View Single Post

Old 01-23-2012   #18
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
yeah what was i thinking when I shot this with a 28 summicron a month ago?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7017/6...8d67c3d7_z.jpg

or

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6...b39f2bd6_z.jpg

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?



LOL - be a REAL man, and use a Nikon SLR with the 200mm f2.

Nice way to reverse your argument though in order to attempt a "cheat" win - YOU were the one who claimed anything longer than a 105mm equivalent was unacceptable. I have argued AGAINST this and challenge you to show otherwise - go on, quote me as I've quoted you. I have said that, as I keep saying, 75mm to 135mm is a "classic portraiture lens" and that any lens (including 200 to 300mm lenses can be used). YOU are the one who is saying otherwise and prescribing (do I need to quote you again ?) that a 135mm field of view is "well beyond a portrait FOV" and even started this thread to garner some support for this silly (but clearly impossible to discard on your part) contention. Don't place your own arguments in my mouth and mine in yours and then tell me I'm wrong. LOL. Ridiculous !

No-one is saying Canon are idiots for stating an 85mm is a portrait lens (yet another specious argument on your part), and the term "portrait lens" CERTAINLY has meaning (the meaning being that the classic portrait range is 75mm-135mm) - it's just that you (let's take some personal responsibility here and not blame other people like Canon, Leica and Kodak) were wrong exactly where I said you were wrong, no more and no less, in stating that a 135mm equivalent is "well beyond a portrait FOV".

There's no need to get all "huffy" about being wrong, it happens to most of us (even if we aren't all as vociferous in expressing it and even though some of us are staunchly unable to recognise it or acknowledge it when it happens).

As I explained in the other thread, the Leica words mean that on the Leica M8 the 75mm replaced a 90mm lens on full frame and that a 90mm lens is often considered a "portrait lens" (here they are not wrong, as I have previously said - though a 90mm can do so many other things of course). Read it again ... slowly this time till you understand that Leica is categorically NOT stating that a 90mm equivalent is the only lens suitable for portraits ... just as Canon saying an 85mm lens is a portrait lens is in NO WAY incompatible (as I've said before - I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse now) with other focal lengths also being considered "portrait lenses" - and if you believe Kodak stating that a portrait lens is 2x the diagonal of the format is a "hard and fast" rule - and focal lengths close to this (such as 135mm instead of 105mm) are therefore "WELL BEYOND a portrait FOV" then God help us all - I'm out. I can't change a mind which is so mired in (incorrect) and narrow "rules" and such regal and direct (incorrect) statements about what is and isn't a portrait lens. If you believe your argument that a 135mm is far too long for portraits is right, and that the advice you dispensed was correct then good on you - you've won this argument - well done. I'm out - and off to "flatten my targets" in portraiture the way many other photographers have done for at least 100 years. Good grief !!

PS. As you already know, I have no power to change the ad copy Leica uses to sell their lenses and nor would I want to - as I said, their terminology is correct - a 90mm lens IS suitable for portraiture, it's the READING of it and using that as an inflexible definition of what is and isn't appropriate for portraiture which is wrong. That comes from you, and only one person can change it (hint: It isn't me, it isn't an online poll and it isn't logic ... clearly) !
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote