Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS
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 don't remember using the term "unacceptable". I think I implied 135mm was beyond the classic portrait FOV---in the sense one might use FOV when discussing normal lenses.
I do think 90 is really long for every day portraits on APS-C, but apparently there are a number of dedicated portrait 135s for digital now, and when i read up I see that the range 80-135mm is commonly refered to as "classic portrait" FL.
I think most photographers would consider 135 long for a primary portrait lens. But not all--I have learned. Which is in fact why I started this thread and this one:
http://forum.mflenses.com/what-is-a-...ns-t46518.html
to learn.
I'm not taking the rest of that bait
but I am curious:
"portrait lens" now does not imply any FL?
PS (I'm happy to see that at least 7 others are as mislead as me)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd
You do sound a bit vitriolic there, in particular the bit where Canon being or not being idiots labeling their 85s "portrait" lenses but also elsewhere.
|
Sry- over defensive there---did not expect S-storm--I'm calming down now.