Originally Posted by DamenS
LOL - I would say that is both a succinct and accurate summation of the situation.
Although he did actually go further and state that a 135mm (equivalent) lens is "well beyond a portrait FOV", so I would suggest the argument is not just about whether a 135mm could be called a "classic portrait lens", but whether it is usable for portraiture at all (though he may have backed down a little from that definitive a statement when he said, a little begrudgingly, later that any lens CAN be used for portraiture).
yeah what was i thinking when I shot this with a 28 summicron a month ago?
I must have forgotten I thought you could only shoot portraits with a "portrait lens" of 75mm to 105mm--I should have checked in with you to clarify my preconceptions--sry.
And I guess when I read my 1955 canon lens catalog I missed the fact they were idiots for refering to 85s as their portrait lenses.
Or the old kodak manuals which term a portrait lens as 1.5- 2 times the negative diagonal.
I need to get up to speed where the term has utterly no meaning since it can refer to any lens.
you might want to also update those writing the leica copy who don't seem to realise the term now refers to any lens:
"The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use"
(yes I understand the m8 is 1.3x and this is why they are pointing this out)
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.
So now, I'm going to sulk away and play with my new 400 telyt normal lens.
BTW which 135s am I supposed to flatten my targets with on the M6?