[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Any thoughts on the merits of the 135 f2.5 versus the faster 85
> and more compact 135 f3.5?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Practically, 135mm is significantly longer than 85mm. If you
> have one lens for portrait only, I'd say 85mm is more useful. I
> had the SMC-M 135/3.5 which was very sharp but with dull colour
> reproduction.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I shot a series of portraits over the weekend whilst at a lunch
> time get- together with friends using the SMC-P135f2.5 wide
> open. I could not have obtained the perspective I did nor filled
> the frame with an 85mm lens. [snip] So all I am saying is that
> none is better, it all depends upon the instance in which you
> find you are shooting, when you have plenty of space around a
> subject and you are looking for a heads-and -shoulders shot the
> 85mm is great otherwise....
I think that both the 85mm and 135mm focal lengths (as well as many others)
can be useful for portraits, depending on the situation.
I personally like 85mm a lot for head and shoulder portraits of adults,
especially if they're more-or-less posed (i.e., more-or-less formal), and/or
if getting in fairly close to the subject is not a problem. I also like 85mm
a lot for head-and-upper-torso shots from a little further away, or for
portraits of a couple. However, for less obtrusive, more candid shots, I
find a longer focal length such as 135mm to be more useful. However, one
needs a bit of working space for a 135mm lens, so (if indoors) the room has
to be a bit larger than is needed for a shorter lens. It all depends...
For 85mm lenses, I have found each of the Pentax lenses I've tried to be
entirely adequate. The A* 85/1.4, the FA* 85/1.4, the K 85/1.8, and the SMCT
85/1.8 are all superb (although the two f/1.4's are different from each other
and also different from the pair of f/1.8's). Two samples of the M 85/2
(despite a few negative comments expressed here on the PDML) seemed pretty
decent, and the ST 85/1.9 also seemed pretty good (although the sample I
tried was just a bit soft for my own tastes).
For 135mm lenses, I have found the A* 135/1.8 and the K (SMCP) 135/2.5 to
both be very good (and I have often recommended the K 135/2.5 as being "the
poor man's 135/1.8"). [However, do not confuse the very strong K 135/2.5 (no
built-in hood, with 58mm filter threads) with the ubiquitous but mediocre
"Takumar Bayonette" 135/2.5 (built-in hood, with 52mm threads, which makes it
probably only an f/2.8 lens anyway).] Also, I have recently had a chance to
try both the K and the M 135/3.5's, and my first impression is that the K
might be the better 135/3.5.
Most recently, while shooting a few rolls with a newborn baby (on its very
first birthday, counting in a proper zero-based fashion), I found that the A
100/2.8 Macro lens worked really well as a portrait lens. That particular
focal length, as well as the close-focusing ability of a macro lens, combined
to make for some really nice newborn portraits (at least in my opinion -
<g>), both for closeups of the baby as well as shots of parents and relatives
holding the infant. The bokeh with this lens also seemed quite nice. (And
one layer of a white handkerchief tied over the output window of an AF280T
flash provided just enough softening, too.)
Well, that's enough blabbering for now...
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
