On 2013-06-04 07:08, Jan Faul wrote:
On Jun 4, 2013, at 1:58 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
90mm Summicron, 85mm Zuiko, now 85mm Nikkor (and 45mm Olympus for
Micro Four Thirds, 90mm-equivalent angle of view). And I never did
like the 105mm Nikkor, it was too long.
In fact, I do hear the 85mm cited most often as the portrait length.
I've since gone on to liking that to longer -- out to say 135 or even 200.
I wasn’t going to enter the fray, but I feel that my best portrait lens
is still the Nikkor 105 f2.5 no matter how much advertising Canon does
to push their 85mm f1.2. A lot of our perceptions are colored by
advertising rather than fact.
The 105/2.5 was very famous at the time as a portrait lens. So famous
that I didn't even know the 85 existed at the time. I got one in 1980,
finally sold it sometime in the last decade, but never did really bond
with it. I'd had the 90 Summicron earlier, and imprinted on that
instead. It appears to be the focal length (and the speed) rather than
other aspects for me, since the Olympus 85 and the Nikon 85 (I've got
the old AF, pre-D, f/1.8) both fill the niche pretty well for me.
Of course, my impression that the 105 was very well regarded is probably
partly fueled by advertising :-).
A lot of people using Hasselblads were using a 150mm for portraits,
weren't they? That's what the one wedding guy in town had, at least.
Back in the 70s doing portraits in 35mm was a pretty amateur thing
(which I was, and am, with occasional semi-pro excursions).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
