> However, I will continue to look for a 135 2.8 or similar in
> that case, and macro-be-damned - portrait is my priority
> (and I'll take any suggestions other than mine above, but as
> this has no doubt been discussed before, I'd happily accept
> them offlist)
I'd suggest the 100/2.8 for portraits. The 135 is very good,
but may be just a hair too long for most portrait work as the
working distance can come to haunt you. The 85/2 is an awesome
lens, but a hair too short at times. The 100mm focal length
seems to be the ideal compromise that works well in most
situations.
I also use the 200/4 quite extensively for portrait work, but
when the day is done, I will have sold more reprints from the
100/2.8 than the 135/3.5, 200/4 and 50/3.5 combined.
For macro work, I'll put extension tubes behind the 100/2.8
and/or an IS-L macro lens on it. Works very well, but not as
excruciatingly sharp like the 90/2 or other true macro lenses.
I know that I've beat this drum to the point of being a pain,
but the older SC versions of the 100/2.8 seem to be a touch
better (IMHO) for portrait work than the newer MC versions. The
contrast, flare, bokeh and overall lens formulation seems to
favor portraits better than the newer designs. I find that they
match the coloring of the early lenses for the Mamiya RB67.
For portrait work, one of the primary problems is sharpness. As
in being too sharp. You want a lens to be sharp in resolving
capability, but not to increase contrasts in the skin. My older
lenses have the sharpness necessary to be able to resolve
eyelashes, but tend to hide blemishes, zits, facial hairs and
perspiration better.
My most successful portrait this year (gobs and gobs of
reprints) was taken in a severe backlighting situation where the
lens flared most horribly. I was shooting into a setting sun
reflecting on water. The shot was VERY over-exposed because I
was trying to keep the DOF shallow and was shooting with fill
flash. A second, nearly identical picture, didn't have the
flare but completely lacked the character of this shot.
Technically, the picture was horribly flawed, compositionally,
and functionally, the picture was a complete success. In the
end, it isn't technical perfection (it wouldn't normally have
made it into the house, but would have hit the bin at the lab),
but the combination of many factors that makes a successful
picture. I have found that the 100/2.8 is, for me, the ideal
portrait lens as it has the previously outlined characteristics
plus it is extremely small and lightweight. Furthermore, it is
a dream to focus as it will "snap" into focus without guesswork.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|