The Tamron 24-135 ranges from 3.5 on the 24mm end to f/5.6 at 135mm.
It's max is about f/4.5 at the 59mm length at which this was taken. I
guess it must be a uni-lens. Still looks OK to me. The Tokina 2.8s were
home in New York when this photo was shot in Florida. But I wouldn't
have used such a large aperture on this shot.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/10/2015 4:50 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
Unilenses usually aren't f2.8
On Apr 10, 2015 3:02 PM, "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I didn't buy them for portraits as that's something I rarely do anymore.
The last photo I took that I'd call a formal portrait is here <
http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=16948> It's a couple of
friends from almost 2 years ago. Canon 5D but with Tamron 24-135 at 59mm.
Is that what you call a "uni-lens". Looks OK to me. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/10/2015 2:18 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
However, neither of my native lenses can do that. The
28-150 is at f/5.6 at 50mm and the 12-50 is at f/6.3 at 50mm... overly
deep
DoF. However, a head shot at 5 feet would require very careful focusing
even at f/8. And, although I haven't used them, I do own 50mm OMZ
lenses in
abundant supply.
For portraiture, those uni-lenses are generally useless.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|