istD replacement for the K85/1.8... 82.5mm, but hey. j On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:24:03 -0500, Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for > portraits? > 50mm? > > Collin > > "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the > relationship the greater the impact." > Howard Hendricks > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Digital portrait lens
- Original Message - From: "Collin R Brendemuehl" Subject: Digital portrait lens Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? A50/1.2 is an interesting portrait lens, though I find it a wee bit short. I was really hoping that something between the 43 and 77 would be produced, something in the 60mm f/1.4-f/1.7 range. William Robb
Re: Digital portrait lens
Hello Collin, I'm using a FA 50/1.4 - works pretty well. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 5:24:03 PM, you wrote: CRB> Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for CRB> portraits? CRB> 50mm? CRB> Collin CRB> "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the CRB> relationship the greater the impact." CRB> Howard Hendricks
Re: Digital portrait lens
William Robb wrote: A50/1.2 is an interesting portrait lens, though I find it a wee bit short. Freudian slip? Tom C.
Re: Digital portrait lens
For me, a 50/1.4 makes a near-perfect portrait tele, although I tend to shoot a lot of portraits with a 28mm (and soon the 31mm) as well. Godfrey --- Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you > istD/DS-ers for portraits? > 50mm? __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Digital portrait lens
I use both the K50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. I use the 85 when I want more foreshortening of the features. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: A K55/1.8 is the perfect istD replacement for the K85/1.8... 82.5mm, but hey. j On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:24:03 -0500, Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Digital portrait lens
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Digital portrait lens William Robb wrote: A50/1.2 is an interesting portrait lens, though I find it a wee bit short. Freudian slip? That's the second time you've gone down this path. You have some weird fixations Mr. C William Robb
Re: Digital portrait lens
I'm just making myself feel better, because I *lost* my K85/1.8... sigh... j On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:09:41 -0500, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use both the K50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. I use the 85 when I want more > foreshortening of the features. > Paul > On Jan 25, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: > > > A K55/1.8 is the perfect istD replacement for the K85/1.8... > > > > 82.5mm, but hey. > > > > j > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:24:03 -0500, Collin R Brendemuehl > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers > >> for > >> portraits? > >> 50mm? > >> > >> Collin > >> > >> "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The > >> closer the > >> relationship the greater the impact." > >> Howard Hendricks > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Juan Buhler > > http://www.jbuhler.com > > blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog > > > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Digital portrait lens
Quoting Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for > portraits? > 50mm? FA 28-70 f/4 zoomed according to whether I want a head-shot of one person or something more. ERNR
Re: Digital portrait lens
> Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for > portraits? I don't have a *istD or DS (YET!), but I suspect that I'll try using the A 50/1.4 nad the A 50/1.2, as well as the K 55/1.8. However, since I do shoot a lot of (often candid) portraits at 85mm to 200mm indoors, and at up to 300mm outdoors,, I suspect I'd still be using a lot of the same lenses. I expect that the 85's, the 135's, and the 28-135/4 (at the longer end) and 60-120/2.8 zooms will still work out really well. Fred
Re: Digital portrait lens
> However, since I do shoot a lot of (often candid) portraits at 85mm to > 200mm indoors, and at up to 300mm outdoors,, I suspect I'd still be using > a lot of the same lenses. I expect that the 85's, the 135's, and the > 28-135/4 (at the longer end) and 60-120/2.8 zooms will still work out > really well. Actually, now that I think of it, the 77/1.8, which I've always felt (for my personal tastes) was a little too short for a portrait lens, is now starting to sound more attractive. Fred
Re: Digital portrait lens
Even with the 1.5x crop factor, I still like the 85 1.4, its bokeh is beautiful. Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks
RE: Digital portrait lens
Yes, why not. My FA 1.4/50mm works great for portraits (and other stuff). It's just a little short, though. 57mm equals 85mm, I believe. In fact, a 35-80mm or a 28-70mm can be quite useable too. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Collin R Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. januar 2005 02:24 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Digital portrait lens Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks
Re: Digital portrait lens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? FA 28-70 f/4 zoomed according to whether I want a head-shot of one person or something more. ERNR Marnie would have agreed with that assessment, except she sold hers to ME! keith whaley
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
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
RE: Digital portrait lens
--- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? A Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 gives you about that effective focal length range of 43-112mm on the *istDS and is a pretty nice lens, although a bit large and heavier than I prefer. It's supposed to be a decent performer from all reports. f/2? None that I know of. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: Digital portrait lens
On 26 Jan 2005 at 10:34, Fred wrote: > Actually, now that I think of it, the 77/1.8, which I've always felt (for > my personal tastes) was a little too short for a portrait lens, is now > starting to sound more attractive. It works quite well but for un-posed PJ style portraits it can be a little long in confined spaces. The A50/1.2 works quite well too :-) 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
RE: Digital portrait lens
> 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: 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 ---
Re: Digital portrait lens
- Original Message - From: "Fred" Subject: Re: Digital portrait lens Actually, now that I think of it, the 77/1.8, which I've always felt (for my personal tastes) was a little too short for a portrait lens, is now starting to sound more attractive. The 77 is pretty nice indeed on the istD. I wish mine was black. William Robb
Re: Digital portrait lens
So far I like the SMC-P 55mm f1.8. Though I don't yet have anything worth posting from it. I find that I use the Vivitar S1 35-85 2.8 Varifocal as a walking around lens in the "normal" to "portrait" lens. Results are very good. I'd be happier if it had A contacts, but we work with what we have. Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: Given the coverage difference, what lens is used by you istD/DS-ers for portraits? 50mm? Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Digital portrait lens
On 26/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: >So, as I asked, what do you consider a portrait? I think that your list is an excellent one, but I have one proviso: I have used *any* lens for a portrait, including the venerable K15mm - you could argue with me about the artistic merits of such a focal length for a portrait, but there you are ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Digital portrait lens
> I find that I use the Vivitar S1 35-85 2.8 Varifocal as a walking around > lens in the "normal" to "portrait" lens. Results are very good. I'd be > happier if it had A contacts, but we work with what we have. Well, I guess if you don't mind putting up with the "varifocal" focusing, pressing the extra function button on the D/DS is not much of an extra pain, either. (Just kidding you - I also really like this lens, although I've used it only on K-mount film bodies.) Fred
Re: the ultimate digital portrait lens
<< They'll end up on eBay in 6 months going for twice the price - what a portrait lens for the *ist D! If I had waited, that would have been my first purchase. Sorry Peter. >> Not much chance of that. They are used in the manufacture of some large & specialised optical equipment or other. Kind regards Peter
RE: the ultimate digital portrait lens
To me the ultimate portrait lens is a fast f2.8 or better 100 or 105mm prime lens. For this *istd thing you would need a 66 or a 70mm prime lens, DOES NOT EXIST. That SUCKS. But since 6Mpixel isnt as good as film anyway, you might be able to get away using a zoom at 66-70mm. A 35-105 F3.5 would probably be decent... JCO
Re: the ultimate digital portrait lens
>><< They'll end up on eBay in 6 months going for twice the price - what a >> portrait lens for the *ist D! If I had waited, that would have been my >> first purchase. Sorry Peter. > >> >Not much chance of that. They are used in the manufacture of some large & >specialised optical equipment or other. Ahh, Canon bought them. ! Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
