At 10:05 11.3.2003 -0500, caveman wrote: >Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: > >>Why would you want a sharp portrait lens anyway ? I bet the FA 135/2.8 is too sharp >>for those really good portraits... > >My reasoning is that there are many ways to "soften" a sharp image (optical filters >on lens, photoshop, lab manip or just use an 1-hour lab with poorly calibrated >machine) but it's impossible to to get more, crisp details from a soft image. >Regarding the "really good portraits": several months ago our very own Saskatchewan >Bill had a beautiful portrait on PUG: > >http://pug.komkon.org/02jun/virginia.html > >I was curious how he managed to get that gorgeous skin rendition, while having >superb textures and details. His answer: good make-up artist. >Note that he was using an 100mm macro, which is the sharpest lens that one may use >for portraits. > >Cheers, >caveman
Ok, I understand :-) I was just puzzled when you listed all those very sharp lenses and then said the FA 135/2.8 is a bit soft... well, this is true compared to the FA 100/2.8 macro at close range shooting. Actually, I have made my best portraits (not actually set-up portraits but more like candids) with the A* 85/1.4 and A* 135/1.8. I think the 135/1.8 is sharper than my FA 100/2.8 macro. My best models for extra sharp portrait lenses have been old people. Sharp lenses make the models so alive... Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku * FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
