So much depends on your preferences in perspective and framing and how
you want to relate to the subject. If you want head and neck, a 100 may
get you closer than you or the subject find comfortable. If you like
head and torso, a 135 may not work in a smaller room, etc. Perspective
effects are more subtle but important. A person with a family of narrow
headed, pointy faces people will tend to end up preferring a longer lens
shot from farther away for the same framing of family 'portraits' than a
person with a family of people with wide, flattish faces. For the same
framing, a longer lens puts you farther away and 'flattens' features and
the reverse for shorter lenses.
Many people also perfer results from slightly 'softer' lenses. Older,
single coated lenses, like the Oly silvernoses, often make wonderful
portrait lenses for that reason.
Lots of other considerations, too, But the first is one often overlooked
in the discussion of the 'right' focal length for portraits. The answer
is it depends on how you work and what you want to produce.
Moose
Scott Gomez wrote:
Well, as usual, I'm on the horns of a dilemma. I've been thinking of doing
some "portrait" work. Nothing fancy, and certainly nothing professional.
Just some better shots of family.
There've been discussions here regarding the various 100mm Zuikos. I already
own a 135/2.8 Zuiko. So...
What's everyone's opinion?
<snip>
< 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 >
|