Tom S. writes:
<< I think I just heard you say (or write) that the 90 is a better short
telephoto than the 100? I see the point of 'soft' for a portrait, but
it seems to me that I could give up the 100, if I owned a 90. >>
Hold off until you see what your favorite lab (or your dry darkroom)
produces in a 8x12" shootout of the two lenses for portraiture.
I just filled orders on a portrait sitting of ice skaters after a
skating competition. The 8x12" prints from a semi-pro lab came from
using a 90mm f/2 at f/6.3 or a 50mm f/1.4 MC2 (for groups and dramatic
action poses). The 8x12 prints from the 90mm were softer than I
expected, but they suited the buyers, who were moms or adult female
skaters. I would hate to have seen what prints a decidingly softer
portrait lens (like a 85mm or 135mm) would have resulted in.
Stated another way, one can argue that a softer lens maybe more
theoretically suited for portraiture, but you also have to look at the
second generation product (an enlargement) to see if you are loosing too
much in the enlargement process.
Other takes on this from more experienced portraitists?
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|