It's funny. He points out that perspective of a 75 is not that useful for
portraits, which is one reason why there aren't many around to be portrait
lenses for the DX format.
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Boris
Lib
Quoting:
"Pentax (the one company, I think, that really understands primes right
now, as evidenced by the new 15mm F4".
They have my, ummm, sympathy ;-). I mean the article author.
Boris
Tim Bray wrote:
Nice piece in DPReview:
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portra
Thanks for posting, Tim. Really enjoyed the insights of the article.
Learned a lot & decided I agree. :-). Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Bray"
To: "?Pentax-Discuss? Mail? List??"
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 1:57 PM
Subject: Where
On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
Nice piece in DPReview:
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html
Comments are interesting too. -T
Thanks for that. I posted a comment on the ideas.
I'm progressing on my Frankensteinian, Cotty-like lens projec
Nice piece in DPReview:
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html
Comments are interesting too. -T
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above a
K-mount portrait lenses
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>I know you asked about lenses other than K-mount, but ...
>
>I may give the M75-150 a go for a portrait. It's reasonably sharp and
>a good range, with optimum sharpness definitely from 80-120mm.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
Subject: RE: Non K-mount portrait lenses
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Take a look at the Pentax M 75~150 Zoom. I don't care much for it
except
as a portrait lens.
Seconded, though it's widest aperture
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
I know you asked about lenses other than K-mount, but ...
I may give the M75-150 a go for a portrait. It's reasonably sharp and a good range,
with optimum sharpness definitely from 80-120mm.
Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
I got me one for portraits, it has a nice feel and
I know you asked about lenses other than K-mount, but ...
The A100/2.8 goes < $200 on eBay. There's one from GB listd right now. It's just a
little long, but still very good for bust shots. And the contrasty A coatings help.
Interestingly, M100/2.8 lenses, with slightly warmer coatings, have
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Take a look at the Pentax M 75~150 Zoom. I don't care much for it except
> as a portrait lens.
Seconded, though it's widest aperture is f4. Only came out of my bag
when I bought the more versatile and AF F70-210. However, the 75-150
is light and short
You may also take a look at the 90mm macro lenses out there.
Jon M wrote:
I've been looking for a while at getting a portrait
lens in the 70-85 range. The A85/1.4 is prohibitively
expensive, the K85/1.8 is also out there, and even the
"lowly" M85/2 tends to go for more than I can swing at
this poin
Take a look at the Pentax M 75~150 Zoom. I don't care much for it except
as a portrait lens. You might get one fairly inexpensively. Jupiter lenses
are a pretty good buy, IMO, having used a couple on the Leica.
Expectations are such that an M42 version would be comparable. There were
lots of M4
MAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Non K-mount portrait lenses
>
>
> You might look for an M42 Super Takumar 85/1.9. It's more affordable
> than the M42 SMC Tak 85/1.8, yet it's quite good. Far superior, I would
> guess, to any of the very early M39 lenses.
> Paul Stenquist
You might look for an M42 Super Takumar 85/1.9. It's more affordable
than the M42 SMC Tak 85/1.8, yet it's quite good. Far superior, I would
guess, to any of the very early M39 lenses.
Paul Stenquist
On Oct 25, 2004, at 9:02 PM, Jon M wrote:
I've been looking for a while at getting a portrait
l
I've been looking for a while at getting a portrait
lens in the 70-85 range. The A85/1.4 is prohibitively
expensive, the K85/1.8 is also out there, and even the
"lowly" M85/2 tends to go for more than I can swing at
this point.
I occasionally see M42 and M39 lenses in this range on
ebay, some Zei
- Original Message -
From: Lon Williamson
Subject: Re: SV: Prime portrait lenses - which one?
> William Robb: trainer of dogs and models.
> Is there a correlation between the two? Youth
> wants to know!
Positive reinforcment, my friend.
And never ask either to do more tha
William Robb: trainer of dogs and models.
Is there a correlation between the two? Youth
wants to know!
William Robb wrote:
...
When I am training a new model, I start with 35mm and work through to
medium format, and then large format over several sessions before I
expect to get anything good from
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Every bride has a concept of what a
bride should look like, but doesn't realize that the marketed bride
image is that of professional models.
Knowing your veneration to "professional" everything... did you get a
professional bride too ?
cheers,
caveman
This is why the people skills of a photographer are very important for
things like wedding photography. Every bride has a concept of what a
bride should look like, but doesn't realize that the marketed bride
image is that of professional models.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non professional s
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Re: SV: Prime portrait lenses - which one?
>
> > Non professional subjects tend to be intimidated by large equipment.
>
> I sense a lewd something here ;-)
You would.
William Robb
William Robb wrote:
Non professional subjects tend to be intimidated by large equipment.
I sense a lewd something here ;-)
cheers,
caveman
- Original Message -
From: Andre Langevin
Subject: Re: SV: Prime portrait lenses - which one?
>
> The A85/1.4 hood is monstrous also, but with a cooler shade, the lens
> is not that frightening I think. A nice hood I found for it is the
> one for the Hexanon 85-210/3.5.
The time that I still had my FA*85/1.4, everyone was frightened
whenever I point that damn thing at them. Everyone of them were
amazed by how big the hood was. No such problem with the 77. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
You mean dogs bark at the f1.4 lens but keep quiet when you shoot
them with the f2
The time that I still had my FA*85/1.4, everyone was frightened whenever I
point that damn thing at them. Everyone of them were amazed by how big the
hood was. No such problem with the 77. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
You mean dogs bark at the f1.4 lens but keep quiet when you shoot them with
the f2
t: 25. juni 2003 04:25
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: SV: Prime portrait lenses - which one?
>Hi Jens,
>
>as I have written before, I have done my own resolution etc. tests
>of portrait lenses: See http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm
>Here are the results in line pairs/mm average
[EMAIL PROTECTED] asks:
> You mean dogs bark at the f1.4 lens but keep quiet when you shoot
> them with the f2 lens?
No, they all hide in the corner when the f1.4 comes out. ;-)
> Does the front element makes it? I mean, would a 85/2 on a PZ-1 or K
> camera be fine while a 85/1.4 o
Bob S.:
I can say that the A85mm f1.4 is sharper, but the size frightens small
children and dogs, not to mention the relatives you might want
candid portraits of.
You mean dogs bark at the f1.4 lens but keep quiet when you shoot
them with the f2 lens?
Does the front element makes it? I mean, wo
No matter how good the sample is, it simply cannot exceed the performance
that its designers bestowed on it. The 'on-paper' design is the best it can
be, manufacturing tolerances or wear-and-tear will always move the lens to a
lower performance level.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message
Hi Jens,
as I have written before, I have done my own resolution etc. tests
of portrait lenses: See http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm
Here are the results in line pairs/mm averaged from f2 to f11 and
from centre to corner:
M85 65
K85 61
A*85 62
FA*8566
FA77 69
My
Where I find 100mm too long is shooting something like a wedding
reception, which I've done 3 times now. Inside, there is a significant
chance that some guest will pop into the foreground. Outside, the
100 works well. I just shot a wedding this weekend, and slapped on
the A35-70mm f4 because the
Hi
I own both the 2.0/85 and the 2.8/105. Nither of them are very good
(sharpness/resolution) and I hardly ever use them. I guess my best portrait
lenses are Tokina Pro II 2.6-2.8/28-70mm (sharp) and the latest (repurchased
recently - off ebay/USA) the K2.5/135mm.
Regards
Jens
Where I find 100mm too long is shooting something like a wedding
reception, which I've done 3 times now. Inside, there is a significant
chance that some guest will pop into the foreground. Outside, the
100 works well. I just shot a wedding this weekend, and slapped on
the A35-70mm f4 because the
- Original Message -
From: Lon Williamson
Subject: Prime portrait lenses - which one?
> I find my M100 f2.8 to be a tad long in many portrait situations,
> and am pondering the purchase of an 85mm.
>
> The cheapest is probably the M85 f2. I expect I'd find it
>
K85/1.8
Regards,
Bob...
"Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying
the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine
and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
-Martin Luther
From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi, Carlos.
> Probably the M 85 mm. f:2 is an excellent choice for portraits.
The M 85/2 is a pretty good portrait lens, despite its unpretentious
seeming design, and is the most economical Pentax K-mount 85.
> The lens I use the most for portraits is a K 85 mm. 1.8 and I love
> it. [and] The
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Dan Scott wrote:
> My wife has forbidden me to photograph her with the FA 100/2.8 macro. I
> comply, but it baffles me--other than a reversed l/r image what do women
> see in a photo that they haven't seen in a mirror?
Nothing, but at least the mirror image stays in the bathr
In the old days they used a 5x7 camera and retouched the negative. These
days I would recommend Photoshop.
--graywolf
- Original Message -
From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:21 PM
Subject: Portrait lenses
> A
Wendy..you are So right...extreme sharpness is NOT desirable in a lens
used for portraiture or fall foliage, etc lenses have unique
characteristics
which make them excellent for an application and mediocre for others. So many
times I've read here how guys are disappointed with their 70-2
I've shot "portraits" (candid photo ops at weddings, etc.) using a PZ1p with
AF500FTZ flash and an F 100 2.8 macro with great results. The FA 28-105
(power zoom model) is also a stellar performer. The film I use is Fuji NPS
shot as rated (160) and processed by a good lab and printed on Kodak Roya
ight flash placement.
Collin
At 11:29 PM 2/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:21:39 -0500
>From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Portrait lenses
>
>A couple of days ago there was a thread about portrait lenses and macro
>lenses of roughly the same f
rtrait.
A Fellow Pentaxian,
Ryan Charron
Wendy Beard wrote:
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:21:39 -0500
From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Portrait lenses
A couple of days ago there was a thread about portrait
lenses and macro
lenses of roughly the same focal length (around
1
>My wife has forbidden me to photograph her with the FA 100/2.8 macro. I
>comply, but it baffles me--other than a reversed l/r image what do women
>see in a photo that they haven't seen in a mirror?
The "true-self"?
regards,
Alan Chan
My wife has forbidden me to photograph her with the FA 100/2.8 macro. I
comply, but it baffles me--other than a reversed l/r image what do women
see in a photo that they haven't seen in a mirror?
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Anyway, I would just like to iterate, if anyone is thinking of going in
43 matches
Mail list logo
