|
I am a little reluctant to buy into this discussion as my view is not well aligned with the majority.
I agree with the focal lengths, ie 85mm and up to 200 mm for full frame shots. I do not agree that either fast or very sharp lenses are required if the aim is for PORTRAITS.
I used to strive for technical excellence with sharpness and depth of field, but initially lost the plot with what I was trying to achieve. At one time I used large format 6x7 for technical quality, but the results, while correct, were not flattering.
For portraits, people want to be made to look good. Often as they perceive themselves. Technical excellence is not part of that equation, and often it detracts from the final result. Young women do not like to be reminded of every open pore bump or other imperfection on their faces. They don't like to see various veins clearly showing through their fair skin.
I spent significant money on Contax Zeiss lenses some years back, but found the most popular shots were those taken through a light soft-focus filter. The results are sort of sharp, but not tack sharp. Quite pleasing to the eye of all beholders.
Lighting is probably of equal importance to technical equipment in this arena also.
Quite a contrast to astrophotography requirements.
Apologies for rabitting on. Hopefully it may help generate some further consideration for an informed purchase.
|