Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Gib Robinson wrote:
> I've never felt the need to use a mediocre lens to flatter a subject.
>
Every lens ever is a tradeoff. Be it cost, speed, weight, whatever,
every lens is a tradeoff. This thread is discussing which tradeoffs are best
for portrait work. There are different types of portrait work, for example,
some are done handheld in natural lighting and/or candid. In this situation
a fast lens (i.e. f2 or less) is desirable. Portraits usually occupy more or
less the center of the field and the edges often are desired to be out of
focus. What is needed is a lens with good center sharpness and nice 'bokeh'.
Using a slower lens (i.e. a macro) gives tradeoffs, perhaps a slower shutter
speed, which actually decreases the effective 'sharpness' of the lens,
perhaps a faster film, which also decreases the effective 'sharpness' of the
image, or perhaps the need for artificial lighting and/or a tripod which
decreases the spontaneity and changes the nature of the image and the
photographic experience.
The reason that I like the Canon 85/1.9 (in LTM) is that: 1) it is fast
2) it is inexpensive --- less than 1/10th the price of a Summilux 75 3) it
has nice 'bokeh' and center sharpness and hence for me a great value. With
unlimited funds I would probably get a Summilux 75, but until then the
Noctilux is first on the list of expensive lenses which I don't yet own.
People that have seen some 'available darkness' work done with 3200 film
have commented favorably on the quality of the grain. To many, grain, is a
unique quality of the photographic medium, analogous to pointilism, flare
can also be used to give an impressionist quality to an image.
The other type of portrait work is studio based with fancy lighting and
tripod. For this, the 100/2.8 APO is perhaps not the best lens either, as
this is the realm of the Hassy or 4x5.
Jonathan Borden